AMI Statement on the Oral Law and Rabbinic Decrees

Q: Does the leadership here teach that the Oral Law (Talmud, Mishna, normative rabbinic decrees, etc.) come from God or are binding upon believers in Yeshua?

A: Absolutely not. The Talmud, Mishnah, and all other normative rabbinic sources of Jewish Law (halakha) do not hold any authority over believers in Yeshua nor are binding in any way to the body of Messiah. Those writings and rulings are not the Word of God and were written by unbelievers who rejected the Messiahship of Yeshua. As such they are not “divinely inspired” or an extension of God’s authority binding upon the community of believers in Yeshua.

Yeshua transferred and gave all rabbinic authority to Peter and the remaining Twelve Apostles, the power to bind and loose referred to in Matthew 16. Although Yeshua practiced certain rabbinic practices such as baptism, laying on of hands, breaking of bread, synagogue attendance, etc. and taught rabbinic doctrines such as the resurrection, heaven, hell, and was even called rabbi, he never sanctioned all rabbinic rulings, legislation, or practice. While approving some (Matt. 23:2-3) he also disagreed with others (Mark 7:7-10). He essentially acted as a halakhist and posek himself, a decisor of Jewish law, without the need to appeal to any source of human authority (Matt. 21:24-27).

In fact, when Yeshua was tempted by Satan himself, he did not rebuke him by quoting from the “oral tradition” but rather the written word of God. As God manifest in the flesh he could have easily cited his own authority as a rabbi, but instead cited the authority of the written Torah (all from Deuteronomy).

Rabbinic leaders do have some authority within the Jewish community over some, limited parts of the unbelieving, non-Messianic Jewish people, but even then it’s debatable and with limitations. God has never given any one man or group of men unlimited authority. Yeshua constantly warned against equating man’s decrees with God’s word, and warned against setting rules that were too burdensome and removed from or contrary to the Word.

Although there likely was an oral tradition (mesorah) in Moses time, God never commanded that to be written down, which could have easily been done considering Moses had 40 years to write it. He simply could’ve included it in the rest of the written Torah. Which signifies God did not intend for those oral traditions to be universally binding upon all of Israel or to be passed down as the Word of God. We must conclude that God intended for there to be plurality of Jewish interpretations and practice to allow for a degree of variation throughout the ages in those areas not specifically detailed in the written word of God. Every generation interprets some things anew.

If there are parts of the Oral Law that are actual transmissions from Moses to Joshua to the Prophets etc, and have in fact been preserved in the written Oral Law, there is no way of actually proving it or verifying which parts are and which parts aren’t. Anyone can say they received something directly from God, but that doesn’t make it so. And historically, oral transmissions are not reliable sources. Furthermore there is no way of knowing all of the oral traditions the Messiah approved of and which ones he disapproved of (we know of some but certainly not the all).

As Michah Gottlieb, Associate Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at NYU has written, “many Jewish reformers claimed that historical criticism demonstrated that the ancient rabbis invented new laws that they then read into the Bible through fanciful interpretations.” He continues, “Even if rabbinic laws went back to Ezra’s time or earlier, they were still composed hundreds of years after Moses. Hirsch further showed that Frankel’s approach was grounded in the assumption that the early scribes (soferim) had created the Oral Law in a specific historical context that shaped its teachings.”

Similar to Reform Judaism, AMI “considers the Oral Law to reflect interpretations or perspectives on the Torah authored by groups of rabbis in Babylonia and Palestine over a period of time, which are not inherently more legitimate or authoritative than the opinions of Jewish scholars, philosophers, or religious leaders at any other time, including the present.” I’m fact we consider it to be less authoritative than the New Testament.

We must also remember that anything made equal to or above God is an idol. God is the Word. Equating man’s word with God’s word is idolatry. Even when God authorizes a man’s decree and backs it up with his authority, Yeshua’s taught that leaders keep their decrees as close as possible to the plain sense of the written Word. Going too far from the meaning of Gods word or making up things whole-cloth can be “teaching for doctrine the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9).

God did give however give the power to “bind and loose” to the Apostles which was rabbinic authority. Known as “asar ve-hittir” (forbidding and permitting) it was the authority and power to legislate and make decisions regarding Jewish law. To that end, the Apostles are our rabbis (“teachers”) and our Sages who wrote our legal compendium to the Torah, the New Testament, with Yeshua being our great Chief Rabbi, or as Mary called him, Rabboni, a title given to Moses and only a handful of other great Jewish sages.

This along with the baptism in the Holy Spirit of does for us what the Oral Law tries to do for normative Jews: it fills in the gaps of the written Torah. The reason the Holy Spirit was poured out on the same day the Torah was given, the feast of Pentecost (Shavuot) is because Holy Spirit is essentially “subjective Torah” which aids our understanding of the objective written Torah, and all of the written word of God. It fills in the gaps.

That being said, we do consider the Talmud and other Jewish writings to be valuable Bible commentaries. Like other commentaries, they have hermeneutical value as a tool for interpreting Scripture and determining scriptural context, historical-grammatical usage of terms and doctrines, and overall exegesis to help us properly “rightly divide the word of truth”. This is especially helpful in determining the accurate meaning of New Testament scripture since its authors and the Jews mentioned in the Oral Law lived during the same general time period and shared a common thought-pool of the First Century Jewish community.

In all, there is much to be appreciated and gleaned from the writings comprising the Oral Law as long as they are not taken as divinely inspired Scripture. Truth is truth no matter who it comes from and they can provide helpful insight. However, while we very much respect these writings, we should also keep these writings subject to the scrutiny of the written word, Scripture, and rejected when they contradict it. In the end, they should only be taken for what they are: commentary. — R. Isaac Tzuriya