Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Will the Theologians Please Sit Down  /  Chapter 21: When Fiction is Presented as Fact  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 4
The chapter points out that the Mosaic Law contains no command requiring women to be veiled in public, and that the Mishnah (200 AD) doesn’t require it either; what does this suggest about how easily “Jewish law” can be invoked to pressure Christians—and where might you have seen similar moves in modern teaching?
Another way to ask: The chapter says neither the Mosaic Law nor the Mishnah required women to veil in public. What does that show about how easily people can claim “Jewish law” to pressure Christians, and where do you see that kind of move today?

Direct Answer Bercot’s point suggests that “Jewish law” is sometimes invoked as a rhetorical weapon even when the sources don’t say what teachers claim. Spiritually, this can pressure Christians with a false sense of biblical authority.

Support from Transcript:

  • Bercot says the only “express law the first-century Jews had was the Mosaic Law,” and “there is no such commandment in the law.”
  • He addresses a common escape route: “perhaps the rabbis had made some additional law,” but notes we lack rabbinical writings from the New Testament period.
  • The earliest collection is “the Mishnah in 200 AD,” and it contains “nothing… that requires a Jewish woman to wear a veil” in public.
  • The Mishnah reference he found is about Sabbath clothing and even implies restrictions: “Arabian women may go out veiled.”
  • He concludes claims of an “express law” are bold but unsupported.
Discussion Follow-ups The transcript doesn’t list modern examples, but where have you heard “the Jews required…” used to settle a debate? What checks could you apply before accepting that kind of argument?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10
Back Questions Next