Sacred Tradition & Oral Torah

Oral Torah

I have read, reread and then reread again Mark S. Kinzer’s paper on oral Torah entitled Messianic Judaism and Jewish Tradition in the 21st Century: A Biblical Defense of “Oral Torah”.  Below are a few of my thoughts after digesting it.

First of all, I found it interesting that I saw patterns emerging of certain themes that one also finds in Protestant/Roman Catholic debates, namely issues regarding an authoritative interpretive magisterium and sacred oral tradition versus a specific application of the priesthood of all believers that does not find a place for an authoritative group that gives normative interpretations of Sacred Scripture and believes that Sacred Writ is sufficient in and of itself.

Mark Kinzer sets out on his thesis right away in his paper when he asks the poignant question, “Is the Written Torah sufficient for instructing the Jewish people in how we should live as individual, families, and local communities? While it is certainly foundation and indispensable, it is not sufficient. The Torah requires a living tradition of interpretation and application if it is to be practiced in daily life.”

Kinzer seems to find a proto Old Testament magisterium in Deuteronomy 17:8-13 where GOD establishes a central judiciary to hear cases that are too difficult for the local courts. Kinzer states, “In light of the prominent placement of Deuteronomy 1:9-18, and its verbal resemblance to Deuteronomy 16:18-20, it is evident that the central judiciary (again mentioned in Deuteronomy 17:8) carries on Moses’ function just as the local courts carry on the function of the tribal courts of the wilderness period.” The rulings in these cases are binding and non-optional. All of Israel “must carefully observe all that they instruct you to do”, Deuteronomy 17:10. The phrase, “carefully observe” appears frequently in Deuteronomy, always requiring obedience to the words of Torah. This phrase though is also used in regards to the high court.

This specific passage proceeds to insist that the parties “not turn aside from the decision that they declare to you, neither to the right nor to the left,” and solemnly warns those who would transgress the courts decisions by declaring that the disobedient will be put to death and purged from Israel (Deuteronomy 17:11-13).

Through the rulings of the central court (proto Old Testament magisterium) they are teaching Torah. They are sitting in the seat of Moses and functioning in his role that he himself occupied during the wilderness wandering. Their words have a parallel authority with that of the Torah given by Moses. Frank Crusemann summarizes this,

The conclusion we must draw from this is absolutely clear: The decision of the court have the same significance and the same rank as the things that Moses himself said – which means Deuteronomy itself. The Jerusalem high court rendered decisions with the authority of Moses and it had his jurisdiction. It spoke in the name of Moses and extrapolated forward the will of YHWH. The development and structure of deuteronomic law cannot be separated from the institution of the Jerusalem central court…According to Deut. 17:8f. this court speaks with the same authority as Deuteronomy itself – the authority of Moses.

Thus “Deuteronomy established an institution that carries on the Mosaic role of interpreting and applying the Torah in new and unforeseen circumstances” (Kinzer). The court existed to render judgment regarding beyn Torah le-mitzvah le-chukim ul-mishpatim (“between Torah and commandment, statues and ordinances”). In other words, it refers to cases where there seems to be a collision of norms where one must interpret how to apply the Torah in difficult situations. In II Chronicles 19 we see such a high court existing within the walls of Jerusalem. Farther back in Numbers 11 we see seventy elders who ascended Sinai with Moses and saw the GOD of Israel (Exodus 24:9-11). These seventy elders were not assigned subordinate groupings of people, resembling district-limited jurisdiction that we saw in other parts of Exodus/Deuteronomy, instead their role seems to be applied to all of Israel. Not only had they ascended to Sinai with Moses but their appointments occurred in the Tent of Meeting which corresponded to the future Temple in Jerusalem. They also received a measure of the prophetic spirit of Moses in Numbers 11:17, 25-30. Thus, they seem to be in succession with the Seat and authority of Moses.

To summarize what was stated earlier, the written Torah operated more like case law or a normative principle framework type basis and so it lacked the needed legal details that were required to carry these laws out in the day to day life of Israel. Also, the Torah itself anticipated future times where certain laws might seem contradictory and would need a central body to sort this out. So this central court carried on the Mosaic teaching office to continue to interpret and contextualize Torah to new daily life of Israel.

An interesting thesis appears later when Kinzer quotes Crusemann as saying that there was also authority in the community of Israel itself, “The Jews established (kiyyemu) and accepted as a custom (kibbelu) for themselves and their descendants and all who jolined them, that without fail they would continue to observe these two days every eyar, as it was written and at the time appointed.” David Novak restates this thesis, “GOD confirmed what the Jewish authorities on earth had themselves decreed for the people”

Regarding the revelatory nature of the oral Torah, Kinzer first rebuts the view that “GOD gave to Moses on Sinai two separate and complementary Torah’s – one to be conveyed in Written form, the other to be transmitted orally. The Written Torah is the Pentateuch; the Oral Torah was passed on by word of mouth from one generation to the next, and was ultimately written down in the Talmud”. He believes this to be a naïve position and “a view that developed in Medieval times. Kinzer instead takes the view that all of the oral Torah is more or less an authoritative explication of the revelation of GOD given to Moses which was written down in the Pentateuch, Written Torah. I would disagree somewhat with this view and say that both further revelation from GOD to Moses was contained in oral Torah alongside with authoritative interpretations of the Written Torah, existing together in one stream in the living tradition of the teaching body of Israel. Kinzer does make a concession to this point of view when he quotes Rabbi Dr. Moshe Zemer, “Therefore Moses was given orally certain general principles, only briefly alluded to in the Torah, by means of which the Sages may work out the newly emerging particulars in every generation”. Kinzer tends to like the view of oral Torah as “dynamic, flexible, reflecting the infinite diversity of circumstances that face the Jewish people in the course of its journey through history…The appearance of the oral Torah in written form could easily lead to a misunderstanding of its essential nature as the flexible, contingent application of the Written Torah to new situations” So Kinzer does not see the oral Torah as “solidified code, given once for all to Moses on Sinai, existing in an oral form” but instead sees oral Torah as a Divinely guided process in which the Jewish people seek to apply and then live out the reality of Torah in their lives in continuity with the wisdom of the generations that has accumulated before them now being contextualized in their present time.

How did the Rabbis then see the written Torah and oral Torah as interacting together? Kinzer states, “The Talmud consistently distinguishes between obligations that are d’oraita and those that are d’rabbanan, and treats the former s taking precedence over the latter.” Halivni, “there are differences with respect to severity of observance between a law which is biblically commanded and a law which is rabbinically ordained” So kal va-chomer (from the greater to the lesser) is often used when two laws, d’oraita (Scriptural law) and d’rabbanan (rabbinic law) seem to contradict each other. In other words they made an distinction between the “greater things of the law” versus ”the lesser things of the law” like Jesus did when HE was here on earth. Michael Wyschogrod, “The oral Torah is depend on and is inconceivable without the written Torah. It is the written Torah that is the primary document of revelation. Only in the case of the written Torah is there an authorized text, which, when written as specified, brings into being a physical object – the Torah scroll – that is holy”

We see Jesus operating in the same manner when HE talks about the weightier matters of the Law (a similar thesis to Walter Kaiser, Jr.). Jesus sees a problem with the overemphasis of the “tradition of the elders” that ends up obscuring the primary authority of the biblical text. HE says, “Why do you transgress the commandment of GOD for the sake of your tradition?” Again, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice”. Obviously sacrifice had been commanded by GOD but their was a hierarchy of importance as to which law served the other. Thus rabbinic tradition must serve those Biblical commands versus undermining or superseding them. In Matthew 23:23-24 (Luke 11:42), “Woe to you, Pharisaic Scribes, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the Torah, justice and mercy and faithfulness; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” Kinzer, “once again, we see Yeshua’s prophetic emphasis on love and righteousness in human relationships (“justice and mercy and faithfulness”) as the central thrust of the Torah, over against fine details of ritual observance (in this case, tithing). Yet what often foes unnoticed is Jesus' unequivocal affirmation of even these fine details (“these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others”). Jesus does not condemn these ritual norms but subordinates them to what he believes to be the “weightier matters of the Law”. What is even more fascinating is that the rituals that he upholds and still refers to as a part of Torah are not even found in the written Torah but are instead Rabbinic tradition (oral Torah)! He saw the Pharisees and Sanhedrin as sitting on the authoritative seat of Moses, “The Pharisaic Scribes sit on Moses seat; so carefully observe all that they say to you”. Samuel Lachs brings this text back to our earlier point, “This is based on Deut. 17:10, which is the biblical basis for rabbinic authority replacing that of the priests.”

More importantly we see Jesus claiming ultimate authority for interpreting Torah. The Torah pointed to HIM and found its fulfillment in HIM. HIS disciples, which were a part of the authoritative witnesses and official legates of the King who had inaugurated HIS kingdom as the Jewish Messiah that would now bring the GOD of Israel to the whole earth, were given authority to “bind and loose”. Thus the Apostles were the newly appointed leaders of the recently inaugurated Jewish Messianic kingdom, replacing the wicked tenants (Sanhedrin) who had been left to steward the King’s vineyard but had acted wickedly and thus were thrown out. This would view would naturally fit in with a teaching of Apostolic succession much like we saw a succession of the 70-elders continuing the authority of Moses from generation to generation found in Deuteronomy 17.