Home

Author: Frank W. Nelte

Date: May 1997


JUDAISM AND BAAL WORSHIP


I never cease to be amazed by the number of people in the Churches of God who feel the need to look to Judaism and the religious practices and customs of the Jewish people for guidance and direction as to how GOD wants us to understand His Word and His instructions.


Recently someone sent me a posting which basically stated that the Jewish people are agreed that the Passover in Egypt was eaten at the beginning of the 15th of Nisan, in clear contradiction to the plain biblical statements. Other people urge us to follow the Jewish custom of eating "matzos" at the Passover ceremony and during the Days of Unleavened Bread, as if "matzos" somehow

symbolize the broken body of Jesus Christ, and typify fulfilling God's instructions to eat unleavened bread. Other people try to extract special significance from the Jewish customs surrounding the Feast of Tabernacles and the Last Great Day. Other people again assert that the Jews have preserved "God's SACRED calendar".


The whole implication seems to be that, since Hebrew is THEIR language, the Jews supposedly know better how the laws of God should be applied and observed, that they are somehow one step closer to the truth of God in the customs they practice and in the traditional understanding they have.


                        NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!


In this article I am going to openly confront something that seems to be a bit of a sacred cow for many people, because it needs to be confronted and faced. It is an unsubstantiated bias which many people assume to be true, and which they feel needs no proof.


The point we need to understand is this:

 

THERE IS NO MORE MERIT TO THE RELIGIOUS CUSTOMS AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE JEWS THAN THERE IS MERIT TO THE RELIGIOUS CUSTOMS AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OR OF THE GREEK ORTHODOX RELIGION OR OF ANY OF THE PROTESTANT RELIGIONS!




THE ADVANTAGE OF THE JEW


You might by now be thinking of Romans chapter 3. Let's look at it.

 

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? (Romans 3:1)


That is the question Paul posed. And here is his answer:

 

Much every way: chiefly, because that UNTO THEM WERE COMMITTED THE ORACLES OF GOD. (Romans 3:2)


What is the advantage of the Jew? Is it right "RELIGIOUS CUSTOMS"? Is it better "RELIGIOUS UNDERSTANDING"? No, these things are not "the advantage".


The expression "the oracles of God" is translated from the Greek "ta logia tou theou", where the word "logion" is probably the diminutive of the word "logos". The expression refers to "the words of God", or "the concise sayings of God" (as compared to the pagan oracles which were always short and concise utterances). It can certainly also refer to the whole Old Testament.


The point is: the advantage of the Jews is that to them were committed the Old Testament words of God, even as after Paul's time the New Testament words of God were committed to the Greeks.


Are we told that THE CUSTOMS of the Jews are an advantage? No! Are we told that the religious UNDERSTANDING which the Jews have is an advantage? No! The advantage is that they were used TO PRESERVE the words of God. But "preserving" the words of God has nothing to do with "better understanding".


Yes, certainly, "preserving" the words of God implied a certain amount of ACCESS to those words, access which other nations simply did not have. But "access" does not automatically imply "a GOOD understanding". A good understanding requires a lot MORE than just "access", as we'll see later.


There will be those who will perceive the things I will say in this article as "anti-Jewish". But that is not correct. It is the Jewish religious customs and ideas that are in clear conflict with the teachings of the Bible. To openly point out and highlight such conflicts is a matter of facing the facts. It is the Jewish RELIGION that is in error and which errors need to be pointed out. But that is no more an attack on the Jewish people, than exposing the flaws in the Lutheran religion is an attack on the German people, or exposing the flaws in the Roman Catholic religion is an attack on the Italian people.


So let's now look at some facts.




THE HISTORY OF OLD TESTAMENT ISRAEL


After God brought Israel out of Egypt, what did they do? You already KNOW all that, right? They couldn't stay away from idolatry! It started with the golden calf ... and it just never really stopped! Eventually God punished both, the house of Israel and the house of Judah, with national captivities.


When they had good leaders, things seemed to go well, though it is doubtful that the people as a whole ever followed the right examples of the good leaders ... as evidenced by the ease with which the people would so quickly and so readily sink into the most perverse forms of paganism when evil leaders appeared on the scene.


What happened in the days of the prophet Elijah? Why, all of Israel had once again sunk into total paganism. Apart from 7000 men the entire population had been drawn into Baal-worship, right? See 1 Kings 19, where Elijah felt he was the only one left who had not accepted this idolatry. When God said ...

 

Yet I have left [me] seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him. (1 Kings 19:18)


... it was an acknowledgment that THE VAST MAJORITY of the people of Israel at that time HAD INDEED ACCEPTED PAGANISM! Things haven't really changed since then; human nature today is still the same as it was 3000 years ago.


What happened after the days of Ezra and Nehemiah? The Jews who had returned from Babylon absorbed and accepted on a large scale the PAGAN ideas and customs which had been introduced by the conquering Greeks. They simply "converted" these pagan customs into acceptable forms ... very much like so-called "Christianity" "converting" the pagan customs of Christmas into an acceptable form. The Jews became thoroughly hellenized in their customs and traditions. Reform movements (like the Maccabees) did little to stem this tide of absorbing the customs of the pagan world around them.


[To illustrate: several months ago I played a game of bridge with an elderly Jewish gentleman in his 80's, who had been raised in a Jewish community in Germany in the 1920's. There is no question that this man is Jewish, and he has always been Jewish, and he is assuredly proud of his Jewish heritage. Yet he himself PROUDLY explained to me that IN HIS PARTICULAR JEWISH COMMUNITY IN THE 1920's all the Jewish families ALWAYS also observed Christmas with a Christmas tree in the house and all the other Christmas customs. It was simply "a tradition" in his particular Jewish community. And this man's example is not unique ... it is not the first time that Jewish people simply accepted and adopted pagan customs as their own.]


By the time of Christ's ministry the religion of the Jews was thoroughly paganized through the infusion and absorption of Greek, Egyptian and Babylonian customs. Attempts to justify these pagan customs with the claims that they were really only an expression of "the ORAL law", something that was SUPPOSEDLY handed down verbally from the time of Moses, that these customs therefore represented "the traditions of the elders" do not disguise the pagan origins of these customs. The influences of paganism had been a problem since the time of Moses, and it was still the same problem at the time of Christ's ministry; only by then many of the pagan customs had been disguised to some degree.




AT THE TIME OF CHRIST'S MINISTRY


Let's notice some things from the time when Jesus Christ was here on Earth. Let's start with Matthew chapter 15.

 

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress THE TRADITION OF THE ELDERS? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. (Matthew 15:1-2)


Note carefully! The thing that was important to these religious leaders was "the tradition of the elders"! These so-called "traditions" had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Bible, with God's laws, or with obedience to God. These "traditions" were most emphatically NOT BIBLICALLY BASED! But they were of the highest importance to these religious Jews. And transgressing these non-biblical "traditions" was a major issue to these Jews.


What happened to all these "traditions of the elders"? Where are those "traditions" today? Why, they are at the heart and core of modern Judaism! That is what Judaism and its view of the Old Testament is built around. Those "traditions" form THE FOUNDATION on which Judaism today is built!


Do you grasp this?


It is a simple matter to show that modern Judaism and its understanding of the Old Testament Scriptures is directly descended from the religion of the Pharisees of the first century A.D.. And those "traditions of the elders" have been carefully preserved in the vast work known as "the Talmud"! Understand that the Talmud (there are two versions ... the so-called "more authoritative" BABYLONIAN Talmud, and the lesser PALESTINIAN Talmud) is nothing more than a preservation of "the traditions of the elders".


So how did Jesus Christ view these "traditions of the elders"? How important were they to Him? Notice Christ's reply:

 

But he answered and said unto them, WHY DO YE ALSO TRANSGRESS THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD BY YOUR TRADITION? (Matthew 15:3)


Notice it!


These "traditions of the elders" were a way of TRANSGRESSING the commandments of God. So how good are those "traditions" really? They are not good at all ... if we are going to believe the words of Jesus Christ!


Understand that what Jesus Christ said here was not just a gentle and polite reprimand. IT WAS A MAJOR INDICTMENT AGAINST THE "TRADITIONS" these Jews adhered to! It should be clear that Jesus Christ did not in any way endorse the "traditions" on which modern Judaism is built.


In the next few verses (Matthew 15:4-6) Jesus Christ gave one single simple straight-forward illustration of HOW the "traditions" lead to transgressing the commandments of God, the example being how the traditions were used to break the fifth commandment. The statement at the end of verse 6 is very significant.

 

And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. THUS HAVE YE MADE THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD OF NONE EFFECT BY YOUR TRADITION. (Matthew 15:6)


Jesus Christ gave ONE EXAMPLE of how the traditions are used to get around the real intent of the commandments of God. And that is precisely what most of the other "traditions" also do ... they are ways TO GET AROUND THE REAL INTENT OF GOD'S LAWS! The Jews themselves are deceived and they don't even understand the real effect their "traditions" have.


The traditions create AN APPEARANCE of being righteous and submissive to God, but they have nothing to do with the real intent of God's instructions to us in the Bible. And that hasn't changed since the time of Jesus Christ; that is still true for modern Judaism, even as it was true for the religion of the Pharisees in the time of Christ.


Notice how Jesus Christ continued:

 

[YE] HYPOCRITES, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and HONOURETH ME WITH [THEIR] LIPS; BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR FROM ME. (Matthew 15:7-8)


WHY did Christ call them "hypocrites"? Was He trying to insult them? WHY was their heart far from real obedience to God? If their hearts were "far" from God, what is it that their hearts were "NEAR" to?


The word "hypocrite" simply means: actor, pretender, role-player. The word implies a lack of sincerity. Jesus Christ was assuredly not just using the word in order to insult the Pharisees. He used the word with its full meaning: He was telling us that the Pharisees, who cared so much for "the traditions of the elders", were insincere actors playing the roles of being religiously righteous, but not really caring about God's REAL instructions to us. Their hearts were "near to" their traditions; they were not "near to" the Word of God.


            THIS IS ALSO TRUE FOR MODERN JEWISH AUTHORITIES!


Jesus Christ continued to say:

 

But in vain they do worship me, TEACHING [FOR] DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN. (Matthew 15:9)


Their "traditions" had absolutely nothing to do with the Bible and God's instructions to us! Their traditions were nothing more than HUMANLY DEVISED COMMANDMENTS ... that is what Jesus Christ is plainly telling us in this verse.

 

THE SAME IS STILL TRUE TODAY! MODERN JUDAISM TEACHES NOTHING MORE THAN "THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN"!


Do the people who want to look to the Jews for a better understanding of the Word of God understand this? Do we really want to look to "the commandments of men" for a better understanding of the Word of God?


Look at verse 9 again. The word "doctrines" refers to THE TEACHINGS. What Jesus Christ plainly said is that THE TEACHINGS of the Pharisees (and thus also of modern Judaism) are nothing more than "the commandments of men". It is "THE TEACHINGS" of the Pharisees, and of modern Judaism, that are the problem.


Now if those teachings were (and still ARE) "the commandments of men", then they obviously didn't come out of the Bible. So they must have come from somewhere else. And that "somewhere else" is the same place from where their religious ideas had always come in the past ... FROM PAGANISM!


This can be shown from many Scriptures. Let's briefly notice the summary Stephen presented in Acts chapter 7:

 

And THEY MADE A CALF in those days, and OFFERED SACRIFICE UNTO THE IDOL, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. Then God turned, and gave them up TO WORSHIP THE HOST OF HEAVEN; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices [by the space of] forty years in the wilderness? Yea, YE TOOK UP THE TABERNACLE OF MOLECH, AND THE STAR OF YOUR GOD REMPHAN, figures which ye made TO WORSHIP THEM: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon. (Acts 7:41-43)

 

YE STIFFNECKED and uncircumcised in heart and ears, YE DO ALWAYS RESIST THE HOLY GHOST: as your fathers [did], SO [DO] YE. (Acts 7:51)


Understand that NOTHING HAS CHANGED! What was true in Stephen's time is still true today! So how much value can we place on the understanding of people who are "stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears" and who "ALWAYS RESIST" the correct understanding, which only comes through the Holy Spirit (as Paul explained in 1 Corinthians 2:11)? How can we possibly look to the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees for a correct understanding of the truth of God?


It's no surprise that they killed Stephen. They didn't like to be told how much and how often they had been involved in paganism. And, as it happened, in Matthew chapter 15 the Pharisees DID end up being offended (see Matthew 15:12), but all Jesus Christ had done is speak the truth. It just shows that people will easily take offence at the truth.


Notice also the parallel account in Mark chapter 7. This account also brings out the great importance which is attached to "traditions" amongst the Jews, and which traditions Christ's disciples paid no attention to.

 

For THE PHARISEES, AND ALL THE JEWS, except they wash [their] hands oft, eat not, HOLDING THE TRADITION OF THE ELDERS. (Mark 7:3)


Mark's account repeats the information given in Matthew's account and then adds the following things in Christ's response to the Pharisees. Notice:

 

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but THEIR HEART IS FAR FROM ME. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, TEACHING [FOR] DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN. (Mark 7:6-7)


Now notice how Christ elaborated on these statements:

 

For LAYING ASIDE THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: AND MANY OTHER SUCH LIKE THINGS YE DO. (Mark 7:8)


Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, clearly tells us that in order to adhere to their traditions the Pharisees "LAID ASIDE" --- REJECTED(!) --- THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD!


That hasn't changed, as far as modern Judaism is concerned. In their teachings and their understanding the Jews today STILL "lay aside" the commandments of God.


Notice also that while Jesus Christ just presented one example of this, He clearly stated they in fact did MANY OTHER SUCH LIKE THINGS! That was not the only "tradition" which laid aside the commandment of God. The same is also true for many of the other traditions the Pharisees (and modern Judaism) held to, the Jewish traditions about "the Passover" being only one specific case in point.


Clearly "the traditions of the elders" are in conflict with the laws of God! These two, the laws of God and the traditions of the elders, are mutually exclusive. You can't have them both. You either keep the commandments of God, or you keep the traditions of the elders which require you to REJECT the commandments of God. Does that statement sound too strong? Well, that's precisely what Christ said in the next verse:

 

And he said unto them, FULL WELL YE REJECT THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD, that ye may keep your own tradition. (Mark 7:9)


This statement by Jesus Christ is still true for modern Judaism. They haven't changed in their approach or their understanding. They still adhere to their traditions rather than to the commandments of God.


Jesus Christ meant every word He said! Mark 7:9 is not an idle statement! The traditions of Judaism amount to a REJECTION of the commandments of God. The verb "reject" in Mark 7:9 is translated from the Greek verb "atheteo", and it means: to do away with, to despise, to set aside, to disregard, to nullify, to make void, to reject, to refuse, to bring to nothing, etc.. And these are all the things which "the traditions of Judaism" do, according to the words of Jesus Christ.


After again recording the example of how the traditions were used to break the fifth commandment, Mark then records Christ's words in verse 13:

 

MAKING THE WORD OF GOD OF NONE EFFECT THROUGH YOUR TRADITION, which ye have delivered: AND MANY SUCH LIKE THINGS DO YE. (Mark 7:13)


Here we have Jesus Christ's explanation for what the traditions of Judaism actually do. These traditions NULLIFY THE INTENDED EFFECT OF THE WORD OF GOD! They "neutralize" the Word of God; they take the power out of God's instructions. They replace God's instructions with some meaningless ritual! And again, "MANY" such traditions do this!


These words by Jesus Christ are very clear! Christ unequivocally rejected "the traditions of the elders", since they didn't come from "the elders" anyway ... as Christ said, they were nothing more than the commandments of men. They assuredly did not come from "Moses". They really came out of paganism.


Jesus Christ said plainly in reference to the Jews:

 

And these things will they do unto you, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN THE FATHER, nor me. (John 16:3)


Earlier in His ministry Christ had already said the same thing:

 

Yet YE HAVE NOT KNOWN HIM (God the Father); but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. (John 8:55)


What did Christ mean? He meant that they didn't really understand the Old Testament; they didn't understand the facts about God the Father. In fact, Christ had already said a few verses earlier:

 

YE ARE OF [YOUR] FATHER THE DEVIL, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44)


What did Christ mean by THIS statement? Christ was saying that their understanding didn't come from God; it came from Satan! Satan was their spiritual "father" ... that's what Christ said. And the views of the people Jesus Christ was speaking about have been meticulously preserved in modern Judaism; it's the same religion today as the one the Pharisees adhered to over 1900 years ago. So how much credibility do the statements of JESUS CHRIST give to the "official Jewish understanding" of the Scriptures? Should we, as members of God's Church, be looking to the Jews in order to understand the Scriptures? Should WE be looking to those whose "father" (according to Jesus Christ!) was Satan, to help us understand the Word of God?

 

Do we really think that GOD, who has called us and opened our minds to understand His will and His purpose, expects us to look to the Jews, who are BLINDED, and look to THEIR customs and THEIR understanding, to help us understand what God is trying to tell US in His Word?




WHAT ARE THE THINGS PAUL COUNTED AS "DUNG"?


You probably know the account in Philippians 3:4-6, where the Apostle Paul enumerated his own "qualifications", i.e. his background in Judaism. After stating those things, Paul then said the following:

 

But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered THE LOSS OF ALL THINGS, AND DO COUNT THEM [but] DUNG, that I may win Christ, (Philippians 3:7-8)


Let's not just rush over these statements by Paul. Exactly "WHAT THINGS" did Paul now consider to have no more value than "dung"? After all, that's a rather strong and emphatic statement, not something Paul said very often. Paul was not just making some ethereal statement ... he had specific things in mind. So what were those specific things? Well, let's look at what he had stated just before these statements in verses 7-8. Notice verse 5:

 

Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; AS TOUCHING THE LAW, A PHARISEE; (Philippians 3:5)


Paul had been thoroughly steeped in the traditions of the elders, like every other Pharisee. When God opened Paul's mind, then Paul REJECTED the traditions of the elders (which Jesus Christ had so sharply criticized) and everything else the sect of the Pharisees stood for. In the process he "lost" the prestige and the honour which the community in general, as well as his peers in the sect of the Pharisees, bestowed on prominent Pharisees. The things he had given up and the things he had lost held no more value for Paul than "dung".

 

SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE "THE TRADITIONS OF THE ELDERS"? WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE TRADITIONAL JEWISH OPINION REGARDING THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCRIPTURES?


Since Paul did not single out any specific things in his past life as a Pharisee for this designation of "as worthless as dung", it follows that he was applying this "valuation" to everything lumped together. And that certainly INCLUDES his past zealous observance of and adherence to the traditions of the elders.


So if we are to believe Paul, then the traditions of the elders are worthless, and we can count them but as dung. It doesn't help to get upset with me over this statement. It's not my idea; it's an assessment the Apostle Paul made, and he was as qualified to know as anyone could have been!


Notice also what Paul said when he appeared before the Roman governor Felix. This is recorded in Acts chapter 24:

 

But this I confess unto thee, that AFTER THE WAY WHICH THEY CALL HERESY, SO WORSHIP I THE GOD OF MY FATHERS, BELIEVING ALL THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN IN THE LAW AND IN THE PROPHETS: (Acts 24:14)


It was the Pharisees, the inventors and the guardians of the traditions of the elders, who were accusing Paul in this instance. Notice two things about this verse:


1) Judaism refers to the new understanding the Apostle Paul had come to as "HERESY". It is clear that Judaism (as represented by its chief exponents, the Pharisees) did NOT understand the Old Testament Scriptures in the same way that Paul understood them.


2) Paul made clear that he believed the entire Old Testament. Implied in Paul's statement is that there are SOME things in the Old Testament which the Pharisees did NOT really believe! Paul believed "all things" which are written ... but they didn't! Now if they didn't believe "ALL" things which are written in the Old Testament, then that is a problem! It is a BIG problem, as far as their overall understanding is concerned. Here's why.

 

The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: A GOOD UNDERSTANDING HAVE ALL THEY THAT DO [HIS COMMANDMENTS]: his praise endureth for ever. (Psalm 111:10)


Those who don't believe ALL of God's revelation (in the case of the Pharisees that would have been the whole Old Testament, every verse in it) lack a certain amount of "the fear of God". They will also assuredly LACK UNDERSTANDING! That's what Psalm 111:10 tells us. The ability to speak Hebrew doesn't change this in any way.


It should be self-evident that the Pharisees at Christ's time did NOT have "a good understanding". We have also already looked at Christ's statement that they "laid aside" the commandments of God. That is evidence that they lacked the fear of God.


Therefore:


How can we possibly look for a correct understanding of the Scriptures to people who:


                        A) Lay aside the commandments of God,

                        B) Lack real understanding,

                        C) Lack the fear of God?


Is it any wonder that the Apostle Paul counted his entire spiritual past as "dung"? Exactly what was there in his pharisaical background that was worth preserving? Was it the customs and rituals he had zealously adhered to? Was it the understanding of the Scriptures he had gained in his studies as a Pharisee? No, there wasn't anything worth preserving. Paul had to have his mind RENEWED when he came into God's Church, and Paul is the one who explained this NEED for our minds to be renewed.

 

And be not conformed to this world: but BE YE TRANSFORMED BY THE RENEWING OF YOUR MIND, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:2)


He explained this because he himself had already gone through this process! And when the mind is "renewed", that opens the mind to a better understanding.




THERE REMAINS A VEIL OVER THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE JEWS


Let's notice something else the Apostle Paul explained. This is found in 2 Corinthians chapter 3. Notice what he said:

 

And not as Moses, [which] put A VAIL over his face, that the children of ISRAEL COULD NOT STEDFASTLY LOOK TO THE END OF THAT WHICH IS ABOLISHED: (2 Corinthians 3:13)


When Moses returned from having met with God (i.e. with Jesus Christ, the God of the Old Testament, the One who consistently dealt with Israel) and brought God's instructions to Israel, the people were afraid of him, and so Moses put a veil over his face (see Exodus 34:29-35). The point Paul is making in this verse is that the people of Israel could not "look to" (i.e. understand) "THE END" (i.e. the outcome, goal, purpose and intent) of God's instructions.


Now notice Paul's next statement:

 

But THEIR MINDS WERE BLINDED: FOR UNTIL THIS DAY REMAINETH THE SAME VAIL UNTAKEN AWAY IN THE READING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; which [vail] is done away in Christ. (2 Corinthians 3:14)


Did we get that?


Paul clearly states:


            1) The minds of the Jews are blinded.

            2) It's been that way since the time of Moses.

            3) It is STILL that way ... "UNTIL THIS DAY".

            4) This "blindness" applies when the Jews read the O.T..

            5) That veil is only removed when we come into God's Church, which Paul expresses as "is done away in Christ".


Now if there is "a veil" over their minds when they read the Old Testament, it means that the Jews DO NOT READ THE OLD TESTAMENT CORRECTLY! AND THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE OLD TESTAMENT CORRECTLY!


Is 2 Corinthians 3:14 an inspired statement or not? If it IS inspired by God, then we should not look to those who are blind and who cannot read the Old Testament without a veil being over their minds, for guidance in understanding the Old Testament.


Jesus Christ said very plainly about the religious leaders:

 

Let them alone: THEY BE BLIND LEADERS of the blind. And IF THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND, BOTH SHALL FALL INTO THE DITCH. (Matthew 15:14)


Jesus Christ is obviously telling us not to follow those who are blind. And Paul tells us that the Jews are blind when it comes to reading the Old Testament.


So we should NOT be looking to the Jews for an understanding of the Old Testament.


Notice Paul's next statement:

 

But even unto this day, WHEN MOSES IS READ, THE VAIL IS UPON THEIR HEART. (2 Corinthians 3:15)


How plain! And that's "the plain truth". When the five books of Moses (and also the rest of the Old Testament, as mentioned in the previous verse) are read, the Jews simply don't really understand the truth. And that veil remains over them UNTIL they come to a real repentance. This is what Paul explains in the next verse ...

 

Nevertheless when it (i.e. their heart) shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. (2 Corinthians 3:16)


So how can we possibly look to unconverted Jews (i.e. Jews whose hearts have not yet 'turned to the Lord') for a correct understanding of what Moses said? The answer is: we can't look to them at all for a correct understanding!


A few verses later, in the next chapter, Paul wrote the following well-known verse:

 

In whom THE GOD OF THIS WORLD HATH BLINDED THE MINDS OF THEM WHICH BELIEVE NOT, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4:4)


Do the Jews as a group today "believe" the truth of God? No, they don't! Have their minds been blinded? Yes, they have, as Paul has already clearly stated in the previous chapter. So are they basically in the same situation as people in other religious affiliations, whose minds are also blinded (e.g. Catholics, Protestants, etc.)? Yes, they are! So is the spiritual understanding of the Jews of more value than the spiritual understanding of other blinded religions? No, it is not! So is a Jewish commentary on any part of the Bible inherently of more value than some non-Jewish commentary? No, it is not!


As Paul said, the veil remains "untaken away" from them!




THE JEWS "ERR" WHEN THEY READ THE SCRIPTURES


Notice this account of an event during Christ's ministry:


The Sadducees had come to Christ with what they felt was a sure-fire trick question, which He (they thought) would not be able to answer. Here is how Christ replied to them:

 

Jesus answered and said unto them, YE DO ERR, NOT KNOWING THE SCRIPTURES, nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)


The parallel account in Mark 12:24 reads:

 

And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, BECAUSE YE KNOW NOT THE SCRIPTURES, neither the power of God? (Mark 12:24)


Jesus Christ was pointing out that they ERRED because they did not really UNDERSTAND the Scriptures; they would read their own wrong meanings into the Scriptures.


While in this particular example Jesus Christ was speaking to the Sadducees, the same is also true for the Pharisees (and thus for modern Judaism): they too ERR because they don't really understand the Scriptures. They couldn't and still can't help erring, because they are blinded to the truth.


Things haven't changed. Today they still "err" just as much as they did nearly 2000 years ago. So therefore their customs and traditions and understanding are not necessarily a true reflection at all of what God reveals to us through the Old Testament Scriptures. Today they still err by reading their own ideas and traditions into the Bible.


So don't expect to find more truth in the traditional Jewish understanding.




THE JEWS NEVER DID UNDERSTAND THE OLD TESTAMENT CORRECTLY


Notice also what the Apostle Paul explained to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians chapter 2 ...

 

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for HAD THEY KNOWN [IT], THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF GLORY. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (1 Corinthians 2:7-9)


It was the Pharisees, the religious leaders at that time (and by "princes" Paul is referring to leaders), who stirred up and initiated the events that led to Christ's crucifixion. Paul is here saying that these Pharisees didn't understand the Old Testament at all, and therefore modern Judaism also doesn't really understand the Old Testament.


Let's now look at some facts about Judaism.




THE FACTS ABOUT "THE TRADITIONS OF THE ELDERS"


Exactly 100 years ago now, in 1897 A.D., Michael L. Rodkinson brought out a copy of "The Babylonian Talmud", a monumental task. This set of volumes was published by the New Talmud Publishing Company in New York. It should be clear that Michael L. Rodkinson knew as much about the Talmud as anyone else, and a great deal more than most people. Six years later, in 1903, Michael L. Rodkinson wrote a series of books entitled "THE HISTORY OF THE TALMUD". These books were published by the same publishing company.


With his background he was as qualified to write such a series of books as anyone could be. The following information and quotations are all taken from Volume 1 of "THE HISTORY OF THE TALMUD" by Michael L. Rodkinson.


Are we ready for the facts?


Here is the opening sentence of chapter 1, on page 5:

 

"The name 'written law' was given to the Pentateuch, Prophets and Hagiographa, and that of 'ORAL LAW' TO ALL THE TEACHINGS OF THE 'SAGES' CONSISTING OF COMMENTS ON THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE."


Do you grasp what is meant by "all the teachings of the sages"? Those are "the traditions of the elders". They are also known as "the oral law". These three terms all refer to exactly the same thing.


The word "sages" is defined in Webster's Dictionary as:


"1. one (as a profound philosopher) distinguished for wisdom;

 2. a mature or venerable man sound in judgment."


So right up front, in the opening sentence of the book, Michael Rodkinson defines "ORAL LAW" for us. Here are the points of the definition:


ORAL LAW = ALL THE TEACHINGS of the "profound philosophers";

ORAL LAW = ALL THE TEACHINGS of the "venerable and wise men";

ORAL LAW = ALL THE TEACHINGS of the "men sound in judgment";

ORAL LAW = ALL THE COMMENTARIES these men produced.


To put this into a Church of God perspective, if Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong had lived 1900 years ago, then his teachings and his writings and his Bible Studies would have become recognized as a part of "the oral law".

 

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MORE TO "THE ORAL LAW" THAN THE TEACHINGS OF MEN AND THE COMMENTARIES OF MEN AND THE IDEAS OF MEN!


And it has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with any "laws" or "information" or "oral instructions" that were supposedly handed down from the time of Moses or any of the subsequent prophets up to the time of Malachi. ALL of these teachings that are found in the Talmud are from "sages" who lived AFTER the close of the Old Testament. This makes clear that this "oral law" has nothing at all to do with any revelation from God.


The next sentence on page 5 reads:

 

"The word Torah alone was applied to the entire Bible, THE TERM "TALMUD" WAS RESERVED FOR THE ORAL LAW, though the meaning of these two words is identical; namely, "teaching" or "study".


Understand that the Talmud IS "the oral law"; and the oral law IS the Talmud; the Talmud is equal to "the traditions of the elders"; and the traditions of the elders are recorded in the Talmud. These terms refer to one and the same thing!


People hide behind impressive words. The expression "oral law" sounds much more credible that the expression "the Talmud" or the expression "the traditions of the elders". Would ANYONE in the Church of God today honestly claim:

 

"the Jews, at God's instruction, preserve THE TALMUD which is IN ADDITION TO the written law"?


Does anyone honestly believe that God "GAVE" the Talmud to the Jewish people to preserve?


Let's continue our quotation from page 5:

 

"The name 'Talmud' was applied to what was styled by the long phrase 'ORAL LAW' (Torah-she b'al-Peh). THIS WORD DESIGNATED ALL THE COMMENTARIES OF THE SAGES ON THE SCRIPTURES WHICH THE PHARISEES HAD BEGUN TO INTERPRET FIGURATIVELY."


Do we grasp the significance of this candid admission?


The "oral law" is a FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures! And it is nothing more than "commentaries" of "wise men" ... like Mr. Armstrong and those who wrote booklets for the Church of God to publish (to see it in our terms).


Is that what you want ... a FIGURATIVE interpretation of the Scriptures? That is precisely what the Worldwide Church of God has started to do in recent years. Do you really BELIEVE that God intended for you to interpret His Word FIGURATIVELY? Because that is precisely what the traditional Jewish understanding is all about.


Now it is one thing to claim that God USED Mr. Armstrong to make known and to teach truths that had been lost; it is another thing altogether to elevate Mr. Armstrong's writings to the level of "ORAL LAW". Besides, while most of us accept that God did indeed use Mr. Armstrong to restore truths which had been lost, most of us would also strongly question that God continued to work through the Jewish "sages" up to the beginning of the 5th century A.D.. And if we would then actually make the effort to READ what these "sages" wrote, how they argued about trivial and totally irrelevant issues, then we would very quickly be convinced that God was assuredly NOT working through those "sages".


On page 6 Rodkinson states:

 

"All the sages who interpreted the biblical passages figuratively, unlike the Samaritans, were called 'Pharisees'."


This acknowledges that the oral law, the figurative interpretation of biblical passages, is the product of the Pharisees. It is synonymous with "the teachings of the Pharisees".


Now notice this statement, also from page 6:

 

"They [i.e. the priests] founded a distinct sect, styled 'Sadducees' (after Zadok), AND THE DISPUTE WITH THE PHARISEES AND THEIR TEACHING, i.e. WITH THE TALMUD, WAS BEGUN."


What was the source of the dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees? It was over "the ORAL LAW", the Talmud. The Sadducees did not accept the figurative interpretations which the Pharisees had invented for the Talmud. The Sadducees DID NOT ACCEPT THE ORAL LAW AS VALID! So should YOU be accepting it as valid? [The Sadducees also kept the Passover at the beginning of the 14th of Nisan and they always observed Pentecost on a Sunday, because they rejected the Pharisees' interpretation of the instructions for the Passover and for Pentecost.]


Here is the next quote, found on pages 6-7:

 

"Then [i.e. eventually] the Pharisees triumphed over their foes, AND THE ORAL LAW WAS THE ABSORBING SUBJECT OF THE SANHEDRIN, under the leadership of Joshuah b. Prachia, Simon b. Shetah and Jehudah b. Tabai. The Talmud was then studied in all colleges of Palestine, Egypt and wherever Jews lived."


The "oral law" replaced the written Word of God as being the most important thing. That is exactly the same situation TODAY amongst the Jews ... the Talmud is studied in far more detail and is considered to be a higher authority than the Scriptures. In this regard it is no different from the Catholics, for whom the writings of the "church fathers" and the decrees of the Catholic Church carry a higher authority than the Bible.


Next, on page 7 we are told:

 

"The Pharisees studied the ancient Mishnayoth, ADDED TO THEM, and explained the biblical texts. ALL THIS WAS TITLED ORAL LAW, OR, SHORTLY, 'TALMUD'."


There you have it again! The "Oral Law" is nothing more or less than THE WHOLE TALMUD!


Now notice the next statement, also from page 7:

 

"After the triumph of Simon b. Shetah over the Sadducees, when he had finally cleared the Sanhedrin of them, AND ONLY THE PHARISEES REMAINED THERE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TALMUD PROGRESSED RAPIDLY, for the number of the sages, THE ADHERENTS, REVERERS, SANTIFIERS OF THE TALMUD, increased greatly in the colleges of the Ashkaloth (Duumviri) who succeeded to ben Shetah ..."


Once the Pharisees had managed to kick ALL opposition out of the Sanhedrin, THEN the development of the oral law really took off! Notice how they approached the Talmud (the oral law) ... as "reverers and sanctifiers". The oral law clearly became the all-important thing ... the Bible itself very much took a backseat.


On page 8 Rodkinson writes:

 

"Besides, the disciples of Jesus, who then believed in his Messiahship, but not in his divinity, began secretly to undermine the Talmud, WHICH LAID MORE STRESS ON EXTERNAL CEREMONIES THAN THEY DEEMED NECESSARY, and endeavored with all their might to weaken its influence among the populace, but ..."


Notice that the oral law lays a lot of stress on "EXTERNAL CEREMONIES". That doesn't sound like anything God would inspire AFTER the ministry of Jesus Christ, does it? I mean, if Christ didn't give any of these "external ceremonies" to His disciples for the Church to observe, then WHY would God have possibly inspired such external ceremonies to be a part of "THE ORAL LAW"? The truth is that the oral law is nothing more than the ideas of men! Its roots can be found in pagan customs and ideas.


Notice also that Rodkinson claims that "the disciples of Jesus" secretly undermined "THE TALMUD"; it isn't claimed that they undermined "THE BIBLE" or "THE OLD TESTAMENT" ... no, the Talmud was the all-important thing to guard and to protect. Note also that historically "the disciples of Jesus" UNDERMINED the Talmud ... yet TODAY there are "disciples of Jesus" (i.e. people in God's Church) who want to look to and endorse the teachings found in the Talmud. That is the opposite of what "the disciples of Jesus" have done in the past.


After the split in the schools of Hillel and Shammai (both schools represented the Pharisees), the oral law was interpreted differently by these groups. Notice this quote from page 9:

 

"Thus the teaching of the Talmud was DIFFERENTLY INTERPRETED by two parties, AND WHAT THE ONE PERMITTED, THE OTHER FORBADE."


That is confusion! But it is PRECISELY what the "oral law" enables people to do ... to INTERPRET things just as they want to interpret them. God is not anywhere in the picture when we talk about this "oral law" or about modern Jewish understanding.


Here is another statement from page 9:

 

"At the end of the first century it [i.e. THE ORAL LAW, THE TALMUD] was to them A SUBSTITUTE FOR THEIR DESTROYED TEMPLE; it was their stronghold, their entertainment by day and by night ... IT WAS THE SOLE BOND WHICH KEPT TOGETHER THE SCATTERED COLONIES OF ISRAELITES, which strengthened them to bear the yoke of the Romans."


Notice! It was NOT THE BIBLE which kept the scattered colonies of Jews bonded together ... it was the oral law, the teachings of the profound philosophers and wise men, who specialized in finding FIGURATIVE explanations for the biblical texts! The only reason for the Bible in this picture of things is to provide a valid reason for the existence of the oral law. That's all! Having thus justified the existence of the oral law, the Bible itself (i.e. the Old Testament) could conveniently be pushed into the background. And it was! The Talmud was the "SOLE" bond.


When Hadrian became emperor, he issued a decree that if any of the old rabbis should qualify a young rabbi for Israel, "both should be put to death" (page 11). As the author states:

 

"... because he [i.e. Hadrian] very well knew that AS LONG AS THE TALMUD EXISTED there was little hope for the assimilation of the Jews with other nations."


Next Rodkinson explains:

 

"The translation of the Bible (written law) into Greek also contributed very much to the popularization of the Talmud. AS LONG AS THE TORAH WAS IN THE SACRED LANGUAGE ONLY, ALL JEWISH SECTS AND FOREIGN SCHOLARS INTERPRETED IT IN THEIR OWN WAY." (pages 11-12)


Do you understand the significance of this statement?


There are people in the Churches of God today who feel that it is imperative to study the Old Testament in Hebrew. Yet here A HEBREW SCHOLAR AND EXPERT, Michael Rodkinson, tells us that when it comes to the HEBREW text, then "all JEWISH sects" interpret it their own way! They disagree with one another!


Do we grasp this?


If you are a non-Jew who does not understand Hebrew, you are likely to assume that "the Jews" somehow CLEARLY UNDERSTAND what the Old Testament Scriptures say and mean. That couldn't be further from the truth! Here an authority on the Hebrew text plainly says that when the Jews read the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, then they ... "INTERPRET IT IN THEIR OWN WAY", i.e. they disagree with OTHER Jews who interpret the same HEBREW text differently.

 

THE JEWS ARE CLEARLY DIVIDED IN THE WAY THEY UNDERSTAND THE OLD TESTAMENT.


This quotation from Rodkinson makes clear that the Jews themselves commonly disagreed on what the biblical texts actually mean. This is where the Talmud comes in, to attempt to achieve a uniformity of belief ... but at the expense of not actually examining the biblical texts themselves.


That same purpose is served in the Roman Catholic religion by the "CATECHISM". Webster's Dictionary gives the first meaning for the word "catechism" as "ORAL INSTRUCTION" ... in other words, to the Roman Church the catechism represents "THE ORAL LAW". It is exactly the same thing and serves exactly the same purpose as does the Talmud to the Jewish people.


After Hadrian died in 138 A.D. and was succeeded by Antonius Pius as emperor, three leading rabbis went to Rome to petition the new emperor to repeal the decree of Hadrian, which prohibited the study of the Talmud. Rodkinson writes on page 12:

 

"... to repeal the decree, which according to the tradition of the Talmud, they affected ONLY through the intervention of 'BEN TEMALION' (A DEMON ACCORDING TO SOME; A MAN ACCORDING TO OTHERS)."


It is interesting that, according to the oral law, A DEMON helped the Jewish leaders to have a Roman law, which prevented the study of the Jewish oral law, repealed. As usual, the oral law also offers another alternative ... that it was a man (unknown and unidentified except by an unrecognized name) who helped the Jewish leaders. But the very thought that they "might have" enlisted the help of a demon to help them uphold the oral law casts a rather dubious shadow over the whole oral law. WHY would a demon want to help them retain their "oral law"?


You can't help but think of John 8:44 ...


On page 13 Rodkinson writes:

 

"The sages, the commentators of the Talmud, differed in opinion as to the epoch WHEN THE TALMUD BEGAN TO BE WRITTEN DOWN. The scholars of Spain, and their colleagues and disciples, said that it had been recorded from notes possessed since schools had begun in Israel, a long time before R. Jehudah the Nasi. The scholars of France, among them "Rashi", however, declared that not a line was written till the completion of the Talmud, before which its study had been oral. EACH SCHOOL ADDUCTED PROOFS IN BEHALF OF ITS ASSERTIONS. Modern scholars have made a compromise between these various versions ..."


Again, we have confusion. Some people claim one thing and some people claim another thing. And that is the way it goes for the oral law. We have nothing more than opinions and assertions on the part of the proponents of this oral law.


In speaking about the chief Jewish leader at that time, R. Jehudah the Nasi, who was the grandson of Gamaliel the Elder, Rodkinson writes, also on page 13:

 

"Still he met with many obstacles. THE CHIEF ONE WAS THE DIVISION OF OPINION AMONG THE STUDENTS OF THE TALMUD THEMSELVES."


The students of the oral law (not "the students of the Bible") couldn't even agree amongst themselves regarding many of the points of this oral law.


Page 14 states:

 

"The second difficulty was in selecting, FROM AMONG THE MASS OF INCONGRUOUS DOCTRINES AND LAWS --- many of which had become obsolete, and others found to be unnecessary or impracticable --- those which were both practicable and of direct application (for a tradition relates that Rabbi [the chief leader who died around 223 A.D.] found SIX HUNDRED SECTIONS of Mishnayoth; and even if we admit that this number is greatly exaggerated, still if even one hundred existed, it was no light task to reduce them to six).


Note this state of affairs ... "INCONGRUOUS DOCTRINES AND LAWS"!


At the time of Rabbi there were from 100 to 600 different sections of Mishnayoth in existence, which Rabbi reduced down to just SIX! How many of those from 100 to 600 sections of Mishnayoth were in fact faithfully handed down as "ORAL LAWS" from the time of Moses? None at all!


On pages 14-15 he writes:

 

"Reason compels us to admit, at least, that there were passages in the Mishnayoth concerning Jesus and his teachings ... We must, therefore, conclude that Rabbi [i.e. the man who died around 223 A.D.] thought it well to clear the Mishnayoth of any reference to the occurrence itself [ i.e. to Jesus Christ and His ministry], as well as to the adherents of the new faith. IN THIS HE ACTED WISELY, for he knew beforehand that the Mishnayoth would be THE FOUNDATION UPON WHICH JUDAISM and the Talmud SHOULD BE BUILT, AND THAT THE INTERPRETATIONS OF IT WOULD BE MANY, EACH INTERPRETER FOLLOWING THE BIAS OF HIS MIND. Therefore it was deemed best by him to avoid all mention of the new event, to treat it as though it had no existence."


It is this oral law, and NOT the written Old Testament, which is "the foundation of Judaism". This is something most non-Jews don't really understand ... they tend to ASSUME that the foundation of Judaism IS the Old Testament. In fact, even many JEWS don't really understand this ... they too tend to assume that their customs and their understanding and their traditions come from the Old Testament. But that is simply not the case! It is the Talmud (the oral law) which is that foundation. It is really the same thing as so-called "Christians" assuming that the teachings of their church come out of the Bible, when in fact that is not the case at all.


Page 15 continues with:

 

"... he [i.e. Rabbi] was finally enabled to arrange in order SIX SECTIONS OF MISHNAYOTH, CONDENSED FROM HUNDREDS. Each section is given up to a general subject, and is subdivided into tracts dealing with matters which come naturally within the scope of the section. The tracts are further divided into chapters."


So here is what the Mishnah part of the oral law looks like:


            - there are 6 Mishnayoth;

            - Each Mishnah is divided into Tracts;

            - Each Tract is divided into Chapters.


The subjects of the 6 Mishnayoth are as follows:


            1) The Section of Seeds,

            2) The Section of Festivals,

            3) The Section of Women,

            4) The Section of Damages,

            5) The Section of Sacred Things (sacrifices),

            6) The Section of Purifications (Tohoroth).


On page 16 Rodkinson makes the following parenthetical statement:

 

"(Sections "Festivals and Jurisprudence" [meaning Sections 2 and 4 above] have been already translated into English by us IN EIGHTEEN VOLUMES; the synopsis of which will be here appendixed.)"


This gives you some idea of the scope of these 6 Mishnayoth ... when 2 of them alone require 18 VOLUMES of text. They represent a staggering amount of material, all expressing the ideas of men, trying to give FIGURATIVE explanations for the Scriptures of the Old Testament.


On page 16 Rodkinson sums it up as follows:

 

"Thus the Mishna is an explanation of and a comment upon the Pentateuch, and teaches men how to conduct themselves in relation to their fellow-men, and incites them to all good and praiseworthy (actions)."


                        THUS THE MISHNA HAS REPLACED THE BIBLE!


All the teachings you could possibly need are found in the Mishna. So why would you even want to bother looking at the Bible itself? You don't really NEED the Bible ... when you have this Mishna. The Bible has been relegated into the background.


BUT THE MISHNA DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY "ORAL INSTRUCTIONS" WHICH HAVE SUPPOSEDLY BEEN PRESERVED FROM THE DAYS OF MOSES!


The next sentence on page 16 reads:

 

"In the short introduction to 'Sabbath' we have already described briefly the character of the Mishnayoth, which Rabbi arranged, AND HOW HE SUCCEEDED IN IMPARTING TO IT THE SANCTITY OF THE PENTATEUCH ITSELF, SO THAT NOTHING IS TO BE ADDED TO THEM, and what was done later after Rabbi's death, is not the place to expatiate on this subject; we may, however, state briefly that as soon as the Mishnayoth was completed, colleges were founded in Palestine and Babylonia to explain the meaning of the Mishnayoth AND DEVELOP THEIR LAWS TO THEIR ULTIMATE CONSEQUENCES."


NOTICE THIS ADMISSION!


This Jewish leader imparted to the oral law THE SAME SANCTITY as to the Word of God itself!


                        That is one major ENORMOUS problem!!


Imagine us today imparting to Mr. Armstrong's writings "the same sanctity" as to the Bible itself! The thought is preposterous, though there are a few people who have tried to do just that!


Those who appeal for support to the "oral law" don't really understand that to the Jewish religious authorities this "oral law" has REPLACED the WRITTEN LAW! And it is nothing more than the ideas and opinions of men.


Then, after Rabbi's death in around 223 A.D., other documents came to light, which in many places CONTRADICTED the Mishnayoth which Rabbi had compiled. So Rodkinson explains on pages 16-17:

 

"After Rabbi's death, when Boraithoth and Toseptheth were discovered which did not form part of his compilation AND WHICH IN MANY PLACES CONTRADICTED THE MISHNAYOTH, these colleges busied themselves in reconciling them with the Mishnayoth AND WITH EACH OTHER. They accounted for contradictions in Baraithoth (sic) by saying that one spoke of a case under same circumstances, while another meant a like case under different circumstances. SO THEY EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCES IN THE MISHNAYOTH THEMSELVES, OFTEN DIVIDING A MISHNA, WHOSE PARTS SEEMED TO CONTRADICT EACH OTHER, and giving as explanation of the contradictions that the first part was according to one tana, but the latter part according to another."


TOTAL CHAOS AND CONFUSION!


Here is an admission of the obvious ... that this "oral law" is FILLED with contradictions. You are almost guaranteed to find something in the Talmud to support your own personal ideas, even if your own personal ideas can be shown to be wrong from the Word of God ... if you just search the Talmud long enough.


[As an aside: I remember my Jewish stepfather at various times quoting statements he had been taught in his youth, supposedly from "the good book". However, they were invariably quotations from the Talmud. NEVER ONCE DID HE QUOTE SOMETHING DIRECTLY FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. Yet my stepfather was convinced that he was quoting from the Bible. Many Jews today would feel the same way ... that when they quote some statement from the Talmud, they themselves think that they are quoting from the Bible.]


Continuing our quotation from above:

 

"... but the latter part according to another. These discussions and comments on the Mishna they called 'Gemara', which also signifies 'TEACHING' in Aramaic, which was the spoken language of the sages of the Gemara, and to the combined Mishnayoth and Gemara they gave the old name, 'Talmud'."


There you have it. Now you know what the oral law is all about. Here it is in summary:


THE ORAL LAW = THE TALMUD;

THE TALMUD = THE MISHNA + THE GEMARA;

THE MISHNA = 6 DIFFERENT MISHNAYOTH;

EACH MISHNA = DIVIDED INTO TRACTS AND CHAPTERS;

THE GEMARA = THE COMMENTARIES ON THE MISHNAYOTH.


Two other words you need to know are: Halakha and Hagada. The Talmud contains both, Halakhas and Hagadas. "Halakhas" are decisions and doctrines of the sages and the scholars; "Hagadas" are legends and anecdotes. Many times in the Talmud a Hagada is interpolated in the middle of a Halakha.


The sages of the Gemara were called "Amoraim". These scholars did their utmost to justify all the contradictions in the Mishnayoth. They were around until about 500 A.D. when Mar b. Rah Ashi was one of the last of the Amoraim. As Rodkinson says on page 18:

 

" The Babylonian Talmudists ... their acuteness is evinced in their SO HARMONIZING THE CONTRADICTIONS AND DISAGREEMENTS, that they APPEAR to point to the same meaning. Not only did they interpret the Boraithas AT VARIANCE WITH THE MISHNAYOTH, but when even one of the great Amoraim appeared to differ from the Mishna THEY SO DISTORTED THE LATTER that it should seem to agree with the Amora. A similar difference existed among the authors of the Hagada; SOME GAVE TO BIBLICAL TEXTS A NEW READING REMOTE FROM THE PLAIN MEANING, interpreting them in strange and marvellous ways, and basing on them legends of natural impossibilities, while some adhered closely to the literal meaning of texts, without adorning them with exaggerations."


This makes clear that you cannot give any credibility to either, the legends (Hagadas) or to the laws, decisions and doctrines (Halakhas) of the oral law. Both are filled with contradictions, disagreements and distortions. Here is one typical example of how the writers of the Gemara tried to reconcile contradictions:


A) The Talmud claims that Isaac was conceived in Tishri;

B) The Talmud also claims that Isaac was born at the Passover;

C) The time between these two events is less than 7 months! Therefore "the sages of the Gemara" JUSTIFIED this contradiction by claiming that that year was a leap year with 13 months in it. And so the Babylonian Talmud presents this justification as follows:

 

"... a similar objection may be made, for who bears children in the sixth month of gestation? This last objection could be answered according to the following Boraitha: We have learned that that year was a leap year, and Mar Zutra says that although a child born during the month (but only at the end of the required time), STILL A SEVEN MONTHS' CHILD CAN BE BORN BEFORE THE SEVENTH MONTH IS COMPLETE, as it is said [1 Samuel 1:20]: "And it came to pass, 'li-tequphath ha-yamim' (when the time was come about)"; the minimum of 'tequphoth' is two and of 'yamim' is also two (i.e. AFTER SIX MONTHS AND TWO DAYS' GESTATION, CHILDBIRTH IS POSSIBLE)." (Babylonian Talmud)


The reasoning is absurd! Yet there are MANY HUNDREDS of examples of this type of reasoning, which attempt to justify blatant and obvious contradictions within the Talmud, the oral law. And Rodkinson freely acknowledges this state of affairs.


People in God's Church who don't have the faintest idea about how these hagadas (legends) originated (namely, as the figment of the imagination of men who tried to reconcile irreconcilable contradictions in the oral law) have at times appealed to some of these hagadas for support for their own ideas! For example: a minister in God's Church, in an endeavour to provide further information, which is simply not provided in the Word of God, may support his own presentation with a statement like: "ACCORDING TO JEWISH TRADITION ..." Abraham did this, or Isaac did that, or Isaiah was sawn asunder, or the prophet Jonah did such-and-such, or Nimrod did this or that, etc. ... and they don't understand that the so-called "sages" themselves MADE UP all these "traditions", even as they did about Isaac's conception and Isaac's birth.

 

THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF PROOF TO SUBSTANTIATE ANY OF THE NON-BIBLICAL TRADITIONS OF THE JEWS!


For example, the Jewish tradition that Isaac was CONCEIVED at a certain time of year is just as much nonsense as the Jewish tradition that Isaac was BORN at a certain time of the year (and the two traditional dates are not really nine months apart)! It is just as much nonsense as the Jewish tradition that the prophet Samuel was conceived at a certain time of the year! It is just as much nonsense as hundreds of other Jewish traditions about the Scriptures.


                        DOES THAT SOUND TOO STRONG TO YOU?


Well, if it does, it is because you haven't taken the time to READ THE TALMUD as I have done (small sections of it, to be sure). If you take eight hours in a library which has a copy of the Talmud (as I have done) and just read as much as possible, you simply CANNOT AVOID CONCLUDING THAT YOU ARE READING "TOHU AND BOHU"!


The contradictions, often on the same page, are unbelievable! It is the most chaotic work you could ever attempt to read. And you would have to do the same as the scholars of old did ... attempt to reconcile irreconcilable statements. On top of that, the discussions are so picky and so irrelevant and, in many cases, so absurd that it should very quickly be obvious to you that you are dealing with the thoughts and opinions and ideas of totally carnal men! What you would read in this "oral law" has really nothing at all to do with the law of God. And if you do indeed have God's Spirit guiding YOUR mind, then it should not be difficult for you to recognize that "as far as the east is from the west" so far is "the oral law" from the law of God ... they are the expressions of totally different minds.


To continue, after explaining that the Talmud really flourished in Babylon, since the Persian rulers were tolerant of it, Rodkinson then says on page 21:

 

"And so the Talmud became a vast sea, and its waves rose with might. R. Ashi (355-427) saw, therefore, that THE TIME HAD COME FOR REVISING, SYSTEMATIZING AND CONCLUDING IT, when he came to restore the college of Sura (Matha Mekhasia), which had fallen into decay on the death of Rabh."


So here was a man who in effect said:

 

"Okay, we've now got enough oral laws. Let's revise and edit them so that we can CONCLUDE the whole thing. We don't need any more input after this."


I could continue to present quotation after quotation to show that this whole oral law is nothing more than HUMAN IDEAS AND UNINSPIRED AND CONFLICTING COMMENTARIES on statements from the Bible.


It is exactly as the opening sentence of the book tells us ... the oral law consists of nothing more than the teachings of the learned men and their specific commentaries on texts in the Bible.

 

AT NO STAGE IS THERE EVER A HINT THAT SOMETHING WAS "ORALLY PRESERVED FROM THE TIME OF MOSES AND PASSED ON" FROM ONE GENERATION TO THE NEXT!


That is really SO OBVIOUS from the fact that everything is always attributed to a specific leader or teacher. HE TAUGHT that ..., or HE SAID that ..., etc.. When cases are documented, then the source of this law or of that teaching is always one or other of the rabbis. It doesn't go further back than some teacher who is not mentioned in the Bible itself. When the claim IS made that a certain teaching comes from Moses or from some other biblical figure, then for such assertions NO PROOF is ever provided. And in many cases those very things are in conflict with clear statements in the Bible.


For anyone reading the oral law, the thing which will probably make the greatest impression is the endless stream of CONTRADICTIONS! The attempts at reconciling these contradictions are absolutely unbelievable; but that is what Rodkinson has told us to expect.



Furthermore, we cannot trust the writings of even the best-known of ancient Jewish historians, Josephus. Let's just look at one example here from Josephus, who himself was also a Pharisee, and steeped in the traditions of the elders.


In his book "Antiquities of the Jews", Josephus wrote the following about Solomon in Book 8, Chapter 7, Section 8 (209):

 

8. (209) So Jeroboam was elevated by these words of the prophet; and being a young man, {e} of a warm temper, and ambitious of greatness, he could not be quiet; and when he had so great a charge in the government, and called to mind what had been revealed to him by Ahijah, he endeavoured to persuade the people to forsake Solomon, to make a disturbance, and to bring the government over to himself; (210) but when Solomon understood his intention and treachery, he sought to catch him and kill him; but Jeroboam was informed of it beforehand, and fled to Shishak, the king of Egypt, and there abode till the death of Solomon; by which means he gained these two advantages, to suffer no harm from SOLOMON, and to be preserved for the kingdom. (211) So Solomon died when he was already an old man, HAVING REIGNED EIGHTY YEARS, and lived ninety-four. {f} He was buried in Jerusalem, having been superior to all other kings in happiness, and riches, and wisdom, excepting that when he was growing older, he was deluded by women, and transgressed the law; concerning which transgressions, and the miseries which befell the Hebrews thereby, I think proper to discourse at another opportunity. (my emphasis)


To preserve the context, I have here quoted the whole paragraph, in which Josephus claims that Solomon reigned EIGHTY YEARS! This is in blatant, open opposition to the Bible, which states that Solomon reigned FORTY YEARS!

 

And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was FORTY YEARS. (1 Kings 11:42 AV)


Clearly the Pharisee Josephus was not telling the truth when he boldly stated that Solomon had reigned 80 years. There are MANY examples of such discrepancies with biblical facts in the writings of Josephus.


The point is this: not only did the so-called "sages" simply make up the things that are written in the Talmud, but even the Jewish historian Josephus did the same thing. Josephus didn't do much of a job at "accurately preserving" how long Solomon had reigned.


To get back to us today:


There are people in the Church of God who claim that the Jews preserve "the oral law" in addition to the Old Testament. Now think about that for a while!


IF there really was SOME TRUTH which God WANTED preserved, and which the Jews WERE preserving ... THEN WHY ARE WE IN THE CHURCH OF GOD NOT MAKING A DILIGENT STUDY OF ALL OF THE ORAL LAW WHICH THE JEWS ARE SUPPOSEDLY PRESERVING at God's instruction? How can we possibly have the attitude of saying:


1) YES, the Jews ARE faithfully preserving some oral law.

2) BUT NO, we aren't really interested in studying that oral law ... unless there is a snippet here or there that we can use to support our own ideas?


How can we possibly bestow the judgment "FAITHFULLY PRESERVING THE ORAL LAW OF GOD" without so much as making even the slightest effort to examine what that "oral law" is all about? We don't do that with the writings of the Catholic Church ... so how can we do it with the writings of the Jewish Church? Are we afraid to put the "oral law" to the test?


I have taken the trouble and the time to read for myself in this "oral law", something the majority of you have up to this point very likely not yet done. Yet many of you have firm opinions about this oral law. That is something I find amazing ... you have an opinion about the oral law without ever so much as having read at least ten or more consecutive pages of this oral law. You are (in many cases) convinced of certain things about this oral law ... yet you don't make the effort to prove for yourself whether your convictions in this regard are an accurate reflection of the facts. You hold your convictions about the oral law "on faith". If this is the case for you, then I will tell you that you have a BLIND faith as far as the oral law of the Jews is concerned.


What I have shown you in this section is that what the Jews call "the oral law" is nothing more than a collection of the confused and contradictory ideas of men.


Also, I have shown you the words of a JEWISH scholar! Michael Rodkinson was thoroughly versed in the customs and traditions of his own people. He had edited the English edition of the Babylonian Talmud. He had later written a series of volumes on the history of the Talmud. And his open statements and explanations about the Talmud, which I have quoted above, stand above question.


            AND I HAVE NOT MISQUOTED MICHAEL RODKINSON!


From these clear statements by Michael Rodkinson about the Talmud and about "the oral law" and about the traditions of the Jews it becomes clear that the Jewish religion is nothing more than a collection of HUMANLY DEVISED IDEAS! And that is basically what all paganism is ... it is humanly devised ideas about God and about religion and about how to serve God. As such, Judaism doesn't really differ all that much from the religion of Baal! If this statement offends you, I suggest that you personally take the time to study the oral law of the Jews for yourself, and carefully compare it with the Bible. If you are not prepared to do this, then how can you possibly have an opinion on the subject?


Now let us look at the message I referred to at the start of this article, the Jewish claim that the Passover in Egypt was eaten at the beginning of the 15th of Nisan. This is in a message from Mr. Mark Kaplan of the United Church of God.


Here are the background facts.




THE JEWISH VIEW OF THE PASSOVER, AS EXPOUNDED BY MARK KAPLAN


During April 1997 Mr. David Cinardo of the Phoenix East UCG congregation sent a question about the Passover to Mr. Kaplan. To this question Mr. Kaplan sent a reply on May 1. In his reply Mr. Kaplan stated the following:

 

"There is no debate in the Jewish community concerning the plain facts that the Passover lamb was slaughtered at the end of the fourteenth of Abib and eaten on the very beginning of the fifteenth, the beginning of the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The matter is not debatable. Years ago, Mr. Armstrong determined from his understanding of material in the Synoptic Gospels that a position should be taken on the chronology of Exodus 12 that is actually in opposition to all competent authorities and to Jewish practice. We tried to correct the problem in 1978.

 

Since that time, the CGI community has taught this matter correctly. We thought that we had succeeded in solving the problem in 1990. Excellent material was published and a video tape was distributed to the DELS lectures." [end of quotation]


In response to this reply by Mr. Kaplan, a member of the Randburg, South Africa UCG congregation, Mr. Richard Moore, sent another question to Mr. Kaplan on May 5. Mr. Moore wrote:

 

"First you state that there is no debate amongst the Jews about when the Passover lamb is slain to be eaten etc. I quote from a paper by Frank Nelte in which he has quoted the Jews as follows: ... "


... and then Mr. Moore quoted sections from The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (UJE), copyright 1942, and from The Encyclopedia Judaica (EJ) of 1974, quotes which I have presented in my article "When Should We Observe the Passover".


To this message Mr. Kaplan responded on the same day, May 5 (California is 10 hours behind South Africa ... so when Mr. Kaplan composed his message, it was already May 6 for Mr. Moore in South Africa).


In his response Mr. Kaplan wrote:

 

"Thanks for your note. The UJE article has been misquoted. Please check the original source and prove this for yourself. After you have read the article for yourself, you will see that there is no disagreement among the Jews concerning the biblical instructions as regarding killing the lamb at the end of the fourteenth and eating it at the beginning of the fifteenth. There was a disagreement regarding how early at the end of the fourteenth to begin killing the lamb. An extreme view would start after noon. Some would argue that one should wait until it is almost the fifteenth. The standard practice was to begin at 3 PM on the fourteenth, which is when Christ died. Please let me know if you are unable to obtain a UJE so as to prove that the article has been misquoted."


So Mr. Kaplan has stated that I misquoted the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia! But I have NOT MISQUOTED AT ALL!


Here is the entire paragraph, from which I had quoted. It is exactly as it appears in the UJE in the article "PASCHAL LAMB" on page 406 of Volume 8. All the punctuation is as it appears in the article; only in order to highlight the sentence I quoted, and which Mr. Kaplan accuses me of misquoting, I will CAPITALIZE that whole sentence. Here is the whole paragraph:

 

"This story of the first paschal lamb, as related in the Bible, became the pattern for the observance of Passover during the period of the Temple, but with a few modifications. Thus the sacrifice took place in the sanctuary and the blood was sprinkled upon the altar. THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES HAD A DISPUTE AS TO THE TIME WHEN THE SLAUGHTERING SHOULD TAKE PLACE; THE FORMER HELD IT SHOULD BE IN THE LAST THREE HOURS BEFORE SUNSET, THE LATTER, BETWEEN SUNSET AND NIGHTFALL. While the sacrifices were being made, the Levites sang Hallel Psalms; these psalms were later sung by the participants in the paschal meal, and many of them glorified the Exodus and the significance of the festival. With the destruction of the Second Temple the Jews ceased to sacrifice the paschal lamb, and only the lamb-bone on the Seder table recalls it; the Samaritans have retained the ancient rite to the present day." (UJE, Vol. 8, page 406)


What Mr. Kaplan really SHOULD have done is:


            A) Present my quotation from UJE;

            B) Present the correct quotation from UJE;

            C) Highlight where my quotation supposedly differs from the source document.

 

THIS MR. KAPLAN HAS NOT DONE! INSTEAD, HE SIMPLY CLAIMED THAT I WAS "MISQUOTING" THE ENCYCLOPEDIA!


He expected Mr. Moore to simply accept his assertion that I was misquoting ... but he did not provide any proof. So look at the above paragraph from the UJE.


Where have I misquoted this JEWISH reference work? I have not misquoted at all! Mr. Kaplan's claim that I misquoted the UJE is simply contrary to the facts.




THE FACTS ARE:


1) The UJE points out that THE PHARISEES kept "their" Passover in the last three hours before sunset (i.e. from about 3:00 p.m. to about 6:00 p.m.). That is clearly THE END OF THE DAY! When the sun set, then the 14th day had ended!


2) The UJE points out that THE SADDUCEES kept the passover BETWEEN SUNSET AND NIGHTFALL! Since a day starts with sunset, therefore the period "between sunset and nightfall" must be THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY! There is no other option.


3) The UJE specifically states that the Pharisees and the Sadducees "HAD A DISPUTE" over the timing of the Passover. But that dispute had NOTHING TO DO WITH "NOON" as a possible start for the time of the Passover! The UJE mentions TWO specific periods of time: for the Pharisees it mentions BEFORE sunset and for the Sadducees it mentions AFTER sunset! Mr. Kaplan's introduction of "noon" as one extreme view has nothing at all to do with the CORRECT quotation I have presented from the UJE.


4) It is a fact that Jesus Christ kept the Passover with His disciples between sunset and nightfall, at the same time when the Sadducees kept it according to this Universal Jewish Encyclopedia.


5) The information I presented earlier from Michael Rodkinson about the history of the Talmud also makes clear that the Pharisees did not succeed in kicking the Sadducees out of positions of influence until the time of Simon b. Shetah, long after the ministry of Jesus Christ. Recall also the quote where Rodkinson refers to the Sadducees as "THE FOES" of the Pharisees!


6) Michael Rodkinson has also pointed out that the Pharisees are the ones who rejected the literal meaning of Old Testament Scriptures in favour of figurative meanings.


7) The UJE's statement that the Sadducees kept the Passover "between sunset and nightfall", and therefore AT THE START OF THE 14TH , is simply an honest statement of the facts ... as it was at the time of Christ's ministry. Mr. Kaplan's assertion that ...

 

"After you have read the article for yourself, you will see that THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT AMONG THE JEWS concerning the biblical instructions as regarding killing the lamb at the end of the fourteenth and eating it at the beginning of the fifteenth."


... is simply not true!


Today there is no disagreement amongst the religious Jews regarding when they observe their Pesach, but DURING THE FIRST CENTURY A.D. there was indeed a disagreement, as the UJE article plainly states.


8) Several years ago, around 1990, when WCG was planning to change the observance of the Passover and to twist the historic facts, they realized that they could not argue with the fact that the expression "between the evenings" (see Exodus 12:6) refers to the time between sunset and nightfall ... just as the Sadducees understood it to be.


THEREFORE the only course of action open to WCG was to claim that the day does not start and end at sunset, but rather that it starts and ends at total darkness. In that way they then tried to assert that the Passover in Egypt took place at THE END of the 14th, because the 14th would only have ended with total darkness that night.


But even those who wanted to distort the truth about the Passover (i.e. WCG) realized that there was no way they could claim that God's instruction to kill the Passover "between the evenings" could be construed to mean any time BEFORE sunset!


Let's continue with Mr. Kaplan's response to Mr. Moore's questions. Next Mr. Kaplan wrote:

 

"The EJ article was only partially quoted and applied incorrectly. The EJ was written to include a secular audience and was dominated by secular scholars. When it covers the Holy Days, the pattern is to cover the traditional material, and then to explain what is clearly labeled, "The Critical View." The Critical View section gives the opinion of secular scholars who do not accept the divine authority of scriptural explanations for the origin of the Holy Days. The Critical View is not the view of "Jewish" authorities but of modern secular scholarship. .....

 

No competent secular scholar, however, including any of the ones in the EJ, would deny that the biblical instructions call for the sacrifice of the Passover lamb at the end of the fourteenth, and for its eating at the beginning of the fifteenth. The Critical View was not offered to try to reinterpret the biblical command, but rather to explain its origins to people who will not accept the biblical explanations for the origins of the Holy Days." [end of quote]


COMMENTS: Of course, the article is only "PARTIALLY" quoted ... it is several pages of small print in its entirety. What do you expect ... the whole, complete article?


Yes, the quote is from the section labelled "CRITICAL VIEW". So what? Does that make it untrue? No, it doesn't make it untrue!


First of all, the scholars who wrote this article in the EJ "ARE" most assuredly "Jewish" ... the article entitled "Passover" was most emphatically NOT written by a "non-Jew"! And the view expressed in this section "Critical View" is the view of certain JEWS!


Next, it is patently UNTRUE to imply that the "other" Jewish scholars (i.e. those who don't qualify for the term "secular scholars") somehow "ACCEPT THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURAL EXPLANATIONS"! Those "non-secular" scholars don't accept "divine authority" any more than the secular scholars ... what they really accept is THEIR TRADITIONS! And they accept "FIGURATIVE" interpretations of the Scriptures, as Rodkinson has so clearly explained.


To the RELIGIOUS Jewish scholars Jesus Christ says very plainly:

 

FULL WELL YE REJECT THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD, THAT YE MAY KEEP YOUR OWN TRADITION! (Mark 7:9)


To the RELIGIOUS Jewish scholars the Apostle Paul says:

 

FOR UNTIL THIS DAY REMAINETH THE SAME VAIL UNTAK