Shem-Tov
therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things, and do not do them. Matthew 23:3
They – You may want to digest this one sitting down. Open your favorite English Bible to this passage. Notice that Yeshua is giving instructions about the necessity of observing Torah. If we read this verse in English or in Greek, it appears as if Yeshua is telling His disciples to follow the commands of the rabbis, but not to do them in hypocritical ways. This is the usual standard interpretation of the verse. It is still a difficulty for those who have been taught that the Torah doesn’t apply to Christians, but once you see the real place of the Torah, it looks as if Yeshua is also encouraging compliance with the teachings of the rabbis. In this case, that would mean the teachings of the oral Torah and the additional instructions provided by rabbinic thought.
But there’s just one tiny, tiny problem. Nehemia Gordon investigated this Greek text by comparing it to a Hebrew text of the gospel of Matthew preserved by a 14th Century Spanish Jew named Shem-Tov Ibn Shaprut. Textual investigation of this copy demonstrates that it faithfully retains the wording of an original Hebrew gospel of Matthew. That conclusion is further substantiated by remarks of the early Christian church fathers and considerable analysis of the Hebrew syntax and grammar of Matthew’s account. When we sort through all the scholarly examination, we discover that the Hebrew text of this verse doesn’t read “all that they tell you.” The verse in Hebrew says, “Therefore, all that he says to you, do and observe, but according to their reforms and their precedents do not do, because they talk but they do not do.” In other words, Yeshua is telling His disciples to stick with Moses. Do what the Torah tells you to do, but don’t follow the opinions, additions, reforms or patterns established by the rabbis.
This is a very big deal! It provides evidence that supports what we already know about the teaching of Yeshua. He called the people back to God’s Word. He wasn’t as much a reformer as He was fundamentalist. Over and over, He points back to the Hebrew Scriptures as the only source of faith and practice. His commentary on Scripture always returns to God’s original intention. We see it in His remarks on marriage and divorce, on tithing, on the treatment of enemies and on the purpose of Israel’s calling. Now, in this Hebrew gospel of Matthew, we find strong support for single Torah observance. Life is to be lived by the Book, not by the accumulation of theological opinion that surrounds the Book.
For those who recognize the fundamental place of Torah in the life of the believer, this is clarifying news. Many other passages come into focus. Even Paul’s remarks take on a new emphasis. For those who have not crossed the gap between Torah and “grace,” this discovery might take some of the pressure off. Either way, isn’t it nice to know that our Savior was a Biblical conservative? Gives us direction, doesn’t it?
Topical Index: Torah, seat of Moses, Shem-Tov, Matthew 23:3
I have a question (okay, 2): What exactly makes up the Torah? and Is what we have in our Bible simply the Torah or is it the Torah plus commentary?
I was reading or researching something the other day as I was reading Leviticus (towards the end but I can’t remember where or what, sorry), and I read that parts of Leviticus were added later by Rabbis for whatever reason. Do you know anything about this? If it’s true, would this still be part of the Torah that Yeshua speaks of in this passage? Or would this be an addition?
If it’s considered addition, then we’d really have to be close observers of what is said, even there, to make sure it’s Moses’ law as opposed to a rabbinical clarification or addition. Or does that not really matter?
Curious, Amanda
We’re trying to work through this, too, at the moment, Amanda so any thoughts anyone has would be appreciated.
From our understanding Yeshua, in Matthew 22 quotes a passage from either a tractate or other text source that wasn’t included in today’s Hebrew Scriptures – “But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” Interestingly, Yeshua seems to be saying that this passage is Scripture… are we reading this right, Skip?
Not necessarily. What He says is that the scribes do not understand the full implications of the Word. If they did understand, they would draw the same conclusions that He elucidates. This does not mean He is quoting another source. He could very well be giving His commentary on the theme of the resurrection as applied to the issue of marriage.
Officially, Torah is the first 5 books as collected and compiled in the Masoretic text. However, in the first century, “Torah” practically was a short-hand way of designating the entire Tanakh, the Hebrew Scriptures. However, there is some question about the inclusion of certain books that now appear in the Bible (read Lee MacDonald, The Canon) even in the time of Yeshua. The additional material of the rabbis was passed down orally for centuries, eventually written (as it is today) about the 4th – 6th centuries.
WOW! Skip, I sat down as you suggested, but I still fell out of my chair!!
This IS a very big deal! It is huge! This is the stuff of conspiracy theories and mass population control. Take a text, the truth, the word of God and make the slightest of changes to accommodate your political agenda and support the advancement of a new religion – Christianity. This should be preached in every Christian church on Sunday – sadly it won’t happen.
John, Some of us believe in advancing a new religion — Christianity, since the word indicate those who follow Christ the Messiah. At that time, it was a “new” religion. Now, we just need get our Greek lexicon and figure if this “new” is “kainos” or “neos”, as in “New” Covenant.
Skip, the problem may never have arisen if the concept of “sola scriptura” was applied and the Old Testament recognized as providing the interpretive principles for the New.
Yes, if the history of Christian theology actually treated the Tanakh as God’s eternal word, then a translation that suggests any schism between “Old” and “New” testaments would have been rejected along with the idea that rabbinic commentary carried the weight of Scripture. Sadly, this is not what happened, either in Judaism or in Christianity. If Yeshua is truly calling His audience back to the original Tanakh, the Torah given by God, then both Judaism and contemporary Christianity must shift – and grow closer together in the process.
BTW, I usually allow only contributors to the community to offer blog posts, so I hope that this will encourage you to take the steps to help support this world-wide learning community. John would tell you that there are readers in 63 countries. Amazing.
Ian, I understand that the label, being a Christian, was assigned to the disciples or followers of the Messiah. But, I don’t see any Biblical support, or even a hint, that would suggest that Yeshua or the disciples, interpreted God’s intention as the creation and establishment of a brand “new” religion with the coming of the Messiah. They were all Torah observant and they remained that way following the resurrection. So, I don’t think we can interpret the birth, death and resurrection of Yeshua as God’s design for a brand new religion, but rather a renewing of God’s instructions and the unfolding of His progressive revelation to Mankind with the arrival of the promised Messiah. So, a brand new religion, one called Christianity, that seeks to separate obedience to the Torah in favor of grace alone, and distance itself from the authority of Torah, with the emphasis placed upon the New Covenant, is in error. If we need a religious label, perhaps we should adopt the one the Apostle Paul used, and call ourselves followers of the Way? (Acts 14:14)
Right on! and just wait until we start to explore Hebrew verbs in the first week of May. It’s not just a call to return to the original. Hebraically, it’s impossible to imagine God’s revelation otherwise. Moses-Torah-Yeshua is one continuous thought, not separate but related subjects. More to come.
Skip,
This is truly amazing. I remember back in 2004 when I first started getting Today’s Word. I had just embraced Torah and we had several discussions about the Hebraic roots of our faith and keeping Torah. Today’s Word was insightful but still Christian. Now, look at it’s transformation and all the people returning to Torah through the message of Today’s Word. My trust in Yeshua and our Father is so strengthened by this.
Thank you!
“If we need a religious label, perhaps we should adopt the one the Apostle Paul used, and call ourselves followers of the Way? (Acts 14:14)”
Following haDerech would of course been a convention very well understood within traditional Hebraic thought … such a description only under scores the fact that “the path” was always part of the covenant and consequently we don’t need to manufacture a “separation” between old and new!
Then again perhaps this “connection” was far to overt for early church fathers and hence was one of the first things to get swept away as Christianity muscled in and pushed Judaism out!
The conversation (though difficult for some) is relevant and important. This idea of a “new religion” is the foundation upon which all heretical replacement theology sits upon. New religion … new Israel … new G_D … oye vey! … Sometimes I wonder if modern believers even understand the former dynamic and what transpired with folks such as Marcion … and on and on …. OK … I will not get on a roll and will just let it end here! 🙂
There is another classic example of this in Matthew 15, when challenged by the Pharisees about his disciples eating grain without going through the Pharisaic ritual hand-washing ceremony first.
(I tried tracking back the Greek word for tradition – παράδοσις paradosis – through the LXX but it only appears in Jeremiah and even then I’m not having much luck in cross referencing it to the Hebrew, such are the differences in the languages (and even the verse references appear to be several chapters out, e.g. Jeremiah 34:2 in the English/Hebrew is Jer 41:2 in the LXX)).
Nevertheless, the implication is clear. The Pharisees added their own commandments (ma’asim and takanot) to the Torah (and in some cases substituted their own instructions in preference to those from Moses) and it was this that Yeshua took exception too.
Later on in the passage He explains Himself further.
The Pharisees don’t have a monopoly on this, though. The church has also done a very good job of this for the last 1700-odd years. How many church doctrines are based on man’s tradition rather than scriptural truth? I can think of a few…
In another account of this conversation, a translator’s note is added, saying “In saying this, He declared all foods clean” so most Christians stop reading here and think, “Great, I can eat whatever I like, now. Mmmm – BLT – Yummy!” This is clearly not what Yeshua was saying, though. In fact, He clarifies it himself…
(How we ever figured that this was a discussion about dietary laws is beyond me, but I digress).
The whole discussion is about ritual purity, and the Pharisees had a very different view of ritual purity (and the necessity for it) than Moses, or Yeshua for that matter. But Yeshua takes it further and puts a practical application on Moses’ teaching. It’s not just about the outward appearance of purity, but even more important is to have a pure heart.
Hmmm, it seems to me that all of those things listed are directly related to the 10 commandments, are they not? So in other words, purity of heart has to do with obedience to Torah, not the traditions of men. When we violate Torah, we defile ourselves. To come into God’s presence, purification is necessary, through repentance (true repentance) and receiving God’s gracious gift of forgiveness through the blood of the Lamb of God.
But this is not a once-only affair. Each time a man was defiled externally, he had to undergo the prescribed purification. This is supposed to teach us about our hearts – that each time our hearts are defiled (remember? “…I say to you that if you lust after a woman, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart”; in other words, “it’s the though that counts”), we need to go through the process of purification in order to come into His presence.
In the words of the Psalmist, “Create in me a clean heart, Oh Lord, and renew a right spirit within me”. In other words, “Forgive me, cleanse me, teach me to live in obedience to your Torah”. As we have recently discussed though, it’s not the destination, it’s the journey. A lifelong journey of learning, making mistakes, repentance, learning, and all the while growing into a deeper relationship with our Lord.
Shabbat Shalom.
“How we ever figured that this was a discussion about dietary laws is beyond me, but I digress”
Hi Rodney,
I think it is a discussion about dietary laws, and when Jesus says in Matt 15:10-11: “What goes into the mouth does not make a man unclean, ” he means it.
At this point Jesus is using “satirical” language (like we have seen in the language of other Hebrew prophets), taking the moral high ground, and attacking the Pharisees and scribes for their hypocrisy with “venomous” language.
These Pharisees and scribes are highly educated men, like lawyers today, who are abusing the law, and Jesus is not very happy with them.
When Jesus uses the metaphor of the “sewer” regarding ritual cleanliness, he is making a value judgement on the Pharisees and scribes and their interpretation of ritual cleanliness. It is “BS.”
The point Jesus seems to be making is that “evil intentions come from the heart” and make “man ” unclean; but ritual sin is more like running a red light today. Not a good thing.
In short, ritual sin is not a violation of the “heart,” like murder, adultery, fornication, theft, perjury, or slander.
Before any discussion of the meaning of Mark 7:19, you must read Tim Hegg’s analysis of the unusual Greek construction.
http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Mark7.19ShortNote.pdf
Hi Skip,
I read Tim Hegg’s analysis, but think I’m making the same point.
That Jesus can make the point that not washing your hands before you eat is not the same kind of sin as “sins against the heart.”
And that these scribes don’t practice what they preach.
Without “negating” the need for dietary laws.
It would be like saying that murder is not the same kind of unethical behavior as running a red light.
Therefore it is okay to run red lights.
In fairness to Tim Hegg.
I don’t think he sees what I referred to as the satirical aspect of the language.
Michael, we also need to be aware of the 1st century Hebrew definition of “food”. It was well understood that anything declared unclean by Torah was not food. Clean meat that was given for food could become unclean (e.g. an animal that died of natural causes or was accidentally killed) but unclean animals were not included in the scope of “food”. Therefore, even if Yeshua “declared all foods clean”, that could only mean that which was already understood to be food.
The Pharisaic teaching was that, if one didn’t follow the correct ritual of hand-washing, saying the right blessings and doing it the prescribed number of times and in the right order, then one was unclean and any food one touched was rendered unclean also. This was but one example where Yeshua took the Pharisees to task for adding to the Torah and unnecessarily burdening the people with rituals that had no spiritual value (the first was at the wedding in Cana, but that was a little less overt). Of course, washing one’s hands to ensure that they are clean before eating is basic hygiene, no-one is disputing that, but it is the ritual aspect that was in scope here.
Hi Rodney,
Rodney: we also need to be aware of the 1st century Hebrew definition of “food”. It was well understood that anything declared unclean by Torah was not food.
Mike: Got it.
Rodney: Clean meat that was given for food could become unclean (e.g. an animal that died of natural causes or was accidentally killed) but unclean animals were not included in the scope of “food”.
Mike: Got it.
Rodney: Therefore, even if Yeshua “declared all foods clean”, that could only mean that which was already understood to be food.
Mike: Got it.
Rodney: The Pharisaic teaching was that, if one didn’t follow the correct ritual of hand-washing, saying the right blessings and doing it the prescribed number of times and in the right order, then one was unclean and any food one touched was rendered unclean also.
Mike: Yes, that makes perfect sense.
Rodney: This was but one example where Yeshua took the Pharisees to task for adding to the Torah and unnecessarily burdening the people with rituals that had no spiritual value (the first was at the wedding in Cana, but that was a little less overt).
Mike: No, that does not make sense. Do we have any evidence for this interpretation?
Mike: In Matthew 15, Jesus is questioning the “spirit” of certain traditions of the Pharisees, not the “letter.”
Mike: In Matthew 15, Jesus seems extremely angry with the Pharisees:
Matthew 15:7 Hypocrites! (He calls them) It was YOU Isaiah meant when he so rightly prophesied:
This people honours me only with lip service,
while their hearts are far from me.
The worship they offer me is worthless;
the doctrines they teach are only human regulations.
Mike: Jesus is not angry because these human regulations are incorrect, rather he is angry because these Pharisees lack the spirit of brotherly love and compassion that is required to enter the Kingdom of God. And they are smart enough to know better.
Mike: To make matters worse, these Pharisees are criticizing friends and followers of Jesus, some of whom are poor people with dirty hands.
Mike: So Jesus plays with the meanings of clean (legal vrs spiritual) while defending his followers and putting the Pharisees in their place.
To many Jewish ears, what Yeshua says here would be going against halakhic authority established in Deuteronomy 17:8-13, since in the previous verse He states the Scribes and Pharisees who “sit in the seat of Moshe,” which would make this binding on Messianic Jews today and to “…not turning aside to the right or the left from the verdict…”
Still there are those who feel that Yeshua “had already initiated a process of transferring halakhic authority from the cohanim, judges and rabbis to the emissaries and later leaders of the Messianic Community” (JNTC; David H. Stern). This comes from Matthew 18:18-20 where if the p’shat (plain sense) interpretation is taken in this passage it is all about making legal judgments, and halakhic authority, not prayer. In the previous three verses (15-18), Yeshua is speaking to those who have authority to regulate Messianic communal life, and commissions them to establish a New Covenant halakhah.
Skip, (and others), what are your thoughts on this?
Knotty issues, and a good analysis of the problem, Fred. IMO, Nehemiah Gordon seems to be correct. He is not a believer in Yeshua as the Messiah, but he is a very astute biblical scholar. His analysis of the Shem Tov Matthew suggests that Yeshua is calling his audience to a strict Torah observance, not one that includes the traditions of the scribes, accumulated over many centuries. You can see this same emphasis over and over in his commentary and teachings. That does not mean that the Jewish sages have no value. Of course they have value, in the same way that theologians, the church fathers and pastors have value. But not Scriptural authority. One Torah, as it stands, sufficient for faith and practice. Of course, now we have to work all this out within the culture of the first century were halachah and haggadah were the usual practice.
Fred, a couple of comments.
OK, so firstly we’re talking about capital punishment in the case of idolatry.
Now we come to the passage you were referring to. Remember it is in the context of the above, referring to judgments against those who have committed sins that require capital punishment.
So this passage is not about halakha but about settling legal disputes, questions of law, especially pertaining to cases where capital punishment was prescribed. Such rulings were the job of the Levites and the judge. Could this principal apply to matters of daily life? Perhaps, but it would not have required recourse to the temple and the judge, rather it would likely have been dealt with on a local level (but the authority still rested with the Levites who were to be the teachers of Torah all throughout the nation).
The Pharisees had no such authority, not being Levites (but rather a class of rabbi’s that were installed under a political arrangement with Rome to “keep the peace” and discourage rebellion against the empire). The Saducees were Levites and were in charge of the temple service and the High Priest was always a Saducee. They did not accept the validity of the Pharisaic traditions (which was a source of conflict as you can imagine) and had a few doctrinal issues of their own (which Yeshua also corrected them on, from time to time) but they had been stripped of their “halakhic authority” by Rome.
In Matthew 18, Yeshua is doing a midrash on this passage from Deuteronomy:
Yeshua is saying that the principle embodied in Deuteronomy pertaining to capital punishment has wider application. Again, we see the requirement for “two of three witnesses”. In other words, those whom you take to your brother must have witnessed the offense for themselves and be aware that an offense was caused (hearsay is not evidence). If the matter is still not resolved, go to the community and seek resolution publicly. If that still doesn’t work, have no more to do with the offender (put him “out of the camp”).
We know that “church” = “ἐκκλησία ekklēsia” which only mean “those assembled for a purpose”, or in the culture in which this was taught, those assembled at the synagogue.
I’m not sure that this is about a transfer of halakhic authority, but rather about the practical application of what was already put in place by Moses (and subsequently corrupted and subverted by the Pharisees).
BTW, I’m not suggesting that all Pharisaic/Rabbinic traditions are worthless or invalid, and neither was Yeshua. Some are useful to teach us more about the Word and about our Saviour (for example, some of the traditions surrounding the Passover seder). The ones Yeshua took issue with were the ones that added to, subtracted from or replaced Torah and unnecessarily burdened the people with meaningless rituals, for the sake of outward appearances of piety instead of dealing with the heart (and, sadly, the church has done pretty much the same thing over the years).
Shalom,
Love the dialogue … 🙂
I have found the Shem Tob to be quite interesting … the text itself … Howard’s work – McDaniels work .. et. al … represent some really good stuff and one can go for a real deep dive most assuredly! But … despite the high confidence level that the contained Hebrew text is not a medieval concoction, we can not definitively declare this work to be the “Hebrew Text of Matthew” or am I incorrect?! I am frankly surprised that no one commented upon the referenced source … it raises many, many issues 🙂
It is ironic as well that this “Hebrew Text” is contained in a work designed to REFUTE Yeshua as Mashiach of Yisrael! Like the outputs of the early church fathers … this work as well needs to be carefully viewed regarding motive and what potential influences said motive(s) may have on the actual text itself!
Anyway such discussion ultimately sheds light on the need to understand the text, its handling and of course challenge/validate the interpretations which have been handed down as indisputable fact … sounds like Skip … LOL
b/t/w Skip … in your commentary “The Logical Implication – Monday, April 20th, 2009” you concluded:
“Seems pretty straightforward, doesn’t it? If there’s an error in the logic, please point it out. Yeshua does not say that the teachings are set aside. He says that the hypocrisy that characterized some of the Pharisees must be eradicated, but we are to observe and do everything they taught. That means scrupulous adherence to the written Word of God and the body of traditions that accompany it.” and ….
One Plus One – Friday, September 25th, 2009:
“When Rav Sha’ul asserts he believes everything that is in accordance with the Law and the prophets, he positions himself among the Pharisees who accepted both the written and oral Torah as God’s holy word.”
I point these commentaries out because those that are aware of the culture and the societal framework of Israel realize that we simply can not ignore the Oral component. And I suspect Skip that you have not come 180 degrees by any stretch! 🙂
In any event brother Skip you, and many of us in the wilderness, have worked diligently to instill within the TW community the need to understand and recognize the context, culture, etc of Israel regarding the meaning of the The Word and sadly what abandoning it has meant for Christianity. An important aspect of this context and culture is wrapped up within the oral tradition. I do not necessarily think that your commentary today argues against past commentaries completely but I for one would like to know (in light of today’s posting) if your position regarding the oral tradition remains the same?
It would seem that this translation goes beyond the traditional view that Yeshua told the talmidim to ignore just the hypocrisy of the Pharisees … in fact this “STT” interpretation could potentially be viewed as challenging the oral tradition all together … no? … now enter the Karaite Jew aspect of this conversation … LOL!
Furthermore Fred brings up a very good point: Yeshua warns the leaders that the Kingdom would be handed over to others … the talmidim (other Jews) who would bring forth the fruits … and when viewed in the context of today’s commentary we may see some very startling implications.
So … as a general question … if the talmidim were to walk in accordance with written Torah what can we say about the evolving Messianic Community regarding halakhic practice, rulings, corrections, etc. which would naturally be dealt with in the context of a societal framework … i.e. the “kingdom”? Without a codification method we would ultimately be left with everyone (purporting to be led by Ruach HaKodesh) defining Torah observance or even basic doctrine … (sounds like the thousands of Christian denominations) … as Fred points out it opens up the door to discuss halakhic authority and the framework in which this “tradition” is managed!
Whew …. OK … I am rambling and don’t mean too … but for folks that are thinking about the myriad issues it is wise to take Skip’s advice and … “digest this sitting down”!
Skip … I must admit that this commentary caught me by surprise today!
Thanks for noticing the previous TWs on oral tradition. Yes, the Shem Tov Matthew challenges the oral Torah. Nehemiah Gordon is a Karaite Jew. But I am very impressed by his work – and the work of others you cite. It is quite difficult to believe that the original gospel of Matthew wasn’t written in Hebrew. So, I have no debate on that issue. The question is why the Shem Tov account would include a change that amounts to a challenge of the oral Torah unless it really was in the text. Clearly the Greek gospel does not go in this direction. Again, why not? From the position of later Christian thinkers, we would have expected the Greek gospel to be modified to exclude the possibility of oral Torah, and from the position of Shem Tov, we are shocked to find this. That lends further credibility to its authenticity. In addition, it certainly sounds like other things that Yeshua says. This is an enormous puzzle with serious implications. It is particularly difficult when Sha’ul seems to say that he still follows oral Torah. I haven’t come 180 degrees yet, but the compass point is shifting.
Thanks for the reply Skip … as I stated I was a taken off guard a bit by this commentary. Not to any angst mind you 🙂
“This is an enormous puzzle with serious implications.” … This declaration is true but there are still issues surrounding the origins of the STT manuscript … despite admittedly the viable critical assessments which point to a very early date … as well as its integrity/authenticity!
From a broader perspective let me ask a candid question: “do you think the currently canonized B’rit Chadasha Gospel accounts serve as sufficient when a proper Hebraic context is applied?
I ask because it seems (IMO) that within the existing corpus we have sufficiency to adequately understand and apply The Word in Spirit and Truth according to the eternal covenant. (By no means do I refute the possibility that Yeshua could gift us with more scale removing revelation)
Sadly, because of the different path pursued by the church, we did not get a chance to see how the revelation of HaB’rit Chadasha would have reworked the framework for Messianic Communities in the context of Jewish life and societal conventions. Certainly we can safely surmise that the result would not have been “Christianity” … but what would have been remains the great mystery.
Thanks both Skip and Drew, as you say some “knotty issues,” but my gut says that the advent of the Ruach HaKodesh has much to do with a New Covenant halakha. It is definitely a dig deep, time consuming uncovering in order to substaniate any claims.
Especially since Yeshua is clearly speaking of the “new” covenant in the terms of Jeremiah – a renewed covenant, not a new kid on the block. So, once again, we are thrust back into a reconstitution of the “Old” testament vision. There is no initial arrival of the Ruach HaKodesh after the resurrection. He has been manifest by the Father for centuries. The difference is recalling Israel to its original purpose – and demonstrating once again the authority of that call with an outpouring of God, not on Sinai but at the Temple in the feast.
” for they say things, and do not do them. Matthew 23:3″
Just heard the newscaster say that the technological issue with the oil blowout is hard to understand.
That there hasn’t been a blowout like this in 40 years.
Bad sign for Obama, who was elected as to improve the environment.
one more comment on the Shem Tov study before I go to another call. Gordon suggests that the remainder of the verse, after the instruction to follow “him” (Moses) is in fact a series of Hebrew idioms which are not about hypocrisy but rather about specific rabbinic practices and principles. We will have to look at this later. For the time being, there is NO question in either interpretation that the written Torah is the authoritative document calling all followers to its instructions. The fact that the Christian Church has ignored this clear direction from Yeshua, regardless of the additional insights of the Shem Tov gospel, only show that the orthodoxy of Christianity is hard pressed to find biblical justification on this issue.
Alas … complete agreement! 🙂
Shabbat Shalom
Over my head but at the feet of Jesus and continuing to stay with you guys. I may not understand it all but I sense in my “Gut” that what you are believing and sharing needs my mind, heart and soul’s attention. Thank you for all of your time too in studying and plowing the ground before you as you follow after Him who is Life. God bless
Ditto, Carol. Thanks for sharing.