Was the Oral Torah-Law Codified in the Mishnah All Bad?

It's certainly the case that Christ criticized the oral torah-law traditions of the Pharisees, which were later codified in the Mishnah and then commented on in the Talmuds.

However, the subject of whether they have some validity is certainly one which is more challenging than it first seems. For a more comprehensive review of the subject see our sister site's article on the pharisaic/rabbinic oral torah traditions and the Mishnah.

Certain elements of the oral torah law (and the later Mishnah) are based upon the rejection of scripture in favour of rabbinical traditions and are therefore invalid. Others deal in the minutia and lack the broader perspective regarding bigger issues, and  have been  rejected accordingly by God/scripture. Some of the judgements are inconclusive and even contradictory and consequently difficult understand how to put into practise. Certainly some rabbinical traditions completely contradict scripture and are therefore null and void. 

Particularly given Deuteronomy 4:2 from our perspective, scripture’s authority regarding top level principles is unassailable. Where there’s a contradiction, God's word “trumps” any form of rabbinic tradition. Since certain elements of Mishnah are intended to be an additional protective “hedge to the law”, Deuteronomy 4:2 denies such rulings validity.

Deuteronomy 4:1-2

1 ¶ Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

However, subject to the above qualifications, insofar as oral Torah law / the Mishnah clarifies the specific application of scriptural principles without contradiction, or making additional (or indeed lesser) demands or building a "hedge around the law", then they’re arguably deemed valid by Matthew 23:1-3,

Matthew 23:2-3

1 ¶  Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2  Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
3  All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Not least because most of Christ’s apostles and disciples (apart from Paul) weren’t experts in the oral torah law, arguably we don't have to be expert in Mishnah (or its commentaries, the Talmuds), just as one doesn’t have to be a qualified lawyer today, to remain on the right side of our country’s laws. In the same way then, that when we have specific questions about say; the application of the laws of England and Wales today, we would consult a lawyer who in turn would consult books of case law, if scripture doesn’t give us a requisite level of detail regarding an issue, subject to the above clarifications, the judgements offered in the Mishnah may be of use and as such are arguably endorsed by Matthew 23:3.

Matthew 23:1-3 suggests then, that we certainly shouldn’t be as ignorant of the Mishnah as Christians often are. At the very least, Mishnah provides a helpful insight into culture of “justification by legalistic observance” that Paul rightly criticised in Galatians. Regrettably mainstream Christianity’s failure to understand the context of the oral torah/Mishnah has led them to believe that Paul was criticising written (rather than oral) Torah in Galatians.

Now we have a reasonable understanding of the relationship between the Oral Torah Law and the Written Torah Law, we can move on to the subject of the use of Paul's expression "The Works of the Law" (Legalism) in Galatians.

Return to the start of Galatians, Paul, The Torah-Law and Legalism a Judianity website ?

One small and predictable change to an "Old Testament" law about circumcising gentile proselytes in Acts caused massive turmoil in the predominantly Jewish first century church. If most of the other Old Testament laws were "done away" why then isn't any comparable fuss recorded in the New Testament ? Why also do many christian theologians believe even after the crucifixion, that Paul kept Nazirite vows & offered sacrifices at the temple?

Let's take a closer look at Paul's Use of "The Works of the Law" (Legalism) in Galatians
© www.galatians-paul-the-torah-law-legalism.info Jan 2006.