So, just to give you an idea of what I'm working on, the following is the outline for upcoming paper that shows how each major Messianic ministry views the three topics within Acts 15. As you can see, I've only completed the outline sections for Tim Hegg and FFOZ so far. Yeah, I'm slow. But here's what I've got so far:
OUTLINE:
INTRODUCTORY NOTE:
There are roughly 3 steps to issue analysis: (1) recognizing that
an issue is created by 2 (or more) opposing propositions and identifying those
propositions. For example, strictly speaking, 15:1 is not an issue statement
but rather a proposition statement that represents one half of the issue before
the court; (2) understanding that the issue and the resolution of that issue
(i.e. the "rule" that one may extract from the case record) are
logical corollaries. In other words, the rule is merely a restatement of
the issue question but in answer form; (3) ascertaining whether resolution of
the primary issue will affect corollary rights/duties of the parties. For
example, in Acts 15, if the primary issue is formulated as soteriological, a
corollary sub-issue might be whether Gentiles are included in Israel or whether
Gentiles must abide by the "One Law" precedent set forth in Torah for
members of the covenanted People of Israel. In other words, the presence
of corollary issues affects not only the scope of the primary issue, broadening
the primary issue with all corollary sub-issues, but it also, based on point #2
listed above, affects the scope of the rule, broadening the primary rule with
all corollary sub-rules.
Tim Hegg:
TOPIC 1: Issue/Rule Analysis. Primary Issue [PI]
& Corollary Sub-Issues [CSI(s)] and Primary Rule [PR] & Corollary
Sub-Rules [CSR(s)]
Introductory note to Hegg’s issue
analysis: Determining what Hegg frames as the primary issue is complicated
by the fact that he twice states what he believes to be the primary issue but
states it differently each time. In the
first instance, he writes, “The ‘issue’ at hand was whether or not someone who
was not a Jew could be saved.” In the
second instance, he writes, “The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was dealing with
a specific issue: was it necessary for
Gentiles to become proselytes and thus take on the full weight of the man-made
laws of the Sages in order to be accepted within the Jewish community?” The first instance frames the primary issue as
soteriological; the second instance frames the primary issue as a series of
corollary issues which, at a surface level, seem to have nothing in common with
the first stated issue. So, for the
purposes of this paper, it will be assumed that the first instance contains
Hegg’s partial formulation of the primary issue and the second instance contains
Hegg’s formulations of the corollary issues. Therefore, for the purposes of the following
outline, Hegg’s statements regarding the primary issue will be synthesized
together based on the entire context of his paper in order to help us
understand the manner in which Hegg extrapolates rules from Acts 15.
·
PI: “The opening verses of Acts 15 give us a
clear picture of the core issue around which the Jerusalem Council convened…The
‘issue’ at hand was whether [a non-Jew] could be saved,” by “…[becoming a] proselyte
and thus [taking] on the full weight of the man-made laws of the Sages…” and not “…[whether salvation] was gained by
works. No one, including the “men from Judea” who were insisting that the
Gentiles become proselytes, believed that anyone gained a place in the world to
come by a complete keeping of Torah. As I have already noted, the prevailing
view was that a place in the world to come was the gracious gift of God to
every Israelite.” Hegg therefore argues that the primary issue was whether Gentiles must
be circumcised according to the ritual circumcision of Rabbinic Judaism in
order to qualify for the salvation which is the “gracious gift of God to every
Israelite.”
·
CSI(s): CSI 1: “To put it another way, how could a
Gentile become a covenant member with Israel and share in the blessings of the
covenant? The prevailing belief of the
Judaisms in Paul’s day was that only Jews had a place in the world to come
since God had made the covenant of blessing with Israel and no other nation.”;
CSI 2: “The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15
was dealing with a specific issue: was
it necessary for Gentiles to become proselytes and thus take on the full weight
of the man-made laws of the Sages in order to be accepted within the Jewish
community?”
·
PR: Gentiles are not required to be circumcised
according to the ritual circumcision of Rabbinic Judaism and thereby take on
the full (unbearable) weight of the man-made laws of the Sages in order to
qualify for the salvation that is offered as a gracious gift to every
Israelite.
·
CSR(s): CSR 1: Gentiles may become covenant members
with Israel and share in the blessings of the covenant without undergoing the
Rabbinic proselyte ritual of circumcision; CSR 2: It is not necessary for Gentiles to take on
the full weight of the man-made laws of the Sages in order to be accepted
within the Jewish community but it is necessary for them to refrain from pagan
temple practices in order to be accepted within the Jewish community.
TOPIC 2: Peter’s Argument Before the Council
Tim Hegg
·
Relevance of Peter’s
Argument to the Issue(s) and Rule(s):
·
Relevance of “Yoke” to
the Issue(s) and Rule(s): Hegg interprets
the unbearable “yoke” as referring to the heavy burdens of Rabbinic halachah—man-made
additions to the Torah that at a minimum proved to be unbearably burdensome and
oftentimes resulted in negating the written Torah. This poses an interpretive question: how much of Rabbinic halachah does Hegg
believe constitutes the “unbearable yoke”?
Is it merely the halachah regarding conversion? Or is it, more broadly, the entirety of
Rabbinic halachah? If we understood Hegg’s position more clearly
then we would better understand what Hegg believes to be the full scope of the primary
rule of Acts 15. For example, if it is
merely the specific halachah of circumcision that poses the unbearable yoke
then the resulting rule would allow Gentiles to view Rabbinic halachah as an
advisory authority (even if not a mandatory authority). However, if it is the entirety of Rabbinic halachah that poses the unbearable yoke then the resulting rule would essentially
prevent Gentiles from attributing even the slightest usefulness to Rabbinic
halachah.
TOPIC 3: James’ Speech
Tim Hegg
·
Relevance of
Inclusionary Prophetic References to Issue(s) and Rule(s) (e.g. Gezerah Shavah
of Inclusionary Prophetic Passages; “People for His Name”; “Tent of David”):
·
Relevance of Fourfold
Decree to Issue(s) and Rule(s): The
rationale behind the Fourfold Decree could not have been the Noahide Laws since
when these are not even to be found in the Mishnaic period but were only
formulated centuries later during a period of Jewish history in which
anti-Gentile sentiment abounded.
Furthermore, to promote a second
way of life would run counter to the precedent set forth in Torah that there is
to be One Law for the community—One Law for Israel and the Gentiles who dwell
with her. Nor could the rationale behind
the Fourfold Decree have been to provide a set of ethical sub-categories as
these four do not provide sufficient summarization. Rather, the rationale was that these Rabbinic
fences formed a single category—that of pagan temple rituals, each item well
known as evidenced by the use of the article (“the”) before each item in the
fourfold list. The Council believed that
these prohibitions on pagan temple rituals would promote social inclusion by
helping the Gentiles to be mindful of Jewish sensibilities regarding the
defiling potential of such practices.
Thus, Hegg sees the Fourfold Decree as
addressing the corollary issue #2 regarding how the Gentiles are to be accepted
into the Jewish community (i.e. the corollary issue of social inclusion). Therefore, in our issue analysis section,
corollary rule #2 states: “It is not necessary for Gentiles to take on
the full weight of the man-made laws of the Sages in order to be accepted
within the Jewish community but it is necessary for them to refrain from pagan
temple practices in order to be accepted within the Jewish community.”
·
Relevance of Dicta in
15:21 to Issue(s) and Rule(s)
First Fruits of Zion:
TOPIC 1: Issue/Rule Analysis. Primary Issue [PI]
& Corollary Sub-Issues [CSI(s)] and Primary Rule [PR] & Corollary
Sub-Rules [CSR(s)]
·
PI: Must Gentiles be circumcised in order to be
saved?
·
CSI(s): CSI 1:
Are uncircumcised Gentile Believers under full obligation to the Torah of
Moses?; CSI 2: Is ritual circumcision
what creates the full obligation to the Torah of Moses and membership in the covenant realm of Israel? CSI 3:
Are uncircumcised Gentile Believers to be included in the covenant realm
of Israel in which legal obligation to Torah attaches?; CSI 4: Are uncircumcised Gentile Believers to be
included in the Commonwealth realm of Israel in which legal obligation to Torah
does not attach?
·
PR: Gentiles do not need to be circumcised in
order to be saved.
·
CSR(s): CSR 1:
Uncircumcised Gentile Believers are not under the full (unbearable) obligation
to the Torah of Moses; CSR2: Ritual
circumcision is what creates the full (unbearable) obligation to the Torah of
Moses and membership in the covenant realm of Israel; CSR 3: Uncircumcised Gentile Believers are excluded from the covenant realm of Israel in which membership
confers full (unbearable) obligation of the Torah of Moses; CSR 4: Uncircumcised Gentile Believers, however, are
included in the Commonwealth realm of Israel in which membership does not confer the full (unbearable) obligation
of the Torah of Moses.
TOPIC 2: Peter’s Argument Before the Council
First Fruits of Zion
·
Relevance of Peter’s
Argument to the Issue(s) and Rule(s):
·
Relevance of “Yoke” to
the Issue(s) and Rule(s): “After much
debate [in Acts 15], the apostles declared that the Gentile disciples do not
need to convert to Judaism and thus should not be bound to the full yoke of the
Torah…,” Toby Janicki, God-Fearers. “The
term ‘yoke’ is a common Jewish idiom for one’s obligation to the whole
Torah….In Acts 15, the apostles left the question of Gentile relationship to
Torah unanswered. They did not burden
the Gentiles with the whole yoke of the Torah—a ‘yoke which neither our fathers
nor we have been able to bear’ (Acts 15:10)…,” Boaz Michael & D. Thomas
Lancaster, “‘One Law’ and the Messianic Gentile”, Messiah Journal 101.
By interpreting the “yoke” as referring to
the full “Torah of Moses,” FFOZ characterizes Torah as a Way of Life that
should be avoided since it is “unbearable.”
The Torah, in FFOZ’s analysis, is part of the problem.
TOPIC 3: James’ Speech
First Fruits of Zion
·
Relevance of
Inclusionary Prophetic References to Issue(s) and Rule(s) (e.g. Gezerah Shavah
of Inclusionary Prophetic Passages; “People for His Name”; “Tent of David”):
·
First Fruits of Zion,
on the one hand, acknowledge that the terms “People for His Name” and “Tent of
David” implied a certain level of inclusion but they qualify it as a political,
non-covenantal type of inclusion. They interpret
the Prophets as foretelling of a Messianic Era in which the Davidic King
(Yeshua) rules over vassal states that exist within the Commonwealth realm of Israel but outside of the covenant realm of Israel. They analogize these Gentile vassal states to
Edom during the Davidic monarchy, a state which they argue was included in the
Commonwealth of the Davidic Kingdom but excluded from the covenant.
·
Relevance of Fourfold
Decree to Issue(s) and Rule(s)
FFOZ interprets that Fourfold Decree as an
early formulation of the “Noahide Laws” which are intended to “baseline for
ethical, moral conduct.” Additionally,
FFOZ interprets the Fourfold Decree as a formulation based on rules for “strangers
who sojourn [amongst Israel]” from Leviticus 17-18. Both interpretations yield the same
exegetical result: the Gentiles must
have a more manageable list of commandments (e.g. Noahide, Leviticus 17-18)
because the full list would prove to be an unbearable “yoke.”
·
Relevance of Dicta in
15:21 to Issue(s) and Rule(s): “[Based
on Acts 15:21] Gentile believers were already meeting in the synagogue every
Sabbath where they would hear further instruction in the Torah…However, James
did not make learning Torah in the synagogue or taking on additional
observances a prerequisite for the Gentiles, nor did he submit that advice to
the Gentiles. The matter about hearing
Moses in the synagogues was not included in the letter that the apostles sent
out to the believing communities.”
No comments:
Post a Comment