A lot of Messianic groups who advocate against the gentile obligation to observe Torah (e.g. UMJC and FFOZ) like to claim that Acts 15 clearly and unquestionably supports their position. But is the process of interpreting Acts 15 really so simple that one can claim that their interpretation is clear and beyond question?
It turns out that Acts 15 is a difficult passage to interpret for several reasons. First, as with any passage of the New Testament, one must overcome the difficulty of understanding Greek language and grammar. Second, Acts 15 is one of those passages that contains an inordinately high number of anti-Judaic, non-original scribal additions. Third, Acts 15 is unique in that it contains a truncated and often cryptic judicial opinion.
Faulty analysis of Acts 15 can lead to major problems in the Body. This is because Acts 15 is construed as defining the following relationships: (1) gentiles and G-d; (2) gentiles and Jews; (3) gentiles and Torah. So if the main line Messianic interpretation is wrong then it could be leading to identity confusion, role confusion, and all of the misery that comes from avoiding G-d's instructions for life.
What's the solution? One of the things I learned in law school was that if one follows the steps of proper case analysis one is much more likely to extract the intended meaning of a judicial opinion. So I'm going to share with you a method which I believe will assist you in ascertaining the true meaning of Acts 15. But first I'll have to explain a few basics about case analysis.
Each case is composed of certain interrelated components (e.g. facts, law, issue, holding, etc). Since these components are interrelated, misidentifying any one component means misunderstanding the whole and extracting a meaning that was never intended by the writer of the judicial opinion.
The most critical component of a case is the issue. Why is it critical? Because the holding of the court is the issue rephrased as an answer. For example, if the issue is "Under federal law, is it Constitutional for States to prohibit same sex marriages?" That is a legal question. The holding will rephrase that question into an answer like this "Under federal law it is Constitutional for States to prohibit same sex marriages." Thus, if you get the question wrong then you'll get the answer wrong.
But sometimes the court doesn't state the issue. For example, in Acts 15 the Pharisaic party states their case in 15:1, 5. However, if the council accepted the Pharisaic framing of the issue, they never state this. No council member explicitly states the narrow issue being decided. If an issue is unstated then one must do a bit of reverse engineering in order to infer the issue as it has been framed by the judge or council.
This reverse engineering process to identify the issue involves several critical steps. First, you must determine whether the issue is a factual issue (i.e. is there a dispute about the facts?) or a legal issue (i.e. is there a dispute about which law applies or how it applies or whether the law applies at all?) or a hybrid of the two. Second, you must look at the holding because the holding should (ideally) contain all of the information in the formal issue statement. Third, look to see what legal rule is being applied and the elements of which it consists. Fourth, look to see what facts are relevant to the elements of the legal rule (i.e. the key facts of the case). Fifth, if the issue is still vague then you can examine the propositions contained in the arguments presented before the court and make inferences from that.
If the issue is merely factual then the process is simplified. For factual issues, either a jury will render a verdict or a judge or council will make a finding. The jury's or judge's decision will be based upon the believability of the evidence.
ON TO THE QUESTION:
Do you think the council was resolving a question of law or a question of fact? Did the council focus more on legal precedent or did they put more emphasis on the facts of the case with regard to gentiles?
Peter, sometimes lawyers make things more complicated than the ought to be:)
ReplyDeleteHere are some seldom considered facts on Acts 15:
At the time of Acts 15, Gentiles coming to faith in Yeshua were already NOT getting circumcised or living according to the Torah of Moses (i.e. in the manner of Jews) - remember they rejoiced when they got the letter from the apostles? Which means that under the guidance of the apostles who were closest to the Messiah these Gentiles were already living a non-Jewish lifestyle, even before any Acts 15 ruling.
Since the apostles were fully aware of this fact beforehand (of course they were!), the only issue now was dealing with the objections from their fellow Jews. In that regard, we read that that some of the Jews associated with the new movement (from the party of Pharisees) did not see this situation as proper. Instead, they imagined, wrongly and not realizing what G-d has done for Gentiles (e.g. getting them baptized and filled with the Holy Spirit without circumcision/conversion to Judaism as a precondition), that these Gentiles were on their way to full conversion to Judaism.
Finally, with input from the Holy Spirit Himself for confirmation, the apostles and elders came to the conclusion that Gentiles should not become full converts to Judaism but rather should be careful to avoid falling back into the idolatrous and adulterous lifestyle of their former condition.
Gene,
DeleteSo your position is that the apostles, prior to the Jerusalem Council, did not think the gentiles were in a covenantal relationship with Yeshua on the basis that they were not ritually circumcised?
Peter, I don't understand your question. Can you restate it to be more clear?
DeleteHmm, I'm trying to think how to make the question more clear. Are you saying that the Apostles believed that uncircumcision excluded gentiles from the covenant?
Delete"Are you saying that the Apostles believed that uncircumcision excluded gentiles from the covenant?"
DeleteThe apostles understood that Gentiles partook in the spiritual benefits of the covenants of Israel WITHOUT circumcision.
Can you answer the question? Did the Apostles believe that uncircumision excluded gentiles from the covenant? Were they INSIDE the covenant or OUTSIDE of the covenant?
DeleteIt sounds like you're position is that gentiles remained OUTSIDE of the covenant. Do I understand you correctly?
Since they share in the spiritual benefits of Israel, the answer is that those Gentiles who are disciples of Yeshua are INSIDE of the New Covenant G-d has made with Israel.
DeleteGene,
DeleteWhat a minute? You must agree with me then. Because Torah says that all members of the covenant (i.e. members of Adat Yisrael) are required to follow Torah. Or would you dispute this?
Peter, yes, all members are required to follow Torah.
DeleteGene,
DeleteIf all members are required to follow Torah and gentiles are now members then it follows that the gentiles must now follow Torah, yes?
"If all members are required to follow Torah and gentiles are now members then it follows that the gentiles must now follow Torah, yes?"
DeletePeter, absolutely and without a doubt!
There is great irony that the Bilateral Ecclesiology[1] / Divine Invitation[2] camp uses Acts 15 as a proof text.
DeleteLike the group in question, the "some men from Judea" and "some believers belonging to the party of the Pharisees" – the argument being made is one of law. What does the law say?
The inclusion of the council in Jerusalem and Peter should automatically draw us back to Acts 10 and 11. For some, the issue had already been resolved by an earlier council in Acts 11. What that council decided was that based on the revelation that Peter had received in Acts 10. What had been decided by that council? These Gentiles covenant members without the rubric of man-made ritual conversion (i.e. "circumcision").
Three terms used in Acts 15 both obscure and illuminate the argument of law. They obscure, because one must cut through the layers of Christian bias to understand their historicity. They illuminate because once transposed into the language of the Mishnah, Targum, and Midrash it becomes clear what the issue of law was.
"Circumcised according to the custom of Moses" (Acts 15:1)
What "custom" [ethos] did "Moses" establish for circumcision? Certainly not one for adults. In the Second Century CE, the Targums and Mishnah made it clear that only Israel has a part in the World to Come (the notion of Noachide laws was not introduced until the time of the Tosefta in the Third Century). A significant debate between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai is over Gentiles. But both sides were adamant that Gentiles could only be included in the World to Come if they "became Jews."
"Keep the Law of Moses" (Acts 15:5)
The ritual in relationship to Gentiles was called "to keep the law" "be under the law" or "to circumcise." The primary impediment to Gentiles was given the shorthand "circumcision" because of its social implications in Greek and Roman culture. Likewise, these "former Gentiles" were not free to interpret the Law to their own liking. In other words, "you do these ritual steps, plus agree to only let us native-born define what the Law says." Does that sound familiar?
The man-made rubric for a Gentile to “become a Jew” was (and except for the Temple tax, still is) this:
1. Pay the Temple tax
2. Accept the "yoke of the whole Law" as taught, "written" and "interpretive" (oral)
3. Physical, ritual circumcision
4. Immersion
It is interesting that the only thing that Peter encourages in Acts 10 is immersion of Cornelius and his household.
That takes us to the third term:
"The conversion of the Gentiles" (Acts 15:3)
The "conversion" mentioned is epistrophe. Not a ritual, but a radical revolution. It is a strengthened form of the verb trepo [to turn]. In simple Hebrew terms, the Gentiles were "making teshuvah" [repentance]. To what were they "turning" to if not a commitment to HaShem, and a lifestyle that reflected it. Again, the use of word "teshuvah" carries with it all the ideas found in the extant texts of the period.
The direct connection between teshuvah and immersion is born out by John (the Immerser) and Yeshua’s disciples.
The point of law? Gentiles cannot be a part of the covenant community without going through the four steps of ritual conversion to "become Jews."
Answer from the Jerusalem council: That is not what the Law says. Yes, there are four post-teshuvah necessities, but they are marks of teshuvah – not man-made entry requirements.
[1] "Bilateral Ecclesiology" in name alone should be dismissed out of hand: Ephesians 2 and 3 directly address the mistaken notion that HaShem could possibly have two peoples.
[2] "Divine Invitation"? After three years, I still don’t think they know what the "invitation" is for. It seems to me all the emphasis is on dis-invitation.
Gene,
DeleteAre you being sarcastic? I'm genuinely confused.
Rick,
DeleteYou are a gifted teacher. Thank you for presenting an approachable, easy-to-understand exegesis of the chapter. Men like you are proof that HaShem has great plans to restore the Body.
"Are you being sarcastic? I'm genuinely confused."
DeleteNot at all. Everyone should obey Torah.
Ah, I see where you're coming from. You're advocating the view that Torah differentiated as between covenantal members. This is not the case. The Rabbis, whom you purport to obey, teach that there were two types of ger or "sojourner" in Torah, the covenanted ger and the non-covenanted ger. The Rabbis interpret that the covenanted ger was identified in the Septuagint by the translation "proselyte". If you read the passages in which proselyte occurs then you will understand that the proselyte was obligated to Torah in the same way as a native. Thus, the Rabbis teach that the covenanted ger is bound to follow Torah in the same way as a native Israelite. So clearly you pick and choose which aspects of Rabbinic Judaism are truly "authoritative."
Delete"What "custom" [ethos] did "Moses" establish for circumcision? Certainly not one for adults."
ReplyDeleteRick, is that your claim that under the Mosaic "custom" adults were not circumcised and no provision was made for them, but only the children?
I made no "claim" - simply a statement of fact. The Torah has no ethos [custom/ritual/tradition] for circumcising adults. Certainly, adults are physically circumcised as in Abraham and his household, as well as all the adult males prior to the battle for Jericho - but how is not mandated by the Torah. A simple snip? Perhaps. The Torah's mandate for eating the Pesach is not "how" but "if."
DeleteIn order for there to be an ethos, there must be some prescription in the Torah. For children, there is a mandate on how: "on the eighth day."
That does not mean that we may not make a religious ritual for circumcising an adult, but "Moses" (i.e. the Torah) does not.
However, you were distracted by what you think was a "claim." The point is, the phrase is a unique one that the readers of the time would have known refers to a ritual, which the Mishnah and Gemara outline as four steps - NOT the simple act of snipping. That distinction is lost on traditional Christianity, and an confusion of terms that the modern BE/DI teaching uses to obfuscate.
>> "Do you think the council was resolving a question of law or a question of fact?"
ReplyDeleteIt's a question of law: there exists a law requiring circumcision; must gentiles apply that law in order to be saved? That seems to be the original, precise question. (Acts 15:1)
>> " Did the council focus more on legal precedent or did they put more emphasis on the facts of the case with regard to gentiles?"
Tougher question. I'd say they highlighted facts of the case (e.g. Paul relating the miracles done among the gentiles), as there was little to no precedent of such a game-changing event. The closest they came to any precedent was to recall the Prophets, which stated the gentiles being called by God's name was God's doing, and that its purpose was to restore the fallen tent of David.
--------
By the way, I enjoyed the banter between Peter and Gene.
Gene's statement, "The apostles understood that Gentiles partook in the spiritual benefits of the covenants of Israel WITHOUT circumcision."
...really clarifies his position. If we can't have agreement, at least we can have clarity.
Judah, now I am the one who does not have the clarity about something you said. Do you disagree with that particular statement I made, and if you do, what problem do you find with it?
DeleteJudah,
DeleteNot that I disagree with you, but I was wondering whether the Pharisaic teaching expressed in Acts 15:1 is the only way to frame the issue. For example, to say that one must be circumcised in order to be saved is really an issue of "How does G-d enter into a covenantal relationship with someone?" And there's really no law that says G-d can't have a relationship with someone who is uncircumcised. And that might be why Peter the Apostle focused his argument on facts (e.g. that G-d was giving His Holy Spirit to the uncircumcised). And that might also be why James doesn't rest his decision on Torah. Rather than citing to Torah, he cites to Prophets who prophesied that G-d would turn a non-people into a people for His name. It's not really a legal answer to a legal question. It's more of a finding that the factual evidence was persuasive.
Again, I could be wrong. Just something I was considering...
Gene, of course I agree! "Everyone should follow Torah" - I mean, you're practically a stones' throw away from One Law! ;-)
DeleteAnswering seriously: I am pleased by this clarification. I am closer to you than I previously thought. I understand, more clearly now, where we differ: we are both pro-Torah, it's just that you believe the laws of the covenant apply differently to members of the covenant depending on whether you descend from Jacob.
That last part is where you and I split, of course, but at least we both believe "everyone should obey the Torah." :-)
Judah, it's great to have both agreement and clarity for once!:)
Delete"And there's really no law that says G-d can't have a relationship with someone who is uncircumcised"
ReplyDeleteNot to muddle up an excellent discussion so far, but there are different relationships like different bodies. What we are really speaking about doesn't mean ANY relationship, but a specific relationship. A man does not have the same relationship with anyone else as he has with his wife.
My question, which I've often wondered, is if there is a special relationship between G-d and those with legal right to enter the sanctuary? I think this has something to do with Acts 15 as well as other scripture about circumcision. Maybe that's not for this discussion, but your discussion made me think.
Anonymous,
DeleteDo you think that the gentiles will not have a legal right to enter the Court of Israel in the Messiah's Temple?
"Do you think that the gentiles will not have a legal right to enter the Court of Israel in the Messiah's Temple?"
ReplyDeleteWell, I thinks that is a great question, but to take it one step further, Hebrews says something about the veil being torn and a way into the holy of holiest.
"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus"
How can one enter the holiest without first passing through the Holy Place having first come through the door of the temple?
If only the high priest can enter the holiest that would mean something but I can't get my finger on it. Something about this....if the High Priest was married and they are no more two but one...did his wife enter the holiest on some level with him on the Day of Atonement?
I hope that made sense?
"Something about this....if the High Priest was married and they are no more two but one...did his wife enter the holiest on some level with him on the Day of Atonement?"
DeleteAnonymous... very interesting. Never thought of it that way.
I had to read that a few times before I understood what you meant. It is an interesting concept. Are you Messianic?
Delete@Anonymous, I think it is important to not confuse the domains of the "heavenly" tabernacle and the earthly one. Hebrews 8 tells is that Messiah is NOT be a priest on earth. The descendants of Aaron have exclusive access to the Holy and Holiest on earth. Always. It is a chukat olam [eternal decree] as part of a brit olam, and eternal covenant.
DeleteLikewise, the "veil" separating the Holy from the Holiest will not be gone on earth.
...[sic] Messiah is NOT a priest on earth...
DeleteRick, great point.
DeleteRick "The descendants of Aaron have exclusive access to the Holy and Holiest on earth."
ReplyDeleteWhat about Samuel?
Anonymous,
DeleteWhat about him?
"I have taken the Levites instead of all the first-born among the children of Israel."
ReplyDeleteI don't think Samuel was a son of Aaron. He is called an Ephramite, but his father's side traces back to Korah? If Samuel was a Levite, why did Hannah have to promise to give him to G-d. As a Levite he would already have been taken instead of a first born.
I think Samuel was a seer/prophet, a judge, and high priest who would do the will of G-d. A type of Messiah....able to enter the Holiest, but not of the line of Aaron?
Is this right?
I don't think Samuel was a son of Aaron? If he was a Levite and the term Ephraim was applied to him as a territorial reference, why would Hanna have to promise him to G-d's service.. since the Levites were already taken as his?
ReplyDeleteI think Samuel, a seer, a judge, a high priest not of the line of Aaron....a type of Messiah?
I think the earthly temple was a type and shadow, the heavenly the reality. How could the one who has access to the REAL be kept out of the TYPE?
sorry, I duplicated..
DeleteWow, I', astonded at the level of discussion here, unprecedented I should say, as these issues I believe have never been discussed before in the Body of Messiah. I can't help but feel very positive that this will lead to a maturing of the Body!!! Kudos to everyoone!!!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteShmuel was of the tribe of Lewi, as such he was dispersed different tribal areas. He was not called an Efraimi in the Tanakh unless you're reading an English translation (which is usually bad and full of errors, misnomers, and hardly ever gets across the meaning of the Hebrew text). He was Efrathi, from Efrath/Beith-Lehhem.
A. Michael,
ReplyDeleteThat's good to know. So, was he a Son of Aaron? Which was actually my counter point to "The descendants of Aaron have exclusive access to the Holy and Holiest on earth."
I guess I should state my purpose in raising the question is to point out that sometimes our definitions are too narrow and leave out the possibility that ALL things are possible to G-d.
ReplyDeleteAt least to me, G-d does not seem to be as boxed in by certain things he has said as we would sometimes assume. I think this relates to the seed of Abraham in many different ways. After all, if G-d can raise up son to Abraham from stones in the ground....he can make sons to Abraham out of Gentiles. Right? Of course right! :)
If G-d accepts someones un-circumcision as circumcision....who am I to complain?
This is so cool. I have to add something to this discussion. The same four prohibitions that was given to the gentiles upon coming to faith was the same four prohibitions given to Israel in Ezekiel 33:25. I'm still trying to figure out if I'm one law or leaning toward those who want to be closer to Israel by obey the entire Torah. Still thinking about it....
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
DeleteThanks for commenting. And welcome! Yes, Ezekiel 33:25 is very similar to the fourfold decree. The only difference is that James emphasizes "pollutions" of idols and he explains that cultic prostitution also brings pollution. But, yes, the idea is the same: avoid idolatry and start going to synagogue to learn the Torah of Moses (v. 21).
I hope that our little community here can assist you in your journey. Don't hesitate to contact me with questions or whatever.
As a born again Jew from the first born! in our Meshiach kinsman Redeemer, I have attended both Gentile churches and Jewish synagogue-were I and Miriam my wife were married, under the cover of Israel. With due respects to all of you my brothers-in our! Cultivated Tree of Israel, Please remember that those who remain strangers to the House of Israel, as most Gentile teachers are, also those who are taken in by their lack of understanding! Due to not interceeding with Elohim via the Ruach of Elohim, then waiting on Elohim to answer via His Ruach...As Israel My brothers we are separated from the Gentile nations, who need the leaves on the Tree in Revelation, which does not say Israel needs to be delivered! I have found that which has been written in Elohims Hebrew Word, is so simple to spiritually digest, but can be very divisive after people have replaced the original Hebrew,
Deletemeanings, with man made one's to confuse the Gentiles. I sence in the heart of my spirit that
Both the grafted in Jew and Gentile are to be treated equally! unless the Gentile becomes arrogant towards the natural branches who are Israel...When ever anti-Semetic Gentile teachers, asked me to convert and become a Christian. I asked them show me a Gentile Christian branch in our Olive Tree in Romans 11. And I will show you a stranger to the Israel of Elohim...who may here one day that Yeshua does not know Him? It is the purpose of our Elohim, for His people born again in Yeshua Meshiach Jews! to share with both the Jews and Gentiles...That which Yeshua has fulfilled all the Law and Prophets, Interesting that Yeshua our wonderfull Master, left you and I to fulfill two of those Laws yourself! Brothers after I repent of any wicked way in my flesh! Then fetch fruit worthy of this repentance, I never cease to be amazed, how easy Elohim by His Ruach, can use us, as a spring of refreshing spiritual water...like those Gentile Christian Pastors, who repented of trying to convert me a Jew into a Gentile? Which is a demonic anti-Semetic insult to the G-d of Israel...who has called me Israel under my tallit throughout my generations!!! Guess what brothers. These teachers now understand what our brother King David meant in Psalm 1...So let us put aside trivial questions on the Law...what is right or wrong...First checkout our own circumcision...I have been privalaged to meet Gentiles who are now!!! silent, members of the spiritual commonwealth of Israel! Among Gentile Christians. There is a difference here! Note those spiritual converted Gentiles, did not need to have a phyiscicle circumcision! But I noticed as we who are Jews in Yeshua our Master Messiah...should look now for those who's hearts are circumcised...Such people then go on to what Yeshua taught us to do, and seeking to make ourselves seem more knowledgeable, than others regarding the Law, will only cause more divisions. As born again Jews we need to get the Gentiles grafted into our! spiritual Olive Tree...I know like you all? One day all Israel will be saved...As a sculptor a Rabbi once asked me, if the Word of G-d were as diffecault to create into life through our own abuilities, as sculpting an elephant! How would you do this. Rabbi I replied If the elephant was food for my spirit...One bite at a time?
Shalom Howard Shergold