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 18th 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)