Here's How to Respond to People Who Say That Their View of Acts 15 is "Clear"

On Gene's blog, a commenter said that Acts 15 "clearly" proves that Jews and gentiles have different obligations under the Mosaic Torah.  Here's my response:

Lrw,

Re: “I hate to point out that your argument about Acts 15 (Apostolic Decree) being interpreted in many ways is quite weak, because that can be said of all the of the bible.”

You said that the Decree was clear, did you not? And “clear” means that reasonable people cannot disagree on the meaning. However, reasonable people can and do disagree as to the meaning of the Decree. Thus, you shouldn’t have said “clear.” And to further illustrate my point here’s what some modern scholars have to say:

“At the heart of the chapter is verse 20, the council’s decree. Yet for New Testament scholars THIS VERSE HAS BEEN A PUZZLE; even under the most careful historical enquiry, THE MEANING AND RATIONALE OF THE DECREE WAS NEVER ENTIRELY CLEAR,” Proselytes and Pressure Cookers: The Meaning and Application of Acts 15:20 by John Proctor.

“Commentators have generally suggested THREE POTENTIAL SOURCES for the prohibitions: rabbinic teachings, the so-called Noahic precepts, and Leviticus 17-18,” A Reexamination of the Prohibitions in Acts 15 by Charles H. Savelle.

“Another issue that must be examined is THE NATURE OF THE PROHIBITIONS themselves. Are they to be understood as ETHICAL, SOCIETAL, CULTIC, or some combination thereof?”A Reexamination of the Prohibitions in Acts 15 by Charles H. Savelle.

In conclusion, modern scholars have a range of views regarding the sources for the Decree, the nature of the provisions in the Decree, and the relation between the Decree and the context of the passage. These scholars are all reasonable people and they happen to interpret the Decree differently. Therefore, you can’t say that the Decree is “clear.” To say that it is clear to you when brilliant scholars disagree is rather arrogant, wouldn’t you agree?

Re: “YOu also ignored my references to Paul saying they indeed do NOT become Jews (Israel) nor do they NEED to, nor SHOULD they because THEN they WOULD be obligated to Torah in full as Jews are.”

Are you referring to Galatians 5? If so, you should know that Galatians 5 is not about proper ritual circumcision. On the contrary, Paul was addressing an improper type of circumcision, the false variety that was performed for justification (Gal. 5:4). In Acts 15, Peter similarly confronted improper circumcision and, like Paul, called this works-based justification an unbearable “yoke.” Notice how Peter contrasts this yoke of works-based justification with grace-based justification:

“Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

In conclusion, I’ve demonstrated that Galatians 5 addresses improper circumcision. Therefore, you can’t use Galatians 5 as an argument against PROPER circumcision.

Re: “If the Torah applied equally to gentile’s believing in Messiah, then the letter from James would have said as much”

Why?

Sincerely,

Peter