Messianic Judaism Quest

A common challenge familiar to many Messianic Jewish communities is how to successfully integrate Jewish tradition in their congregations. Many congregations approach this subject with a great deal of apprehension because they fear that incorporating “rabbinic tradition” is theologically problematic. This trepidation is partially predicated upon the notion that the early rabbis developed a system, which explicitly eliminated God from an active role in the halakhic decision-making process.

According to this perspective, which has been promulgated by a number of leaders in various Messianic Jewish organizations, “rabbinic Judaism” rejects ”charismatic or prophetic events” thereby eliminating a place for God’s Spirit in favor of a system, which is wholly dependent upon the decisions of men (i.e. the rabbis). For all the sincerity of those who uphold this position, this stance renders any measure of rabbinic tradition as suspect and promulgates a view in which the rabbis are seen as resisting the intervention of the Spirit.

Yet I would suggest that this point of view has been partially derived from an erroneous reading of a certain Talmudic passage. Let me state clearly that the purpose of this essay is not to convince the reader of the efficacy of incorporating rabbinic practice in his or her life and community, or to imply that the rabbis should be followed blindly. The purpose is to correctly portray the manner in which the rabbis perceive their authority and God’s interaction in this process in the hope that Jewish tradition can be better considered by messianic congregations as they seek to enhance their congregational identity and experience.

Rabbi Eliezer and the Carob Tree

The Talmudic passage cited to promulgate the popular messianic view of rabbinic exclusion of God is often referred to as the incident of Rabbi Eliezer and the Carob Tree. The passage in Baba Metsia 59a-b begins with a dispute regarding the purity status of a disassembled oven. I will forgo this portion of the debate and begin with Rabbi Eliezer’s appeal to the miraculous to vindicate his halakhic position to his colleagues.

“On that day Rabbi Eliezer produced all of the arguments in the world, they did not accept them from him. So he said to them, ‘If the law accords with my position, this carob tree will prove it.’ The carob was uprooted from its place by a hundred cubits and some say four hundred cubits…They said to him, ‘There is no proof from a carob tree…’”

The debate continues with Rabbi Eliezer seeking to justify his position by a series of other miraculous. The majority rejected each of his miracles and upon this he stated the following:

“’If the law accords with my position, let heaven prove it!’ An echo came forth saying, ‘What business have you with Rabbi Eliezer, for the law accords with his position under all circumstances!’ Rabbi Joshua stood on his feet and said, ‘It is not in heaven.’”

If we stop here, it would seem that the rabbis did indeed deny the relevance of charismatic events in their decisions. How is it possible that the Sages would reject a heavenly voice and thereby reject God? However, the passage continues:

“’What is the sense of ’It is not in heaven,’ Said Rabbi Jeremiah, ‘[The sense of Joshua’s statement is this] For the Torah has already been given from Mount Sinai, so we do not pay attention to echoes, since You (i.e. God) have already written in the Torah at Mount Sinai,’ ‘After the majority you are to incline… (Exodus 23.2)’”

Rabbi Eliezer’s colleagues rejected his miracles and even the supposed intervention of Heaven. The intervention of heaven is itself hyperbole, but, I would assert that the rabbis objected to Rabbi Eliezer’s positions for a variety of reasons.

The Nature of Divine Inspiration in Rabbinic Thought

The rabbis’ rejection of Rabbi Eliezer’s appeal to miracles was partially based on the idea that they were acting under divine inspiration by none other than the Ruach HaKodesh. Scholars were seen as the heirs to the prophetic tradition and consequently reflected the will of God in their decisions when they acted under a majority consensus. Nachmanides’ commentary on Deuteronomy 17:18-11 illustrates this idea:

“For the spirit of God is with the ministers (i.e. the rabbis) of His sanctuary, and He does not abandon those committed to Him, who are forever preserved from error and stumbling block.” (Joel Roth, The Halakhic Process: A Systemic Analysis, (New York: JTS, 1986), 121-122.)

Just in case, you forgot, my point is not to affirm the legitimacy of rabbinic authority! Instead, the goal is to properly understand that the rabbis did not see themselves as suppressing God’s involvement but rather follow the rules established by God at Sinai. For God to intervene outside those rules is therefore nothing else than a Divine test. (Eliezer Berkovits, Not in Heaven: The Nature and Function of Halakha, (New York: Ktav, 1983), 48.)

The Threat of the False Prophet

The rabbis also opposed Rabbi Eliezer on the basis of Deuteronomy 18:22 which deals with the rise of a false prophet. Though Rabbi Eliezer was certainly not a false prophet, his appeal to the miraculous triggered a weary response by his colleagues. Deuteronomy makes it clear that “false” prophets could indeed manipulate nature by invoking foreign deities or even the name of God. People might then place their confidence in these prophets and be led to violate the Torah’s commandments. Moses claimed that God could certainly test the people of Israel to determine whether they truly loved God with all their hearts. Prophetic oracles or miracles might even come to pass, but the true test of divine source was found in the continuity of the decision with Torah guidelines. Since the Torah was not in heaven, a prophet could not claim special competence to produce or even render decisions simply on the basis of his prophetic abilities.

The Primacy of Prophecy and Divine Intervention

But the most important issue at stake for the rabbis was in establishing the proper delineation between the role of prophetic or charismatic intervention and the process of Torah exegesis.

According to the Rambam, a true prophet has authority to decide matters pertaining to war and peace, economic policy, and even to temporarily, to suspend the laws of Torah in a national crisis for purposes of repentance (i.e. Elijah’s sacrifice on Mount Carmel). Legal decisions were derived at by the process of expounding verses of Scripture to reach dependable conclusions. Thus Rambam makes it clear that prophetic intervention is ineffective as a means of deriving halakhah. (Zvi Lampel, Maimonides’ Introduction to the Talmud, (New York: Judaica Press, 1987), 97.) A prophetic or charismatic event though valid, did not maintain primacy in the area of legislation. In matters of legislation, proper exegesis of the Torah took priority.

Did the Sages then oppose prophecy or charismatic events as an integral part of the rabbinic system? On the contrary, they retained validity to relate the meaning of past events, spur repentance, and declare Israel’s future history. In this area, prophecy takes precedence over Moses:

“Said Rav Yose bar Hanina, ‘Four decrees did our lord, Moses, make against Israel. Four prophets came along and annulled them.’ Moses said, ‘And Israel dwells in safety alone at the fountain of Jacob, (Deuteronomy 33:28) Amos came and annulled it: ‘Then I said O LORD God, stop, I ask you how shall Jacob stand alone, for he is small, ‘ and it goes on, ‘The LORD repented concerning this: This also shall not be says the LORD God.’ (Amos 7:5-6). Moses said, ‘And among those nations you shall have no repose’ (Deuteronomy 28:65) Jeremiah came and annulled it: ‘Thus says the LORD, the people that were left of the sword have found grace in the wilderness, even Israel when I go to provide him rest.’ (Jeremiah 31:1). Moses said, ‘The LORD…visits the sin of the fathers upon the children and upon the children’s children to the third and to the fourth generation’ (Exodus 34:7), but Ezekiel said, ‘the soul that sins it shall die’ (Ezekiel 18:3-4). Moses said, ‘And you shall perish among the nations’(Leviticus 26:38) but Isaiah said, ‘and it shall come to pass in that day that a great horn shall sound and they shall come who were lost in the land of Assyria (Isaiah 27:13)’ ( Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner, Type of Authority in Formative Christianity and Judaism, (New York: Routledge, 1999), 87-88. )

This is the very opposite of the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and his colleagues! In the first case, a charismatic event in the form of a voice from Heaven could not intervene in matters of halakhah, but it becomes evident that with regards to the intervention of the Holy Spirit on behalf of Israel’s future history, prophecy supersedes Torah.( Ibid. 91.) Rabbinic Judaism therefore does not simply reject the intervention of prophecy or the Holy Spirit in matters of halakhah. It simply recognizes distinct boundaries by which they are separated.

Share This