Friday, September 11, 2015

The On-Going Mosaic Office in Judaism: A Review and Analysis of Kinzer’s Writings on Oral Torah

"Why is the notion of Oral Torah so repugnant to Messianic Jews?  Some of the suspicion derives from proper concern for the primacy and unique authority of the Written Torah.  Thus, some argue that the Written Torah is sufficient, and neither requires nor permits any supplement.  It is further argued that the rabbinic doctrine of the Oral Torah was invented not just to supplement the Written Torah but to supplant it.  Some of the suspicion derives from the Apostolic Writings (New Testament) and their treatment of the Pharisees... Yeshua's apparent reservations about the Pharisaic 'tradition of the elders' are read as a direct rejection of any notion of Oral Torah.  Yeshua's bestowal of halakhic authority on his shelichim (apostles) likewise seems to preclude Pharisaic-rabbinic claims to such authority.  Finally, Messianic Jewish suspicion regarding the Oral Torah derives also from the Pharisaic-rabbinic rejection of the messianic claims for Yeshua made by his followers, and from their subsequent treatment of those followers.  In order to uphold any notion of Oral Torah for Messianic Jews, these objections must be addressed," Mark Kinzer, Israel's Messiah and the People of God, pg. 31

Is there an on-going Mosaic office in Judaism (i.e. Oral Torah) that Messianic Believers are obliged to follow?  Kinzer address this question in an essay contained in his book “Israel’s Messiah and the People of God.”  Before addressing the question, however, Kinzer takes the time to dispel what he feels are several common misconceptions about the “Oral Torah.”

Misconception 1:  The Written Torah is Sufficient for Life Instructions

While he certainly acknowledges that the Written Torah is foundational and indispensable, he says that it is insufficient when it comes to providing a complete set of clear instructions to live by.  He cites to gaps and ambiguities in the Written Torah such as the ambiguity of how to define “melachah” for the purposes of Shabbat, the lack of criteria for distinguishing between clean and unclean birds, etc.  These types of ambiguities indicate that the Written Torah always intended for us to have an on-going Mosaic office of interpretation.  But where do we find the grant of authority for such an office?

The source of authority is to be found in Deuteronomy 17 where G-d authorizes a “central judiciary”.  The decisions of this court were to be regarded as Torah.  The court itself not only draws its authority from the Written Torah but, Kinzer argues, the authority simultaneously arises from the People of Israel.  Since "the seventy elders of Numbers 11 prefigure the central court of Deuteronomy 17..." and since these elders were representatives of the people, the authority to make law was "...vested in the people of Israel as a whole."  Kinzer thus concludes that the authority to make law is vested in the people of Israel as a whole via their representatives and that this authority should be termed "Oral Torah":
"We thus may conclude that (1) because of its lack of legal detail and its abundance of apparent legal inconsistency, the Torah requires supplemental legal instruction; (2) the Torah itself recognizes this fact, and envisions a Mosaic teaching office whose role is to interpret and apply the Torah's regulations to new circumstances; and (3) this Mosaic teaching office, while having its ultimate authority from God, receives its immediate sanction from the affirmation of the Jewish people as a whole.  While the Torah itself nowhere uses the term, there is no reason why the tradition of supplemental instruction in the Mosaic succession should not be called 'Oral Torah,'" pg. 40.
Misconception 2:  The Rabbis Believe all Oral Laws Derive From Sinai

First, Kinzer explains that in reality the Rabbis do not consider Written Torah to be equal with Oral Torah, that they in fact make a legal distinction between d’oraita (Written Torah) and d’rabbanan (oral rabbinic law) that gives greater weight to the Written Torah.  This would of course not be the case if they believed both were given at Sinai.  Secondly, and most to the point, the Rabbis are well aware that many laws such as the laws of Chanukkah were created after the close of the Written Torah and yet they have formulated blessings such as “Who sanctified us by His mitzvot and commanded us to kindle the light of Chanukkah”  How can they say that this is a Divine mitzvah when it was clearly post-Biblical?  The answer is to be found in B. Shabbat 23a where the Rabbis, addressing this particular law, ground their authority in Deuteronomy 17:11.  In other words, Kinzer says the Rabbis saw themselves as belonging to the on-going Mosaic office of interpretation and application of Torah.

Misconception 3:  Yeshua Viewed Pharisaic Laws as Illegitimate

Kinzer’s provides several evidences that Yeshua acknowledged the legitimacy of Pharisaic paradosis (i.e. oral Pharisaical tradition).  One piece of evidence is that Yeshua Himself says “these you ought to have done” in Matthew 23 referring to laws (e.g. tithing of herbs) only found in oral Pharisaic tradition.  Another is that Yeshua embraced undisputed post-Biblical traditions such as attending synagogue for the Shabbat service.  Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence comes from Matthew 23 where Yeshua says that everyone should “carefully observe (poiesate kai tereite) all that they [i.e. the Scribes and Pharisees] say to you (panta hosa ean eiposin humin)” which is a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 17:10 “carefully observe all that they instruct you to do” (ve-shamarta la’asot ke-chol asher yorucha).  Kinzer concludes from these types of evidences that Yeshua does not have a problem with the traditions of the elders per se but rather “[He] rejected a particular way in which [the Pharisee’s] tradition was being interpreted and applied.”  Specifically, Yeshua was against any application of Pharisaic tradition that failed to give proper weight to the Written Torah:  —“Why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3). 

The Question at Hand:  Is there an on-going Mosaic office in Judaism (i.e. Oral Torah) that Messianic Believers are obliged to follow?  

While Kinzer is careful to say that some Rabbinic laws should be rejected such as “halakhic prohibitions of acts of faith in Yeshua”, he nevertheless argues that Rabbinic tradition carries a mandatory authority derived from Written Torah, the People of Israel, and the judges in charge of the People of Israel.  He concludes that, based on the Rabbis having divinely sanctioned authority, “…Messianic Jews…should [therefore] not hesitate to say, ‘Blessed are You, LORD our God, King of the Universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments, and commanded us to…’ before lighting Shabbat and Chanukkah candles, chanting Hallel, waving the lulav (palm branch), or laying tefillin (phylacteries).”


There’s a few theoretical issues with Kinzer’s assertion that the Rabbis are to be equated with the level of authority granted to the judicial institution of Deuteronomy 17:11.  One issue is that the authority of the Deuteronomic institution is mandatory as it says, “do not turn aside from what they tell you” and yet the Rabbis of the Talmud often gave opinions that no one felt obliged to follow.  Opinions were given, some were ignored and some were followed.  This is not exactly a Sanhedrinic type of authority.  Moreover, the Rabbis (i.e. the Sages of the Talmud) are not themselves in charge in our modern era:
“As authoritative as the Sages are, however, it would be hard to apply our verse to them, they are simply no longer ‘in charge at the time.’  Rather, their authority is derivative and contingent:  it is derivative because the Sages’ interpretations are not directly authoritative for the average Jew but are mediated through the authority of the contemporary rabbi, scholar, or even legal code, who are authorized by the verse [Deut. 17] as the contemporary judge(s)…” Michael Berger, Rabbinic Authority, pg. 38
Despite these and other theoretical defects, I think it might be possible to reach some common ground with Kinzer.  It may be possible for Messianic Believers to say “Blessed are You, LORD our God, King of the Universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments, and commanded us to…”  But to get there would require a 2-step process.

Step 1:  Trust the Sages 

Most Messianics will probably stop reading at this point and scream something to the effect of “Is he serious?!!! Why trust the Sages?!!!”  Well, I’ll tell you why.  If you can trust them to have faithfully transmitted written tradition (i.e. the Bible), it is not unthinkable that you can also trust them to have faithfully transmitted oral tradition.  
Let’s also remember that Paul, an apostle of Yeshua, commanded us to follow him as an example.  And here’s several points to keep in mind about Paul:

Paul was a Pharisee and proud of it:

I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee…!” (Acts 23:6

Pharisaism was characterized mainly by 2 things: 

1.  Paradosis:  a tradition of the elders was faithfully passed on from one generation to the next.

"[T]he Pharisees passed on [paradosan] to the people certain ordinances [nomima] from a succession of fathers [ex pateron disdoches], which are not written down [anagegraphtai] in the laws [nomois] of Moses.  For this reason the party of the Sadducees dismisses these ordinances, averring that one need only recognize the written ordinances [nomima ta gegrammena] whereas those from the tradition of the fathers [paradoseos ton pateron] need not be observed," Josephus, Ant. 13:297-298.

"I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day," Acts 22:3 (King James Version)

Speaking in Gal 1:13-14 of how he [Paul] outstripped many Jews of his own age group in his observance of ‘Judaism,’ Paul the form Pharisee stresses that he was ‘extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions [or: the traditions that stem from my forefathers, ton patrikon mou paradoseon],’” John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, pg. 316

2.  Akribeia:  legal perfection.

The most accurate way to translate Acts 22:3 is with Paul saying that he was educated in Pharisaism according to “the most perfect/legitimate/well-founded/accurate school of thought of our religion.”  He literally says that Pharisaism not only describes his belief system (Acts 22:3) but he claims that Pharisaism is the most perfect/legitimate/well-founded/accurate (i.e. akribeia) school of thought in Judaism. 
In conclusion, if Paul could trust that the Pharisees were transmitters of “traditions of the fathers” then we can trust that the Talmud, a compilation of Pharisaical tradition, contains “traditions of the fathers.” 

For more on akribeia see below:

"For Luke, see akribeia in Acts 22:3; akribes in Acts 26:5 (where the Lucan Paul calls Pharisaism 'the most exact school of thought of our religion,' (ten akribestaten hairesin tes hemeteras threskeias); for Josephus, see, e.g. J.W. 1.5.2 section 110 (the Pharisees form the group that has the reputation [dokoun] of expounding the laws very precisely [akribesteron]; similarly, J.W.2.8.14 section 162 (met' akribeias); Ant. 17.2.2 section 41 (ep' exakribosei)..." John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew
"Josephus uses the word akribeia (and other words derived from the same root) to refer to the excellence and/or accuracy of different things.  Thus, the writings of others on the Jewish Wars are not accurate, while his own account will be...  Kingly duties...masonry...or farming...can all be performed excellently or accurately.  Laws can be observed scrupulously...One Jewish group--the Pharisees--is regularly described as the party of akribeia.  From his earliest to his latest writings, Josephus uses this describe the Pharisees...To summarize the argument thus far, akribeia refers to the scrupulous exactness, accuracy in detail, and specificity of Pharisaic teaching.  The term was applied to the Pharisees by Josephus, Acts, and Nicolaus because these authors were repeating a Pharisaic claim that their party was the party of akribeia," Baumgarten, Name of the Pharisees

"We can begin by noticing the connection between akribeia and truthfulness.  There is not an English translation of akribeia that does it justice in all contexts.  Usually it is translated as 'precision' or 'exactitude', though in NE VI.7 Ross translates the adjective as 'finished.'  The word does have both the sense of perfection and of precision.  Something is akribes when it is rendered to absolute perfection, with neither too much nor too little.  And 'in general, being akribes seems to amount (vaguely enough) to being of good epistemic quality.' ...Aristotle says that of all the good states of theoretical reason, philosophical wisdom (sophia) turns out to be its proper virtue because it is akribestate (most akribes) (1141a16).  This suggests, then, that akribeia is a mark of truthfulness.  It is a sign that the truth has been perfectly grasped….There is evidence in NE VI.7 that Aristotle is thinking of akribeia as a matter of grasping form.  The master craftsmen at the beginning of the chapter are most akribeis in their fields because they most of all are able to realize the form of a statue in marble. surely a mark of intellectual accomplishment,"  Gabriel Richardson Lear, Happy Lives and the Highest Good:  An Essay on Aristotle's 'Nicomachean Ethics'

"One respect in which this process of litigation had intensified over the years, independent of the emergencies of 406, was in the competitive role of expertise, or akribeia.  Legal akribeia had contributed much to Antiphon's reputation as an effective litigant.  Historical akribeia had been influential in the expulsion of Alcibiades.  Constitutional akribeia, combining history and law, had been the point of departure for the oligarchic reforms of the Four Hundred.  However misguided their program seemed, in retrospect, the importance of constitutional akribeia lived on in the work of codifying traditional law being carried on by the commission of nomothetai...In every case, the foundation of akribeia was access to written texts, whether they were literary works or archival documents.  So the nomothetai, by the nature of their task, were presiding over the formation of the first central state archive at Athens,"  Mark Munn, The School of History:  Athens in the Age of Socrates

Step 2:  Ratify Rabbinic Opinions That Do Not Conflict with the Written Torah

Finally, the Messianic community can ratify those traditions that do not conflict with the Written Torah.  And once we have ratified them as being products of the on-going Mosaic office in Judaism, we could legitimately say “who has…commanded us…”


So enough of my opinions.  Does anyone else have any thoughts on Kinzer’s assertions?  Do you agree/disagree that we can say “who has…commanded us…” in regard to purely oral traditions? 


  1. You really have to be ignorant of the scriptures to believe this, first, herbs are seed bearing so in the written law, next Yeshua is observed often not following the oral tradition, third, Yeshua never told anyone to keep the traditions of men, but scolded for not keeping the law of Moses. Finally, it is Yeshua's words that we are commanded to hear, not the sages, he recieved them from the Father, not from Moses or any man:

    "For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me."

    Yeshua's words are spirit and they are life. We are commanded to shema the one like unto Moses. This is not the sages.

    1. Anonymous,

      Yeshua said His purpose with Mosaic Law was not to abolish it but to exemplify it ("pleroo", greek word meaning exemplify), that Mosaic Law would continue until the universe is obliterated, that if a teacher fails to practice Mosaic Law or teach others about Mosaic Law that such a teacher must be rebuked as "least in the kingdom of heaven" but that whoever practices and teaches Mosaic Law will be called "great in the kingdom of heaven."

      You're teaching that Yeshua commanded people the exact opposite--that He said to only listen to Himself and that His teachings DID NOT COME FROM Moses. You wrote: " is Yeshua's words that we are commanded...[which He from the Father], not from Moses or any man."

      What you're teaching is false and very wicked!

      Yeshua taught the Torah of Moses and He walked in the Torah of Moses. If you can't accept this fundamental fact of Scripture then I don't have anything to discuss with you.

    2. Peter, no I am not saying that Yeshua said break the law of Moses, and that is not the point of what you wrote, you are setting up a straw man.

      You appear to be setting up an authority. Yeshua said "all authority is given to me". He said "I am the Lord of the Sabbath" He said "all judgement is given to the son" and the Torah says:

      I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

      And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

      But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

      So, in conluslusion, 1) we know who that prophet is 2) we know he only speaks what he heard from the father and his doctrine is not his own 3) we know he only seeks the glory of his father, not his own 4) we know other men speak of themselves things they were not commanded to speak 5) we know that God raised up this prophet like unto Moses because the people would not hear Moses. 6) we know that the words Ysshua spoke were not all in the Torah, they were from God, we must llisten to this prophet as commanded by Torah. For example "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

      So, if you want to follow the Torah, you must junderstand that all judgement is given to the son, he speaks the words of God, Moses did not give the words Yeshua gave. Yeshua does not destroy the law and the prophets as you asy, but he most certainly fills it up where Moses did not.

    3. You will not stand before Moses and give an account. Why? What judgement seat will you stand before? Mosaic Office? Moses' book of life?

      "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."

      Is this Moses? "Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead."

      Is this Moses? "For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people."

      Is this Moses? "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;"

      Finally, "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."

      Not "the word Moses has spoken"

      Wickedness? You judge too quickly and falsely

    4. Anonymous,

      Did you or did you not say that we are not commanded to receive Moses' words but rather only Yeshua's words? And you said that Yeshua did not preach the words of Moses!

      What kind of silly semantic games are you playing?

      Either he taught the Torah of Moses or He did not! Which do you believe?

    5. Peter, you had better read again slowly....

      He taught far MORE than the Torah of Moses. So it is not either/or. That is YOU'RE game.

      Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness to teach Yeshua. Yeshua did not lift up ANYTHING to teach about Moses.

      Moses was not worthy to unlatch the sandle of Yeshua. He disobeyed God, Yeshua did not. When God commanded Moses to speak, he refused. When God commanded Yeshua to speak, he obeyed.

      The seat of Moses is for judgment. All judgement is given to the son. Get with the program Peter. :)

      Someone is coming in great POWER and his fathers GLORY with Tens of Thousands of his saints.......and it ain't Moses.

    6. Anonymous,

      "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you," Deuteronomy 4:2

      You wrote: "He taught far MORE than the Torah of Moses."

      You are saying that He violated Torah by adding to it?

  2. Peter believes Yeshua only taught Moses, but the truth is Moses taught Yeshua, not the other way around.

    "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

    "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me."

    "For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you."

  3. Anyone reading this had better consider:

    Yeshua did not get his idea's from Moses. Yeshua was before Abraham. Yeshua IS THE WORD made flesh. Anything that Moses recieved from heaven concerning THE WORD came from the father and NOT from Moses.

    Yeshua did not teach Moses. Moses taught Yeshua. Period.

    And at that name EVERY knee shall bow....and that includes Moses. Shalom :)

    1. Anonymous,

      "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you," Deuteronomy 4:2

      You wrote: "He taught far MORE than the Torah of Moses."

      You are saying that He violated Torah by adding to it?

    2. "You are saying that He violated Torah by adding to it?"

      Peter, this type of question is why I stated you do not know the scriptures. You do not know the Torah, and you do not know Yeshua's teachings, and so you are unable to compare and contrast.

      Torah states that "you shall not add" does not mean "God shall not complete, correct, or fill up". Yeshua was not speaking his own words or his own doctrine, but the fathers.

      "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."

    3. So, you have a small child with much to learn. She is 2 yrs old and you give her a set of rules to follow. You tell her "it is enough" but one day there will be more. You don't tell her the rules about teenage dating. Why?

      But, one day you DO tell her those rules. Have you added to the instruction? Or, do you only require the 2 yr old rules neglecting to advance the instruction as she grows?

      So is Torah.

    4. Anonymous,

      So you're saying the Torah of Moses was incomplete. Which laws are you saying were not given in the Torah of Moses that the Israelites needed but were not ready for? Pray tell.

    5. Peter, you seem to have a problem reading and understanding. When you twist someones words as you have done several times in this string, it is called "wickedness".

      I did not say there were laws they needed that were not given, but the opposite. They were given the law needful at the right time.

      Was Torah given to Adam and Eve in the garden? Did they receive more after they sinned? Why?

      Was there law given to Abraham and his family? Did they receive more before leaving Egypt (think Passover, etc.) Did they receive more after passing over on dry land (think manna, etc)? Did they receive more at the mountain (think Ten Commandments)?

      Did they receive the Torah of a king at the mountain, or only after they were in the land and had rejected God to rule over them?

      Where in the Torah is the commandment concerning the sons of Zadok? Was it not given when needed? What about the commandment concerning David and Solomon to build the temple? Were they ready for that in the wilderness?

      So, the scripture has a clear progression of law and Yeshua’s teachings are part of that progression.

    6. Anonymous,

      So your position is that the Torah of Moses was all that they needed at the time but that later on it suddenly became insufficient--that the Torah of Moses was incomplete and did not provide enough instructions for what the Israelites would later need to govern Israel. In short, you're saying that ANOTHER law is needed in order to account for a changing progression.

      So prove it.

      Show us which laws needed to be added later on. You wrote "Yeshua's teachings are part of that progression." So which of Yeshua's teachings were not in the Torah of Moses?

    7. "In short, you're saying that ANOTHER law is needed in order to account for a changing progression."

      No, what I am saying is this: Hebrew 4:12 "See, the Word of God is alive! "
      So, Peter, if you knew the Torah and you knew Yeshua's teachings you would not ask me to show you. Does this mean you acknowledge you do not know these and need my help?

      Or, do you know all things and just look for a "gottcha" moment?

      I have given you enough of a Torah lesson for today. You need to study. Search the torah for the commandments of Yeshua, then tell me the ones you do not find.

    8. Anonymous,

      You originally said "He taught far MORE than the Torah of Moses" and "So, the scripture has a clear progression of law and Yeshua’s teachings are part of that progression."

      But now you're saying that no other law is needed.

      That's a contradiction.

      Take your arrogance and false teachings elsewhere.

    9. Peter, is the law concerning Israel getting a King in the Torah of Moses?

    10. Anonymous,

      Yes, Deuteronomy 17.

    11. Good, so next question.
      “And the LORD said unto David, Go up: for I will doubtless deliver the Philistines into thine hand.”
      Is that commandment in the Law of Moses concerning the King?
      “And when David enquired of the LORD, he said, Thou shalt not go up; but fetch a compass behind them, and come upon them over against the mulberry trees.
      And let it be, when thou hearest the sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees, that then thou shalt bestir thyself: for then shall the LORD go out before thee, to smite the host of the Philistines.
      And David did so, as the LORD had commanded him;

      Should David have said “no, Lord, that is not in the Torah of Moses… I shall not add to it or take from it.”

      Was other law needed for the current situation? Or, should God have answered David saying "why are you asking me what to do, I told you all instruction (Torah) in the Law of Moses.

    12. Anonymous,

      David consulted the Urim and Thummim of the High Priest which was authorized by the Torah of Moses:

      "Also put the Urim and the Thummim in the breastpiece, so they may be over Aaron's heart whenever he enters the presence of the LORD. Thus Aaron will always bear the means of making decisions for the Israelites over his heart before the LORD," Exodus 28:30

      So all of that was anticipated by Torah of Moses. The Torah of Moses was perfect and anticipated everything.

      Nice try.

  4. ""He taught far MORE than the Torah of Moses"

    And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

    And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

    And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

    And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

    But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

    For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

    And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

    What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

    And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

    And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

    1. Anonymous,

      That's an excellent example of Yeshua stating exactly what is already in the Torah of Moses. Notice that Yeshua affirms that the commandment regarding a writ of divorcement is a "precept". In other words, Yeshua acknowledged that this was the law. It makes sense that Yeshua didn't abolish this law given that Yeshua states explicitly "Don't think I've come to abolish the law, I have not come to abolish but rather to exemplify".

      Nice try.

    2. So, you do not believe that Moses allowed divorce for any reason, but Yeshua forbids divorce for any reason except fornication?

      Anyway, Peter I am going to take your command to take my teaching and get lost. I leave you in Gods hand.

    3. And as I leave, I will say to anyone reading this thread that Peter believes Yeshua only taught the law of Moses, but Yeshua himself said he taught alot more:

      "Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you."

    4. Anonymous,

      Moses wrote that divorce was permissible if there was "ervah" which refers to fornication (see Deuteronomy 24:1). Yeshua said the same thing that Moses said!

      Again and again, you are PROVEN wrong.

  5. Peter, you can't just make a statement and believe you have "proven" anything. You have not compared the differences between what Moses taught on divorce "allowed" and what Yeshua taught. They are not the same, but you do not know the differences.

    There have been great studies done on this, you would not even have to reinvent the wheel, but you would have to take the time to study.

    You did not address my other questions, so I will assume you have come to agree with me on them.

    1. Anonymous,

      I'd love to see you pull this nonsense in a courtroom: "Well, your Honor, I have evidence but it's a secret and I'm not telling...perhaps if you beg me then I'll tell you."

      If you don't want to support your assertion that Yeshua's teachings on divorce deviated from the Torah of Moses then I'm not going to beg you to make your case. And, based on your last sentence, if you want to assume that I'm in agreement with you, despite all evidence to the contrary, then, frankly you might want to seek professional help. Alternatively, if you're just being asinine then shame on you.