There are two interesting additions God made to His Law that did not originally appear in it. These additions were made because questions were asked about particular situations that occurred that the Law, at that time, did not cover. While they were not a part of the oral law, the principle is similar to that mentioned in Deuteronomy 17:8-11. In these cases, the people with the questions went to Moses and Aaron to ask for a decision on the matters. Moses then went to God for the judgement which was then incorporated into the written Law.

The first of these is mentioned in Numbers 9:6-11. “Now there were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse, so that they could not keep the Passover on that day; and they came before Moses and Aaron that day. And those men said to him, ‘We became defiled by a human corpse. Why are we kept from presenting the offering of the LORD at its appointed time among the children of Israel?’ And Moses said to them, ‘Stand still, that I may hear what the LORD will command concerning you.’ Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the children of Israel, saying: “If anyone of you or your posterity is unclean because of a corpse, or is far away on a journey, he may still keep the LORD’s Passover. On the fourteenth day of the second month, at twilight, they may keep it. They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.”

The second of these additions is in Numbers 27:1-8 and Numbers 36:1-12. Again, this was not a part of the oral law but was similar in principle to the oral law as mentioned in Deuteronomy 17:8-11, in that the questioners went to the Levitical priesthood (Eleazar, since by this time Aaron had died) and the judge (Moses) to seek a determination. Of course, in these two cases the determinations became a part of the commandments, statutes and judgements in the written Law.

God intended that the inheritance of a family would be transferred from father to son down through the ages. But in Numbers 27:1-8, a problem arose because a father had no sons but only five daughters. How was the inheritance to be transferred in this case? Numbers 27:1-8, “Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, from the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph; and these werethe names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. And they stood before Moses, before Eleazar the priest, and before the leaders and all the congregation, by the doorway of the tabernacle of meeting, saying: ‘Our father died in the wilderness; but he was not in the company of those who gathered together against the LORD, in company with Korah, but he died in his own sin; and he had no sons. Why should the name of our father be removed from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among our father’s brothers.’ So Moses brought their case before the LORD. And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: ‘The daughters of Zelophehad speak what is right; you shall surely give them a possession of inheritance among their father’s brothers, and cause the inheritance of their father to pass to them. And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: “If a man dies and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter.”’” In effect, God was making a new law that was not in the written Law until this question arose some forty years after the Law was originally given. This new oral law became part of the written Law.

However, this was not the end of the matter. A later question arose that if the daughter who received the inheritance married into a different family or tribe, she would take the inheritance with her, transferring it to another family or tribe. In this case, Moses was inspired to extend what God had commanded previously, thus extending this particular law. We read this in Numbers 36:1-12, “Now the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near and spoke before Moses and before the leaders, the chief fathers of the children of Israel. And they said: ‘The LORD commanded my lord Moses to give the land as an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel, and my lord was commanded by the LORD to give the inheritance of our brother Zelophehad to his daughters. Now if they are married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then their inheritance will be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and it will be added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry; so it will be taken from the lot of our inheritance. And when the Jubilee of the children of Israel comes, then their inheritance will be added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry; so their inheritance will be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers.’ Then Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the LORD, saying: ‘What the tribe of the sons of Joseph speaks is right. This is what the LORD commands concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, “Let them marry whom they think best, but they may marry only within the family of their father’s tribe. So the inheritance of the children of Israel shall not change hands from tribe to tribe, for every one of the children of Israel shall keep the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. And every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel shall be the wife of one of the family of her father’s tribe, so that the children of Israel each may possess the inheritance of his fathers. Thus no inheritance shall change hands from one tribe to another, but every tribe of the children of Israel shall keep its own inheritance.’ Just as the LORD commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad; for Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married to the sons of their father’s brothers. They were married into the families of the children of Manasseh the son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in the tribe of their father’s family.”

It will be noted that the Levitical priests and the judge were assigned by God to make the determinations in Deuteronomy 17. This is confirmed in Malachi 2:4-7. “‘Then you shall know that I have sent this commandment to you, That My covenant with Levi may continue,’ Says the LORD of hosts. ‘My covenant was with him, one of life and peace, And I gave them to him that he might fear Me; So he feared Me And was reverent before My name. The law of truth was in his mouth, And injustice was not found on his lips. He walked with Me in peace and equity, And turned many away from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge, And people should seek the law from his mouth; For he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.’”

In Christ’s day, many of the oral law determinations were made by the Pharisees who had become considered by the people to be experts in the law rather than the priests. They were not sons of Aaron but were laymen. The priests, who were supposed to be scribes and should have been making the determinations, had become corrupt. It is stated in Ezekiel 44:15 that this will be corrected and the priests shall once again stand before God. “‘But the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok, who kept charge of My sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from Me, they shall come near to Me to minister to Me; and they shall stand before Me to offer to Me the fat and the blood,’ say the Lord GOD.” Ezekiel 44:23-24 reminds us that these priests were to make the determinations as mentioned in Leviticus 17. “And they shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the unholy, and cause them to discern between the unclean and clean. In controversy they shall stand as judges, and judge it according to My judgements. They shall keep My laws and My statutes in all My appointed meetings, and they shall hallow My Sabbaths.”

Again, in Christ’s day, some of the more complicated cases were handled by the Sanhedrin which did include priests, but the majority of its members were Pharisees because they were considered to be the experts in the law. But Christ Himself reminds us in Matthew 23:1-3, “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.’” While the Pharisees had placed themselves in Moses’ seat, which was not God’s desire, Jesus still told the people to listen to them in order to maintain an organized society. The decisions they made from Moses’ seat were for the whole of society, not just for one particular sect or group, provided they were in conformity with God’s Law.

Many times, they were not, and in those cases, Christ did not expect the people to follow them. They had to obey God rather than man, as Peter stated, refusing to follow their directives. For instance, the Pharisees kept the Passover one day too late. The Sadducees however, kept it on the right day, and so did Jesus and the disciples, of course. The Sadducees were in charge of the temple, and the Passover lamb was to be killed at the beginning of the 14^th of Nisan, at twilight, between the two evenings, not at the end as to how the Pharisees did it… and most Jews still keep it wrongly today, in keeping the Passover and the Night to Be Much Observed on the same evening/night.

There are some examples of the third category of oral law. Amos 8:4-6 is interesting in that a binding requirement had been added that God did not require. “Hear this, you who swallow up the needy, And make the poor of the land fail, Saying: ‘When will the New Moon be past, That we may sell grain? And the Sabbath, That we may trade wheat? Making the ephah small and the shekel large, Falsifying the scales by deceit, That we may buy the poor for silver, And the needy for a pair of sandals—Even sell the bad wheat?’”

Except for the Feast of Trumpets, God nowhere decreed that the people must refrain from work on the days of the new moons. We have no idea when they began this practice, but it appears to be common practice at this time. This was something that they were keeping as a part of the oral law. It was preventing them from conducting business and cheating on the new moons as well as the Sabbaths. This addition also required determining when the Sabbath and new moons ended. In Jesus’s day, the Pharisees considered the Sabbath was ended when you could see two stars. This, of course, is an unnecessary extension of the Sabbath, introduced to put a fence around it; an extra burden that God did not require. God only required the Sabbath to be kept until sunset.

In Nehemiah 10:29, the people agreed to live by the laws of God. “…these joined with their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse and an oath to walk in God’s Law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and His ordinances and His statutes.” The actual implementation of a new oral law is stated in Nehemiah 10:32-33. “Also we made ordinances for ourselves, to exact from ourselves yearly one-third of a shekel for the service of the house of our God: for the showbread, for the regular grain offering, for the regular burnt offering for the Sabbaths, the New Moons, and the set feasts; for the holy things, for the sin offerings to make atonement for Israel, and all the work of the house of our God.” This was a new oral law that was added and was intended to be binding on the people for as long as the temple was standing. This was not talking about a tithe; this was talking about a yearly assessment fixed at a particular level by their own will, which they then bound upon themselves.

We read in Matthew 17:24-27 that this law was still in force. It was now called a temple tax. Christ had no objection to paying this as it would avoid giving offence and was not in any way against God’s Law. “When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, ‘Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, ‘What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?’ Peter said to him, ‘From strangers.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Then the sons are free. Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.’”

So, we can see there were three types of oral law, the first being extra instructions needed to correctly obey the written Law. These instructions would be handed down from the priests in position of authority to those who were expected to take their place in due time. The second type of oral law concerned how to handle situations that were not included in the written Law but had similarities, and the examples in the written Law could be expanded to handle these situations. In some cases, especially the more complicated ones, a determination may have needed to be made by the priests and judges. The third type concerned new oral laws that were made binding on the people and their descendants due to a specific need at a particular time, and this was to carry on into the future—again, assuming they were in harmony with God’s intent, purpose and will. Otherwise, they were not binding on the people.

If God had included all these oral laws in the written Law, the Bible would have become such a large volume or volumes that it would lose practicality. This is remarked upon in John 21:25, “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.” Instead of every possible situation being commented on in the Bible, God left it up to those in authority to make the necessary decisions based on the principles of what was already in the written Law.

There is actually one additional aspect that could be included in the oral law and that is regarding God’s calendar. From the Bible itself, it is not possible to know which day is the Sabbath or when the years and months begin. But these determinations have been handed down through the years by the leaders of the Jews. As we can read in Romans 3:1-2, “What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.”

We have the Old Testament today because the Jews have preserved it over the millennia. But we also have God’s calendar which defines the years, months and Sabbaths due to the Jewish leaders passing on this information from father to son orally again over the millennia, for our instruction today.

So, the oral law is not just something invented by the Pharisees after the close of the Old Testament period, but was necessary to know how to obey God with greater understanding, beginning at the time of the Exodus. Actually, let us look at Genesis 7:2, “You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female.” The question arises; how did Noah know which animals were clean and which were unclean? Unlike us, he did not have access to Leviticus 11 or Deuteronomy 14. It might have been revealed by God at the time of the creation and passed down through the generations between Adam and Noah, or it might have been revealed to Noah directly. But we notice that all sacrifices between Abel and Moses were of clean animals, which showed that the patriarchs knew of these oral laws.

Since Abel sacrificed a clean animal, we can assume that God had revealed the law of clean and unclean animals at that time. The same is true of the law of tithing since both Abram and Jacob tithed, Abram to Melchizedek, Genesis 14:20, and Jacob promised to tithe to God, Genesis 28:22. This, of course, was long before the time of Moses when the laws were written down. So the knowledge of these laws would demonstrate that oral laws were in existence well before Moses.

In conclusion, the oral law was a set of instructions additional to the written Law that were necessary to enable the written Law to be carried out correctly and consistently. It was also a method for determining how to apply the principles of the written Law to situations that were similar to, but not identical to, what was described in the written Law. The oral law also contained new laws which were found to be necessary for situations that had not been mentioned previously and were voluntarily accepted by the people. Although, of course, they had to be within the spiritual intent of God’s Law.

The oral law began at, or before, the time of Moses, and additions were made up until at least the end of the Old Testament period. Jesus accepted some of it but rejected those parts that had been added but were against the spiritual intent of God’s commandments.

Lead Writer: Paul Niehoff (Australia)

What is the “Oral Law?” When we read of Jesus’s interactions with the Pharisees, we find that they had many laws and procedures that were not mentioned directly in the Law that God inspired Moses to write down. So, did the Pharisees or their predecessors create these, what could be termed oral law, sometime after the close of the Old Testament period?

Actually, the oral law was first mentioned directly in the book of Deuteronomy, and the necessity for oral law arises in the book of Exodus, and it may well be referred to in the book of Genesis, as will be mentioned later. So, what is the oral law, and why was it necessary, and when were parts of it created? In actual fact, there are three basic categories of oral law, each with a different purpose.

What we mean by the term oral law can be described loosely as additions to the written Law, sometimes called the Torah, which are needed if one is to carry out specific commanded activities in the way God intended. In other words, for some of the specific commands that God gave to His people, you could not possibly carry them out as God intended, based on what is written in the text. You have a need for additional instruction if you are to correctly carry out the specific commands in the fashion and manner in which God intended. This is one category of these additions to the written Law.

The second category contains additions to the written Law which are expansions on the intent of specific laws, which enable men to apply that intent to situations, or cases, not specifically mentioned in the text. In this second case, there are specific laws governing a particular type of situation. Then you come up with a situation which is of the same general type but is not specifically addressed, so you look for the intent behind the first judgement, to discern the principle and then you apply that same principle in the new situation which is not specifically mentioned in the text. The reasoning is that God would want the same intent followed in all situations in cases that are of the same category.

Then there is the third category of the oral law. This consists of additions to the written Law which are voluntarily assumed obligations, which then became binding on the people. Category three involves things that the people of their own free will have bound themselves to observe or to do. They were never specifically commanded by God. But the leaders and the people voluntarily assumed the responsibility for doing these things, and thereafter their descendants were bound to continue observing them in the same fashion.

An example of the first category is in Exodus 29:38-42, “Now this is what you shall offer on the altar: two lambs of the first year, day by day continually. One lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer at twilight. With one lamb shall be one-tenth of an ephah of flour mixed with one-fourth of a hin of pressed oil, and one-fourth of a hin of wine as a drink offering. And the other lamb you shall offer at twilight; and you shall offer it with the grain offering and the drink offering, as in the morning, for a sweet aroma, an offering made by fire to the LORD. This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of meeting before the LORD, where I will meet you to speak with you.”

A number of questions arise from this instruction. We know the age of the lambs, and Numbers 28:3 states that the lambs were to be without blemish. Numbers 28:4 states that when we read twilight in Exodus 29, we read evening in Numbers 28, however they are both translated from the same two Hebrew words.  Actually, Young’s literal translation and two other literal translations correctly translate these two words as “between the evenings”; that is between sunset and nightfall. The New King James Bible also says in the margin that “twilight” literally means, “between the two evenings.” The first question to be asked is; who provides the lambs? Are they raised by Levites, or do some local farmers sell them to the priests? Or do volunteers offer them? Does it matter if they are male or a female?

The next question is; who sacrifices them? Is it only the high priest or any priest? And next; were they sacrificed as a whole or in parts? And does it matter what time of day these burnt offerings are made? Morning could be between sunrise and noon and evening might be between noon and sunset. The term evening, as distinguished from twilight, is believed by some to mean late afternoon, but still, how late? However, when literally translated as “between the evenings”, as mentioned above, this strongly indicates the correct time for the offering was just after sunset. When considering these questions, we must remember that the answers are important to God. And He must have informed Aaron through Moses, or Aaron personally, how He wanted these procedures to be carried out.

When we compare this with the instructions regarding the burnt offering in Leviticus 1:10-13, we find that, in this case, the sheep had to be male and cut into various pieces, parts of it washed, and it was to be laid on the altar by the priests, Aaron’s sons, and burnt. If the burnt offering was a bull, according to Leviticus 1:6, the one bringing the offering had to skin the animal. Even the place where the animal was to be killed and what to do with its blood was specified.

Other sacrifices had different requirements for how they were to be carried out. For example, in Leviticus 5:6 we read regarding a trespass offering, “…and he shall bring his trespass offering to the LORD for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin.”

Further detailed instructions were given for this offering depending on the financial situation of the one bringing it. Actually, for all the sacrifices, God gave very specific instructions as to how they were to be carried out. So we would expect the morning and evening sacrifices to also have more specific instructions than we read in the text. 

We must always remember the example of Nadab and Abihu who did something God had not required. In Leviticus 10:1-2, “Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.” Here God shows us that He considers obedience of His laws important especially when carried out by the priests, as we read in Leviticus 10:3. “And Moses said to Aaron, ‘This is what the LORD spoke, saying: “By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified.”’”

Therefore, for the morning and evening sacrifices to be offered in a consistent manner, more instructions were needed, and these would have to have been passed down from the older priests to the younger ones following, learning from them. These instructions would form a part of the oral law.

Another example of the necessity for oral law is found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, then the former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.”

This Law was given in the fortieth year of the wanderings of the children of Israel in the wilderness, just before they were about to enter the Promised Land. And as a functioning society, divorces would have taken place. So, as we read the instruction, what questions arise? The most obvious one, and most important, is what is defined as uncleanness.

In Matthew 1:19, we see the example of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of what he intended to do when Mary was found to be pregnant.  “Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.” He assumed she had committed adultery and that would be considered to be uncleanness.

What else could constitute uncleanness?  Anything that they thought was uncleanness, or were there some specified categories?

This became quite a matter of dispute in the days of Jesus. At this time, there were two schools of Pharisees, Shammai and Hillel. There is some debate over which of the two schools was more liberal than the other, especially regarding matrimonial law, but the more liberal one allowed more reasons for divorce. However, Jesus made clear what God’s Will regarding marriage and divorce was.

You may remember that some of the Pharisees came to Him to ask for what cause could a man put away his wife? Could it be for just any reason that they might think of? Matthew 19:3-9, “The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’ And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.’ They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.’”

It was a very prominent issue in His day and that’s why they brought it to Him. They weren’t seriously seeking enlightenment. They said this is such a hot issue, with such strong feelings about it, that no matter what He said, it was going to offend people. So, in the days of Moses, what constituted uncleanness had to be defined if it included more than sexual immorality, and not just for any reason, as mentioned in Matthew 19. Also, what does she do with this certificate of divorce? Does she use it to prove that she is legally able to remarry, or is it stored in an official registry with the Levites? Does it have a set format and does the reason for the divorce have to be stated?

The second category of oral law consists of situations that arise that are not mentioned directly in the written law but have similarities. Where questions arose in this type of situation, the people were to go to the priests as is mentioned in Deuteronomy 17:8-11: “If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, between one judgement or another, or between one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God chooses. And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgement. You shall do according to the sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which the LORD chooses. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they order you. According to the sentence of the law in which they instruct you, according to the judgement which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or the left from the sentence which they pronounce upon you.”

A typical example of such a situation could be the instance of a master cutting off his slave’s finger. Would that entitle the slave to receive freedom from slavery? The law specifically states in Exodus 21:26-27, “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.” This has no mention of a finger, so a judgement has to be made if there is a dispute in the matter. It can be seen from Deuteronomy 17:11, that the priests would instruct the people in these matters so they would know how to judge similar matters in the future.

However, we must remember today that the principle of the oral law still exists in the practice of binding and loosing. The leadership of the ministry today still has the responsibility to make decisions regarding certain practices within the spirit and intent of God’s Law that are not in the written Law.

There is a Law that forbids taking certain items as security for a debt. Deuteronomy 24:6 states, “No man shall take the lower or upper millstone in pledge, for he takes one’s living in pledge.” So, what about a stove used for cooking? Or even some other essential item? Would this also be counted as one’s living? Again, a decision needed to be made about this question.

Now it is interesting, and this has nothing to do with the Biblical period, but in the 18^th century, in the closed Jewish ghettos in Eastern Europe, a question made its way to the Rabbis. Can a man who has lent money to a certain family demand that the wife’s pearls be held as a pledge? Why pearls, you might ask? Because in that closed community, the pearls were the highest and most important part of her adornment. And every man would try to give his wife more than any other kind of jewelry, a quality string of pearls. And she usually would wear them, especially on the Sabbath, as a means of adorning herself to show her delight in the Sabbath. If she suddenly appeared one Sabbath without the pearls, there would be an obvious statement made without having to say it in so many words, that her family was so poor that she had to pawn her pearls. It would be a significant blow to the prestige and status, and the way the family was regarded in the community. So, it was ruled that the man could keep the pearls during the week, but had to return them to her by Friday afternoon for her to wear on the Sabbath, so no one else would know, to avoid embarrassment.

This has similarities to the principle in the Bible, which is mentioned about the man’s garments. Exodus 22:26-27, “If you ever take your neighbor’s garment as a pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down. For that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin. What will he sleep in? And it will be that when he cries to Me, I will hear, for I am gracious.” This shows that you must give it back to him before nightfall because he needs it at night to cover himself. That was the same rationale that was applied to the pearls. They were applying oral law to situations that were never even dreamt of in the Biblical legislation, to keep the spirit and intent as they understood it.

Jeremiah 17:21-22 would need some determination. “Thus says the LORD: ‘Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; nor carry a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day, nor do any work, but hallow the Sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers.’” The obvious question here is, what constitutes a burden? In Christ’s day, the Pharisees considered any amount of food heavier than a dried fig to be a burden. That was contained in their oral law. Actually, carrying was only one of their thirty-nine activities that were prohibited on the Sabbath. Of course, these thirty-nine activities were broken down into many sub-activities to help the people understand what physical activities would be a cause of breaking the Sabbath commandment. 

We have to understand here that most of their oral law was unbiblical. In Matthew 23, Christ condemns the Scribes and Pharisees because of the additional burdens they placed on the people that God did not require. So we cannot judge our behavior today by their oral law. Regarding the Sabbath, it was wrong, as Christ explains. That also goes for eating without “washed” hands (see below) or for Corban or treating Samaritans as dogs and unclean, or refusing to speak with a woman in public.

Mark 7:6-9 describes what Christ taught about the commandments of men. “He answered and said to them, ‘Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: “This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.’ He said to them, ‘All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.’”

(To Be Continued)

Lead Writer: Paul Niehoff (Australia)

It is useful to appreciate who Ezra was. What was his family line? This is listed in Ezra 7:1-5. In this list, certain names stand out, Hilkiah, who was the high priest in the days of Josiah, 2 Chronicles 34:9, Zadok the priest in the days of David and Solomon, and going back further, Phineas, Eleazar and Aaron, the chief priest. So, Ezra was of the priestly line; in fact, going by his ancestors, very distinguished in the priestly line. He was one of over four thousand priests in Judea, most of whom had already returned to Judea years before Ezra. But he was the one selected by God to restore the true religious observance and worship in the country. He is reputed to have written three books of the Bible, Ezra, and the last two books of the Jewish Scriptures, 1 and 2 Chronicles. He also arranged the books of the Old Testament in the order in which we have them today in the Hebrew Bible, but not in the English Bible (compare “The Authority of the Bible”, page 85). So important was he in the eyes of his people that later tradition regarded him as no less than a second Moses. It is interesting that Ezra himself is not even mentioned in his book until the seventh chapter.

He was sent back by the king to investigate the spiritual condition of the Jews in Judea. This is mentioned in Ezra 7:14. The time setting of his return is mentioned in Ezra 7:1: “Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia…” These things were the building and dedication of the temple and the keeping of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, mentioned in Ezra, chapter 6. These events had occurred over fifty years earlier before Ezra came to Jerusalem, so the term “after these things” does not mean immediately after them.

The people of Israel had had a great amount of zeal during the building of the temple with the encouragement of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. In Haggai 2:6-7, we read, “For thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘Once more (it is a little while) I will shake heaven and earth, the sea and dry land; and I will shake all nations, and they shall come to the Desire of All Nations, and I will fill this temple with glory,’ says the LORD of hosts.” However, after the fifty-plus-years-period since completing the temple, nothing in this prophecy had occurred and there was the strong probability that the people had become slack concerning the observance of God’s Law.  

This was a reason for the king to send Ezra to Judea to inquire about their spiritual condition which is stated in Ezra 7:23: “Whatever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it diligently be done for the house of the God of heaven. For why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?” He did not want the God of heaven to be displeased about what was happening in Judea and bring wrath on the king’s and his sons’ kingdom.

Ezra was fluent in two languages, Aramaic and Hebrew. In fact, parts of the book of Ezra were written in Aramaic (Ezra 4:8 to 6:18 and 7:12-16), but the majority of the book was written in Hebrew. At the time of Ezra, it is claimed that the language commonly spoken by the ordinary people was Aramaic, not Hebrew, although the religious, governmental and upper class did use Hebrew. The two languages have similarities but are not identical.

Ezra was an expert in the Law of Moses, commonly called the Torah, which made him a scribe as well as a priest. But why did he have to be skilled? This is mentioned in Ezra 7:6, “… this Ezra came up from Babylon; and he was a skilled scribe in the Law of Moses, which the LORD God had given. The king granted him all his request, according to the hand of the LORD his God upon him.” This is reinforced in Ezra 7:11, “This is a copy of the letter that king Artaxerxes gave Ezra the priest, the scribe, expert in the words of the commandments of the LORD, and of His statutes to Israel.”

The language of Hebrew has a number of features which, to be understood fully, require much instruction, training and knowledge. The first obstacle to be overcome is that the writing of the official scrolls in the temple or synagogues had no vowels. If we were to look at a modern printed Hebrew Bible, we would see marks under the letters suggesting which vowels, accents and pronunciations to employ for the text to make sense. However, these markings were added around the time of the Masoretes, somewhere around the eighth or ninth centuries CE. While the Masoretes were extremely accurate in copying the consonants in the scrolls, their additions as mentioned were according to their best understanding at the time.

To understand why skill was needed, we could look at a simple Hebrew word like “dm,” using English letters. It basically means “red”. When vowels are added, it can be either Adam or Edom, depending on context. The Masoretes added the required vowel marks to suggest which was the correct meaning. However, Ezra had to know what the correct meaning was because when he read it, there were no added prompts or markings for him to use at that time.

To complicate the situation further, there were no word breaks between words. The word breaks had been added more recently, probably again in the time of the Masoretes. Ezra had to determine where words started and finished among a continuous row of letters. As an English example, we might read “gtthntyslggrd” and after some thought realise it was “Go to the ant you sluggard,” by adding vowels and word breaks. However, the word breaks are usually correctly inserted but in extremely rare cases they are not in the correct position.

An example of this is in Proverbs 26:23: “Fervent lips with a wicked heart Are like earthenware covered with silver dross.” When analysed, fervent lips and a wicked heart are opposites, designating hypocrisy. However, with an earthenware pot covered with silver dross, both are of little value, silver dross, commonly called slag, being what’s left after the silver has been refined and removed from the ore. But if the word breaks are slightly modified, and the correct vowels added, “silver dross” becomes “glaze”, which has the effect of making something cheap and common look valuable, thus redefining the sentence into two opposites: “Fervent lips compared with a wicked heart” and “Cheap earthenware compared with a beautifully glazed item of pottery.” The glaze hides the cheapness of the item, in a similar way that fervent lips hide the wickedness of the heart.

The reason the word break was placed in the wrong position in that passage by the Masoretes was that the Hebrew word referring to glaze was unknown in the period when they finalised their text, but the words for silver and dross were known. By making the word breaks in particular positions and inserting the corresponding seemingly appropriate vowels, they could make some sort of sense, although not giving the correct meaning. More recent translations have corrected this error and, as an example, the Good News Version renders this proverb as “Insincere talk that hides what you are really thinking is like a fine glaze on a cheap clay pot.”

Aside from adding the correct vowels and word breaks, Ezra also had to be very familiar with the Oral Law. It refers to Jewish legal traditions and interpretations that are not part of the written Torah. They were passed down orally. Some of those were adopted to enable one to correctly obey many written laws, the details of which were not revealed in the written Law. However, many of those were added to “make a fence for the Law,” especially when referring to the Sabbath. Their additions and interpretations were rejected by Jesus Christ (compare “God’s Commanded Holy Days,” pages 17 following).

It is intended in a future Q&A to explain the necessity and history of the Oral Law.

So, we see that for Ezra to carry out the commission that God gave to him to restore true religion to the land of Judea, he had to understand the Scriptures in fine detail, including pronunciation and providing correct word breaks. He would have needed much instruction and training and inspiration from God. Also, he needed to know in minute detail the correct oral laws necessary to be able to apply God’s Law in the right way. Therefore, he needed to be a highly “skilled Scribe,” and an “expert in the words of the commandments of the LORD.”

Lead Writer: Paul Niehoff (Australia)