The Rapture and/or Matthew 13

[runningdude]

It is my understanding that in general, the Rapture is the idea that near the end of time, God will miraculously assume the righteous into heaven, leaving the sinners to “tribulation” on Earth. I also gather that it is mostly a distinctively Protestant idea, and the Catholics tend to take a softer approach.

My question though is how this belief arose, as it seems to perfectly contradict the words of our savior, as quoted in the Gospel of Mathew:

Matthew 13
(as found at: biblebrowser.com/matthew/13-1.htm)

Tares among Wheat

  24Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25“But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26“But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. 27“The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28“And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ 29“But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

…]

The Tares Explained

  36Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.” 37And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. 40“So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. **41“The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43“Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.** *bold emphasis added to 41-43, capitalization original*]

Here in Mathew 13:41-42, Jesus plainly states that at the end of time, the lawless will be bundled off to “the furnace”, and the “RIGHTEOUS” will be the ones left behind. Its seems Jesus words plainly and completely contradict the entire notion of the traditional rapture.

So how did the rapture come to be so popular among certain certain Christian sects?

 

[byeveryword]

It is my understanding that in general, the Rapture is the idea that near the end of time, God will miraculously assume the righteous into heaven, leaving the sinners to “tribulation” on Earth. I also gather that it is mostly a distinctively Protestant idea, and the Catholics tend to take a softer approach.

My question though is how this belief arose, as it seems to perfectly contradict the words of our savior, as quoted in the Gospel of Mathew:

Here in Mathew 13:41-42, Jesus plainly states that at the end of time, the lawless will be bundled off to “the furnace”, and the “RIGHTEOUS” will be the ones left behind. Its seems Jesus words plainly and completely contradict the entire notion of the traditional rapture.

So how did the rapture come to be so popular among certain certain Christian sects?

Tertullian, Methodius and other early church fathers wrote about the catching up of the saints. Your scripture in Matt 13:41-42 seems to be more of a reference to the lake of fire at the very end of the age. Those who are part of the first resurrection are those who are raptured, or caught up.

 

[Dorothy]

It is my understanding that in general, the Rapture is the idea that near the end of time, God will miraculously assume the righteous into heaven, leaving the sinners to “tribulation” on Earth. I also gather that it is mostly a distinctively Protestant idea, and the Catholics tend to take a softer approach.

My question though is how this belief arose, as it seems to perfectly contradict the words of our savior, as quoted in the Gospel of Mathew:

Here in Mathew 13:41-42, Jesus plainly states that at the end of time, the lawless will be bundled off to “the furnace”, and the “RIGHTEOUS” will be the ones left behind. Its seems Jesus words plainly and completely contradict the entire notion of the traditional rapture.

So how did the rapture come to be so popular among certain certain Christian sects?

Go to this site:

catholic.com/library/Rapture.asp

and scroll down to “rapture”.

It was started in the 1900’s by John Nelson Darby.

 

[stevekehl]

My understanding of this parable is that unbelievers and believers will have to coexist with each other, even within congregations. But we should not be concerned with rooting out these unbelievers because it may damage the faith of believers who are close to them. Rather, we wait for the final judgment and the infallable Judge to take care of that. The Rapture has been a doctrine of controversy for a long time. The thing people need to realize is that believing or not believing in the Rapture has no impact on one’s salvation. Personally, I hope the Rapture occurs. Can you imaging being caught up in the air with Jesus!! It makes me smile just thinking about it.

 

[ltwin]

The original poster is referring to the theological concept of “pre-tribulation rapture”. It is the belief that Christ’s Second Coming will occur in two phases. The first phase is commonly called “the rapture”. 1 Thessalonians 4:

15For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,[d] that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18Therefore encourage one another with these words.

Those not caught up will endure seven years of tribulation. They will still have the opportunity to accept Christ, but if they do, they will experience tremendous persecution. At this time, the Anti-Christ will make his appearance on the world state. After seven years of tribulation, Christ will appear to defeat Satan and the Anti-Christ. This will happen at the battle of Armaggedon in the valley of Meggido in the Holy Land.

After this battle, Satan and those who chose to follow him are defeated. The passage in Matthew cited by the original poster would occur after the seven years of tribulation.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

My understanding of this parable is that unbelievers and believers will have to coexist with each other, even within congregations. But we should not be concerned with rooting out these unbelievers because it may damage the faith of believers who are close to them. Rather, we wait for the final judgment and the infallable Judge to take care of that. The Rapture has been a doctrine of controversy for a long time. The thing people need to realize is that believing or not believing in the Rapture has no impact on one’s salvation. Personally, I hope the Rapture occurs. Can you imaging being caught up in the air with Jesus!! It makes me smile just thinking about it.

Nothing makes me smile if Jesus and the Apostles didn’t teach it. Such is the case with the so-called “Rapture,” which is a part of the Dispensationalism taught by John Nelson Darby in the 19th century.

St. Paul is describing what happens at the end of the world, when Jesus comes again, which he and others expected to happen within their lifetimes. Obviously, it didn’t.

There are several good books explaining the biblical meaning and the so-called Rapture…

amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=rapture+olson&x=15&y=21

amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=rapture+currie&x=17&y=17

Both of these authors – Carl Olson and David Currie – are former Protestants who once were true believers in the Rapture.

Jim Dandy

 

[ltwin]

My understanding of this parable is that unbelievers and believers will have to coexist with each other, even within congregations. But we should not be concerned with rooting out these unbelievers because it may damage the faith of believers who are close to them. Rather, we wait for the final judgment and the infallable Judge to take care of that. The Rapture has been a doctrine of controversy for a long time. The thing people need to realize is that believing or not believing in the Rapture has no impact on one’s salvation. Personally, I hope the Rapture occurs. Can you imaging being caught up in the air with Jesus!! It makes me smile just thinking about it.

That is my understanding of the verse as well. Whenever we have a new (or old) family come to our church and they start causing trouble, you hear a lot of this quoted. “Let the wheat and the tares grow together and Jesus will sort them out …”

 

[noprem]

It is my understanding that in general, the Rapture is the idea that near the end of time, God will miraculously assume the righteous into heaven, leaving the sinners to “tribulation” on Earth. My question though is how this belief arose, as it seems to perfectly contradict the words of our savior, as quoted in the Gospel of Mathew: Here in Mathew 13:41-42, Jesus plainly states that at the end of time, the lawless will be bundled off to “the furnace”, and the “RIGHTEOUS” will be the ones left behind.

It directly contradicts Proverbs 2:21,22. “For the upright will live in the land, and the blameless will remain in it; but the wicked will be cut off from the land, and the unfaithful will be torn from it.” (NIV, emphasis added)
The passage also implies that the ‘destiny’ of the righteous is to stay in the land. This in turn agrees with Ps 37:28,29 and many other passages: “… the offspring of the wicked will be cut off; the righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever.”
Far from being taken from the earth, many look forward to living on it forever. How does that “take” you?

So how did the rapture come to be so popular among certain certain Christian sects?

The idea promotes a false sense of security. It leads to the thought of escaping the Tribulation foretold by Jesus at Mt 24:21: “For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now–and never to be equaled again.”
Worse than the Flood, e.g. Who wouldn’t want to avoid that? But he went on to say,
“If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.”
So the “elect” will have to live during those times, not be saved out of them by miracle.

Moreover, you’ll note a reference in this thread to the idea of the timing of the rapture. Some say it will come just before the Tribulation, some say during, others say afterward. Please note that these are mutually exclusive possibilities, yet each is sworn to by one group or another. I prefer to follow the Bible, not men.

 

[ltwin]

The above post really doesn’t address those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. These people believe that “the righteous” will dwell in the land forever - after the tribulation - when there will be new heavens and a new earth. Pulling proof texts out of Proverbs of all places is not the best strategy to refute this theology. The rationale for this viewpoint primarily comes from the Book of Revelation and Daniel.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Who was taken away during the great flood?

 

[noprem]

Who was taken away during the great flood?

Addressed to me? Anyway, the answer is: the bad guys. The good guys (all eight- 1 Peter 3:20) lived on in the earth. Just like Proverbs 2.

 

[noprem]

The above post really doesn’t address those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. These people believe that “the righteous” will dwell in the land forever - after the tribulation - when there will be new heavens and a new earth. Pulling proof texts out of Proverbs of all places is not the best strategy to refute this theology. The rationale for this viewpoint primarily comes from the Book of Revelation and Daniel.

Reminds me of a talk I once had with a “retired Mormon Bishop”. He was talking about the abode of the dead, Book of Mormon style. (It’s quite a busy place.) I showed him Eccl 9:5,10- that the dead know nothing, do nothing. He said, “Well, that’s Ecclesiastes, not the bible!” Is Proverbs in your bible?

I mentioned ‘pre-tribulation rapture’ to point out that there were [at least] three versions of the doctrine, all as I said mutually exclusive. I don’t know any more about it than that it exists, that it’s man-made, and is not in line with Jehovah’s purposes, then or now.
I pointed out to the OP that it’s especially dangerous in that it encourages one merely to sit and wait for miraculous delivery. That course is clearly denied by Mt 7:21-23, 28:19,20, and 24:14. Among many other statements directly from our Lord Jesus. Whom many call God, but whose teachings they ignore.

“All scripture is inspired of God, and profitable for teaching,” said Paul, who did not have the book of Revelation, but whose eschatology was on the mark. He also said “all things written aforetime were for our instruction.” No doubt he would have included the fate of the residents of Jericho and Sodom. Like those of Noah’s day, they (a) were warned about their bad behavior, (b) were promised consequences, (c) continued the behavior, and (d) suffered the consequences.

And Jesus said this, from Mt 24: “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.” (NIV)

Did you notice the ‘great sin’ they were committing then? They just failed to pay attention to the warning (see “consequences”, above). Is there such a warning being given today?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Reminds me of a talk I once had with a “retired Mormon Bishop”. He was talking about the abode of the dead, Book of Mormon style. (It’s quite a busy place.) I showed him Eccl 9:5,10- that the dead know nothing, do nothing. He said, “Well, that’s Ecclesiastes, not the bible!” Is Proverbs in your bible?

I mentioned ‘pre-tribulation rapture’ to point out that there were [at least] three versions of the doctrine, all as I said mutually exclusive. I don’t know any more about it than that it exists, that it’s man-made, and is not in line with Jehovah’s purposes, then or now.
I pointed out to the OP that it’s especially dangerous in that it encourages one merely to sit and wait for miraculous delivery. That course is clearly denied by Mt 7:21-23, 28:19,20, and 24:14. Among many other statements directly from our Lord Jesus. Whom many call God, but whose teachings they ignore.

“All scripture is inspired of God, and profitable for teaching,” said Paul, who did not have the book of Revelation, but whose eschatology was on the mark. He also said “all things written aforetime were for our instruction.” No doubt he would have included the fate of the residents of Jericho and Sodom. Like those of Noah’s day, they (a) were warned about their bad behavior, (b) were promised consequences, (c) continued the behavior, and (d) suffered the consequences.

And Jesus said this, from Mt 24: “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.” (NIV)

Did you notice the ‘great sin’ they were committing then? They just failed to pay attention to the warning (see “consequences”, above). Is there such a warning being given today?

While Paul said scriptures were ‘useful’, or ‘profitable’, it seems to be short of sufficient. Paul also wrote that the Church was the pillar and ground of truth and the place that the manifold wisdom of God may be made known. To me, scriptures cannot be taken on alone. Evidence of many, many denominations, with slight to great differences in doctrines all based on someone’s interpretation outside the Church, support that view.

Read Nehemiah 8 and see how people were caused to understand scriptures. It was through the spiritual authority. We have a spiritual authority in the Church. We were reminded of this in Paul’s instructions to ‘obey your prelates’.

Christ tells us that the coming of the Son of Man would be like the last days before the great flood, when all the erroneous were taken away.

 

[JRRTFAN]

It is my understanding that in general, the Rapture is the idea that near the end of time, God will miraculously assume the righteous into heaven, leaving the sinners to “tribulation” on Earth. I also gather that it is mostly a distinctively Protestant idea, and the Catholics tend to take a softer approach.

My question though is how this belief arose, as it seems to perfectly contradict the words of our savior, as quoted in the Gospel of Mathew:

Here in Mathew 13:41-42, Jesus plainly states that at the end of time, the lawless will be bundled off to “the furnace”, and the “RIGHTEOUS” will be the ones left behind. Its seems Jesus words plainly and completely contradict the entire notion of the traditional rapture.

So how did the rapture come to be so popular among certain certain Christian sects?

The rapture is an heretical theory whomped up by a fellow named Darby in the 19th century. It has been adopted by a number of modern Evangelicals because it fits so well with their theology.

The concept is that Jesus is going to have a second, secret, return (not a “return in glory”) and he will rapture up the true believers and snatch them into the clouds. Hence the bumper stickers “In case of rapture this car will be unmanned”. It’s, of course, both un and non biblical but it fills a need in Evangelical and Fundamentalist theology.

The Bible is repleat with statements about a final judgment, judgment of earthly works and fidelity, reward and punishment, etc. But if one is “saved” in the Evangelical/Fundamental manner. Nothing one ever did, is now doing, or will do in the future, regardless of repentance, makes a bit of difference about eternal salvation. So if one is “saved” there is no point in or of judgment. But the verses in the Bible do not provide exculpatory clauses for the “saved” and “lost”. Solution?: All the “saved” are raptured up before the final judgment (the third coming, this time in glory, to judge the living and the dead).

So you have to prove the rapture theory to prove the “saved” theory. It’s all very cogent, it’s wrong, but it’s convenient as all get out.

 

[ltwin]

Reminds me of a talk I once had with a “retired Mormon Bishop”. He was talking about the abode of the dead, Book of Mormon style. (It’s quite a busy place.) I showed him Eccl 9:5,10- that the dead know nothing, do nothing. He said, “Well, that’s Ecclesiastes, not the bible!” Is Proverbs in your bible?

I mentioned ‘pre-tribulation rapture’ to point out that there were [at least] three versions of the doctrine, all as I said mutually exclusive. I don’t know any more about it than that it exists, that it’s man-made, and is not in line with Jehovah’s purposes, then or now.
I pointed out to the OP that it’s especially dangerous in that it encourages one merely to sit and wait for miraculous delivery. That course is clearly denied by Mt 7:21-23, 28:19,20, and 24:14. Among many other statements directly from our Lord Jesus. Whom many call God, but whose teachings they ignore.

“All scripture is inspired of God, and profitable for teaching,” said Paul, who did not have the book of Revelation, but whose eschatology was on the mark. He also said “all things written aforetime were for our instruction.” No doubt he would have included the fate of the residents of Jericho and Sodom. Like those of Noah’s day, they (a) were warned about their bad behavior, (b) were promised consequences, (c) continued the behavior, and (d) suffered the consequences.

And Jesus said this, from Mt 24: “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.” (NIV)

Did you notice the ‘great sin’ they were committing then? They just failed to pay attention to the warning (see “consequences”, above). Is there such a warning being given today?

Proverbs is in my Bible, but I despise proof texting. That scripture is talking about the land of Israel and the covenant God made with nation of Israel. To use it as if it answers and completely defeats an eschatological theory is not a good practice. As I said above, even if one did take that scripture as you interpret it, it still does not prove that the rapture is contrary to the Bible as those that are raptured will live in the earth. As I said above as well, the gist of this entire eschatological scheme is contained in the Book of Daniel and Revelation. If you want to attack it, attack it there. Don’t throw up verses out Proverbs that is clearly talking about the land of Israel and the covenant made with the Jewish people.

 

[runningdude]

Go to this site:

catholic.com/library/Rapture.asp

and scroll down to “rapture”.

It was started in the 1900’s by John Nelson Darby.

read it

 

[runningdude]

The rapture is an heretical theory whomped up by a fellow named Darby in the 19th century. It has been adopted by a number of modern Evangelicals because it fits so well with their theology.

The concept is that Jesus is going to have a second, secret, return (not a “return in glory”) and he will rapture up the true believers and snatch them into the clouds. Hence the bumper stickers “In case of rapture this car will be unmanned”. It’s, of course, both un and non biblical but it fills a need in Evangelical and Fundamentalist theology.

The Bible is repleat with statements about a final judgment, judgment of earthly works and fidelity, reward and punishment, etc. But if one is “saved” in the Evangelical/Fundamental manner. Nothing one ever did, is now doing, or will do in the future, regardless of repentance, makes a bit of difference about eternal salvation. So if one is “saved” there is no point in or of judgment. But the verses in the Bible do not provide exculpatory clauses for the “saved” and “lost”. Solution?: All the “saved” are raptured up before the final judgment (the third coming, this time in glory, to judge the living and the dead).

So you have to prove the rapture theory to prove the “saved” theory. It’s all very cogent, it’s wrong, but it’s convenient as all get out.

That pretty well sums up what I suspected to be the case with the Rapture.

 

[noprem]

While Paul said scriptures were ‘useful’, or ‘profitable’, it seems to be short of sufficient

2 Timothy 3:16,17
"All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. KJV; emphasis added.

I use the KJV, from blueletterbible.org, because of that word “perfect”. As their Strong’s link shows, the basic meaning is ‘completely made’:
“1) fitted
2) complete, perfect
a) having reference apparently to “special aptitude for given uses” "
A strict interpretation of this would mean all I need is God’s holy word and God’s holy spirit. Sola scriptura is how some put it, but I don’t agree because of what I read in the bible itself.
You yourself mention Neh 8, which is a fine example. No “Sunday School” for instance. (”… in the presence of the men and the women, and of those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were [attentive] unto the book of the law.") The readers are named (v.7); all of them were of the Chosen of that day; I don’t have to take the word of men that other men they have named are qualified. I do have one advantage over Ezra’s crowd: I have my own copy of scripture that I refer to when anyone purports to teach me the bible.
Remember also the example of the Ethiopian eunuch. (Acts 8) BTW we learn from scripture itself that (a) he was not a castrato, and (b) he was an intelligent, educated man; perhaps superior to Philip in that way. Yet his humility (Mt 5:5) prompted him to say, " “How can I, except some one shall guide me?” And he besought Philip to come up and sit with him." (ASV) Again, Philip was anointed with holy spirit, like all the Christian evangelizers of that day; someone to be trusted. AND he was checking Philip against the scriptures. (v. 28)

Paul also wrote that the Church was the pillar and ground of the truth.

Paul wrote, “… in the house of God, which is the church [Gk ekklēsia] of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
Checking in again with the admirable Strong, we find definitions referring to a congregation, of people.
The modern English “church” implies to most that a building was involved, or at least a denomination with a central HQ. That was not the case here: Temple worship was no longer required for Christian worshippers of Yahweh (Mt 5:17; Col 2:14), and neither Vatican City nor St. Paul’s would exist until ‘latter times’. (Acts 20:29; 1 Tim 4:1-3)

To me, scriptures cannot be taken on alone. Evidence of many, many denominations, with slight to great differences in doctrines all based on someone’s interpretation outside the Church, support that view.

If you exclude the RC church from this accurate summary, you need to re-read Church history. 1054 is a year worth noting, the name Marcel Lefebvre will lead you to more recent news. (Not to mention everyone’s favorite heavy theologian, Mel Gibson. )
True Christians have “one Lord, one faith, one baptism”. Major proof of this is they do not kill each other or anyone else in the world’s wars. (John 13:34,35)

Read Nehemiah 8 and see how people were caused to understand scriptures. It was through the spiritual authority. We have a spiritual authority in the Church.

I have mentioned Nehemiah. BTW congratulations on knowing of it; most I meet are unaware. Again, I can trace the spiritual lineage of anyone named in the bible. No need to sort through problematic “historical” lists involving Rome vs. Avignon; King Henry vs. More.
Copy/paste: I have a spiritual authority in the bible.

We were reminded of this in Paul’s instructions to ‘obey your prelates’.

Do you refer to Heb 13:7 and 17?
“Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake unto you the word of God; and considering the issue of their life, imitate their faith … Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit [to them]: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief: for this [were] unprofitable for you.”
“Prelates” is a label for certain ones in a church hierarchy; probably the original word was episkopos (overseer) or presbyteros (elder). Look into Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus for their qualifications for fitness. There are such whom I look to for help- my “Philips”- and they have such qualifications and their lives are such that I want to imitate their faith.

Christ tells us that the coming of the Son of Man would be like the last days before the great flood, when all the erroneous were taken away.

Well … yes, so Jesus and I said, approximately. We say the Noachian victims were killed in situ.

 

[noprem]

Proverbs is in my Bible, but I despise proof texting. … Don’t throw up verses out Proverbs that is clearly talking about the land of Israel and the covenant made with the Jewish people.

I cited Sodom, Jericho, Noah’s day as support of the same principle. “God has not changed.” When he symbolized his abandonment of the Jews by allowing the Temple to be destroyed, (Mt 23:38) did he then abandon his purpose at Gen 1:28? At Isa 42:8? At Isa 55:10,11? At Rev 21:3-5?

I might have added, as Jesus did, “Remember the wife of Lot.”

“all things written aforetime…”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

2 Timothy 3:16,17
"All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. KJV; emphasis added.

And scriptures given by inspiration of God were not prophecies of private interpretation.

Scriptures are profitable, or useful, but someone uses that which is profitable, or useful, to reprove and instruct.

You yourself mention Neh 8, which is a fine example.

We have to understand somethings about Jewish tradition, specifically the oral tradition. (I can’t remember where I got the following, so I am able to give reference. I apologize for that.)

According to Rabbinic Judaism, the oral Torah, oral Law, or oral tradition (Hebrew: תורה שבעל פה, Torah she-be-`al peh) is the oral tradition received in conjunction with the written Torah (and the rest of the Hebrew Bible), which is known in this context as the “written Torah” (Hebrew: תורה שבכתב, Torah she-bi-khtav). The Mishnah is the record of the oral Torah.

According to Rabbinic Judaism, Moses and the Israelites received an oral as well as the written Torah (“teaching”) from God at Mount Sinai. The books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) were relayed with an oral tradition passed on by the scholarly and other religious leaders of each generation, and according to classical Rabbinic interpretation, the teachings of the oral law are a guide to that interpretation of the written law which is considered the authoritative reading. Jewish law and tradition thus is not based on a strictly literal reading of the Tanakh, but on combined oral and written traditions. Further, the basis of halakha (Jewish law) is the premise that the written law is inherently bound together with an oral law.

The “oral law” was ultimately recorded in the Mishnah, the Talmud and Midrash.

The laws transmitted to Moses were contained in the Torah written down on scrolls. The explanation however, was not allowed to be written down. Jews were obligated to speak the explanation and pass it on orally to students, children, and fellow adults. It was thus initially forbidden to write and publish the Oral Law: written material would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation (and abuse).

After great debate, however, this restriction was lifted. Following the destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem, it became apparent that the Palestine community and its learning were threatened, and that publication was the only way to ensure that the law could be preserved; see Timeline of Jewish history.

Space is limited, responding to more in another post…