Part 2
WHAT WAS THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL REALLY ALL ABOUT?
There are four places in Acts 15 that deal with the Law of Moses:- or more accurately, an interpretation of the Law of Moses:
(a) verse 1 : 'except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses'.
(b) verse 5: 'that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses'.
(c) verses 20-21 'that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood; for Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him...'.
(d) verse 24: '[ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law'
(not in the NIV) .
In case (a) circumcision is clearly the point of contention:
the law is claimed to prescribe the application.
Case (b) is the judicial restatement of case
(a): some appear to believe that the one issue is made into two (adherence of circumcision to Gentiles; adherence of law to Gentiles), but the language links the three verbs "circumcise", "command" (charge) and "keep" - thus indicating just ONE issue.
Case (d) again formally restates case (a) - and this time the grammar clearly indicates that 'and keep the law' is a one-time act, associated directly with being circumcised.
(Perhaps this is why NIV leaves it out: i ts presence weakens antinomianism!)
This leaves case (c), which formally re-states the requirements for the GER out of the (written) law, expressly omitting circumcision; in this instance, direct mention is made that other aspects of the law (which would now apply to the grafted-in GER) are preached every Sabbath (when anybody can avail themselves of knowledge of God's will).
(F) Acts 15:24
This includes the phrase 'be circumcised and keep the law'(Greek: PERITEMNESTHAI KAI TIREIN TON NOMON ); note again that two verbs are connected by KAI without prohibition or intervention (that is, other words or particles intervening); this normally means that the second is a result of the first - a periphrastic rendition. In English the KAI (literally 'and') is best rendered 'for the sake of', 'in order to', or 'with a view to' or 'thereby'. Applying this here we see that the command is to 'be circumcised with a view to keeping the law '.
Even more to the point here, both 'be circumcised' and 'keep' are in the Aorist Imperative (the first in Middle voice, the second in Active, for what it's worth), which specifies a ONE-TIME action.
Note this carefully: the keeping of the law spoken of here is not a continuous or habitual action - it is directly attached to the act of being circumcised: but whois being circumcised? - the person addressed is the Gentile believer. With this understanding, we see this verse...
(1) relates to circumcision of adults.
(2) does not relate to the GENERAL keeping of the law (or the PRESENT Imperative for 'keep' would be used).
(3) corresponds exactly (and surely refers to) the contention of some of the disciples in Acts 15.1
(G) Acts 21:21
This raises the issue that Jewish Christians in Jerusalem had come to believe that Paul urged Jews among Gentiles to give up circumcision and Jewish customs. The problem is analyzed by the disciples and a rationale is established (Acts 21.17-26) and Paul cooperates. Note the following facts about this:
(1) the disciples use the language of rumour (clear in the Greek) in verse 21 about the claim that Paul had abandoned law. The Asian Jews were in uproar (v27-28).
(2) their suggestion (that Paul adhere to a vow with a following offering) to demonstrate that he still personally kept the law - was accepted and accomplished by Paul; if Paul did not sincerely keep the law, this makes him a hypocrite in the extreme. If he himself obeyed the law but directed Jews otherwise he would also be a hypocrite. Thus (presuming Paul's honesty) the rumour must have been false!
(3) in verse 24 and 26 we learn that (according to the disciples) there was no truth in the rumours (literally ' that of which they have been told concerning you is void').
(4) the NIV omits part of verse 25, only declaring the positive side of the letter from the council in Acts 15; the Greek Textus Receptus includes the (extra) words..
..MIDEN TOIOTON TIREIN
..not-any such-thing to-practice (watch, observe, keep)
This makes sense of the words EI MI (English 'but') in that verse; some versions omit the above words and guess that EI MI here means 'only'
(NIV leaves it untranslated, with no note about the matter! ).
It is as if the verse said ' As for the believing Gentiles we joined in writing, judging them [only] to abstain.." .
What is the antecedent to 'no such thing' ? If one searches the context, the logical answer is - ' not to circumcise their children nor to walk in the customs' (verse 21). That is, the disciples are stating clearly (in Textus Receptus) that their judgment did NOT endorse the abandonment of circumcision of children or observance of custom even for the Gentiles!
(See note in NIV Study Bible on Romans 3.31 - The rumour was that Paul taught antinomianism to the Jews; the Jerusalem Council had not only denied that (v25) - they denied he had even taught such to Gentile Christians!) Rather, or instead (EI MI), their judgement had endorsed the view that Gentile Christians were effectively foreigners grafted into Israel and should obey certain rules.
The Church of God is not the violent replacement for Israel - it is the continuation of Israel , though under the direction of a new administration (see Matt 9: 14-17: Matt 21:42 -46).
(H) Halakhah and the Oral Law
Note that 'manner' (Acts 15:1) is a Hebraism: it is HALAKHAH ('way of walking') . The Greek word used here (ETHOS) is good, but not perfect because halakhah (plural halakhot ) is a J ewish obsession virtually unknown to Gentiles . No Greek word conveys the whole meaning by itself. A halakhah is an application (as dictated by rabbinic interpretation) of a mitzvah ( command from the law). To keep the law the Jew relies upon living in the halakhot written about the particular metier.
The Jewish Christians in Acts 15 prescribed the halakhot for Gentiles - and aside from the strict teaching about circumcision these were the same as the halakhot for admission to the congregation of Israel!
'Halakhah' is also commonly translated with the Greek word HODOS ('way'), which can denote behaviour ('way of walking', halakhah) or a path (as in 'prepare ye the WAY of the Lord', corresponding to Hebrew DAREK - related to our words drag, track, trek). Places in the New Testament where HODOS most clearly means Halakhah are Acts 9.2, 16.17, 18.25-26, 19.9, 19.23, 22.4, 24.14, 24,22, 1 Cor 12.31 (especially!), I Thes 3.11, Heb 9.8, 10.20, Jas 5.20, 2 Pet 2.2, 2.15, 2.21 and Jude 21.
The various halakhot , along with many other interpretations (not involving rules of behaviour) eventually - shortly after the fall of the temple - were collected to form the Talmud . In Christ's time they were collectively called Oral Law . Dr David H Stern clarifies:
"when one speaks of 'the halakhah ', one is bringing to mind the whole framework of Jewish life as seen from a particular viewpoint... connotes ordinary Jews consulting with their rabbis in order to learn more about how God wants them to live" ( Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospel , p 53).
So what we see in Acts 15 is a ruling on a specific issue (admission to the Messianic fellowship of Israel ).
The four halakhot quoted CANNOT be a substitute for the Law (as if - 'the law of Moses is removed: all the Gentiles have to observe is...') for they do not include anything about murder or lying, for instance! Neither can one hold out the semblance that they somehow supplement the Decalogue - or even the Noahic covenant - for in fact they actually overlap both these sets of law.
Note that the Oral Law (and the halakhot in particular) should not be viewed as necessarily evil. Christ spoke of 'traditions of men' as masking the true intent of the law; in this he was disdaining the error of the Pharisees, that they placed their rules above the law, though they were intended to be 'rules of thumb' to guide behaviour.
Being interpretations of the true law, they must always take a lower place . Christ also added new halakhot - such as 'going the extra mile'. We must note that in many obvious respects Christ followed many traditions that were in the Oral Law but not in the written Law . It should further be noted that the Oral Law was under constant revision : spiritual leaders were always adding to or changing Oral Law - but the written Law could never be subjected to addition, change or deletion.
Authority resided in the Jerusalem council of Christians to add or change halakhot: this is precisely what they did - guided by the Holy Spirit and in accordance with the written Law. Acts 15 represents a specific ruling on the issue of entry into the covenant, enacted by the legitimate authorities of the church: this is not based on Oral Law - although in effect it becomes Oral Law itself . It is entirely based on the written Law in the Old Testament.
In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul (with proper authority) seems to have modified the halakhah that forbids food offered to idols. Inspection will show that in spite of the change there is no modification to the actual Law : the halakhah is lifted simply because 'we know that an idol is nothing' (1 Cor 8.4).
It is an interesting thought that booklets published by the Church today, fill the same role as Oral Law did in the first century: they discuss and interpret the scripture; they explain the principles of the bible; they provide good and bad examples to follow or avoid; they strongly suggest guidelines for how a Christian can obey God; they are considered authoritative, yet no divine infallibility is claimed for them ; they are occasionally revised when understanding or circumstances change; they represent the distilled thought of the leadership of the congregation. But they do not, and cannot in any way replace, change or delete the law of God. (To do so would be to fall into precisely the same error as the Pharisees, which Christ himself so comprehensively condemned!).
It must be noted - and it is easy to confirm by opening to any page of a copy of the Talmud - that the pronouncements that comprise various halakhot often bear little resemblance to the written Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy). For example 'Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk' (Ex 23.19) has become a prohibition against eating dairy produce and meat in the same meal - or even preparing them with the same utensils!
The term most often used in the New Testament for Oral Law is 'tradition of the elders'; Jesus had no qualms about rejecting or reinterpreting its parts; see Matt 15.1-11 and Mark 7.1-23; note that even in the dubious NIV rendering of Mark 7.19, Jesus ventures to reject Oral Law, not Written Law (cf verses 2 and 19, NIV). Hyam Maccoby (lecturer at Leo Baeck College , London ) explains:
"... always beware when someone says, 'The Talmud says this' or 'the Talmud says that'. What he should say is that some specific Rabbi in the Talmud says this or that. Even if this Rabbi has the decisive opinion, this is not necessarily final because such decisions could be wrong, even though in accordance with 'the rule of law' they are regarded as being in force until they are proved wrong and officially repealed". ( The Day God Laughed ).
(I) Helpful Quotes
On the main passage (Acts 15) it would be good to note the following explanations:
>"One of the central texts used by antinomians (see below) is Acts 15.5... There is no evidence whatsoever that the Ten Commandments ceased to be law after the Council of Jerusalem ..The laws of God against sin were never repealed by this council. The issue was justification; Judaism had misused the law.
First , it had replaced it with the traditions of man, which it made into law, and, second the law, which is the way of sanctification, was made into the way of justification... Moreover , the Pharisees called their rabbinic interpretations 'the law of Moses' although Christ called them 'the traditions of men' ...
it was the protest and phrasing of the Pharisees which we read in Acts 15.5. By law was thus meant the law as viewed by rabbinic tradition... Clearly, verse 21 emphasizes the still binding character of the [written] law...The use of the word "synagogues" can refer to the Jewish synagogues...or to Christian gatherings ....The instruction to the gentile Christians is summed up in verse 20. Does this mean that the Gentiles were free to have other gods, to blaspheme, dishonour parents, murder, steal, bear false witness or covet? Obviously not... the issue was not whether the law was to be retained, but how to be retained: as the means of justification, or of sanctification?" Rousas John Rushdoony The Institutes of Biblical Law
(Note: 'antinomian' refers to the doctrine of throwing out the law: ANTI (=against) + NOMOS (=Law). It is widely appreciated that the foremost antinomian theologian of today is probably Dr F.F. Bruce of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena). Please distinguish antinomianism from antinomy , which is an altogether different subject.
(J) Conclusion
The judgment and outcome of the Jerusalem Conference removed the obstruction of adult circumcision of adult converts - nothing more is mentioned ! Furthermore even this is still optional - Timothy is circumcised 'because of the Jews' in the very next chapter (vs 1-3) . Timothy was a half-Jew: his father was Greek, but his mother Jewish. He would be regarded (by the Jews) as an uncircumcised Jew.
By way of summary:
(a) Pharisees from among the Christian community had approached Gentile converts, insisting that to fulfil law they would have to be circumcised as well as be baptised and practice 'the way ' ( halakhot ).
(b) The council in Jerusalem met . James declared that circumcision of converts was an intolerable burden that should not be imposed. In doing this he was agreeing with a more liberal interpretation of bris than that held by Pharisees. (By the way, today Jews normally use bris as a synonym for moelah (circumcision).
(c) The council issued a judgment that re-stated the halakhot for Gentile admission to the fellowship of Israel (the Church). This, as we mentioned above, is an 'Oral Law' interpretation , entirely in keeping with the written Law - effectively quoting it.
(d) This decision removes the impediment of adult circumcision. It does not state anything about change of the status of law, removal or change to any law .
(e) Acts 15.21 implies that the Gentile convert continued in the teaching of Moses to which he would be exposed each sabbath; this would of course include the festivals.
(f) Paul in Acts 21 repudiates the rumour that he was teaching against circumcision for children or against other customs - for either Jews OR Gentiles.
(g) None of the teachings of Christ or Paul - or any other writer of the New Testament - removes or invalidates written Law (whereas it has always been permissible for authorities to change Oral Law - effectively interpretation and practical or administrative measures). This is what Christ referred to in Matt 5: 17 -20.
Certain of the written laws have been superseded by more eminent laws (such as Christ as high priest, and as paschal sacrifice) - but even this principle has always been acknowledged by Jews as proper treatment of law: David eating the shewbread is an example; rescuing an ox out of a pit on a sabbath is another. It is relevant to note that no higher law (in the New Testament or elsewhere) supersedes the Sabbath, Holy Days, tithing or unclean meats.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix
1. Rabbis' point of view
After most of this study was completed, Wilf Hey discussed it (for accuracy and to balance interpretation) with several Jews, including two rabbis. One of the rabbis pointed out the following interesting fact:
that overwhelming evidence now exists - confirmed strongly by the Dead Sea scrolls - that Hebrew, not Aramaic, was the primary language of Jews in Roman times ;
Professor David Flusser ( Hebrew University , Jerusalem ) argues that all the synoptic gospels incorporate translations from Hebrew, and that much of Acts (including the proceedings of the council in Acts 15) is replete with Hebraisms. He has lectured, very much along the lines of interpretation expressed here.
2. Additional information on Gerim
The halakhot for gerim seeking entrance to Israel are exactly as stated above: there are a few other verses that seem to put responsibility on the ger, but are not discussed in this context . We can only make intelligent guesses about why these are not part of the halakhot, nor in the statement of the halakhot in Acts 15. Representative of these verses are the following: (others are simple variations of these)...
Exodus 12.19: '.. . whosoever eateth that which is leavened [during the days of Unleavened Bread] ... shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel , whether he is a stranger, or born in the land'.
Exodus 20.10: ' [in the sabbath] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son,... nor thy cattle, or thy stranger that is within thy gates'.
Exodus 23.12: ' ... on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox... may rest, and ... the stranger may be refreshed'.
Leviticus 16.29: '[on the Day of Atonement] ye shall.. .do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you'.
Leviticus 24.16: '... he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD ... shall surely be put to death ... the stranger, as he that is born in the land'.
(a) Note that Exodus 12.19 and Lev 16.29 are not specific commands for behaviour (halakhah), but for observance (shimmurah) . It is conjecture that these are not included because they are neither one-time acts that change status (like circumcision and baptism) nor continuous acts of obedience.
(b) Exodus 20.10 and 23.12 are of course directly related. The suggestion would be that the latter explains the former; it puts the onus on the Israelite to make sure that work is not done for the refreshing of the beasts, servants and gerim. This makes it clear that the benefit is for the gerim, but the responsibility is for the Israelite. Truly the Sabbath is made for (all) man(kind).
(c) Leviticus 24.16 is actually part of a distinct passage which must be viewed in context: 24.10-23 traces a case about legal responsibility , and clarifies that the prosecution of civil law must be universal . Seen in this context there is no command for the ger: more appropriately it is a warning of universal application.
3. Tevilah - baptism - see points B and E(i)
Baptism as a requirement for the entry of a foreigner into Israel is not mentioned in this verse (Ex 12.48) nor anywhere else in the written Torah. But it derives directly from the defeat of the Midianites by the congregation of Israel in Numbers 31. War was successfully waged (verses 7-12); virgins were saved from among the captives (verses 17-18) and incorporated into Israel by going through 'the waters of separation' (KJV - verses 22-23). These 'waters of separation' were established in connection with the red heifer (Numbers 19).
Baptisms were common by the time of Christ: many sect leaders - rabbis with distinctive teaching - adopted baptism as an initiation into their company, using this same idea that the baptised person was being separated . Note that this separation is NIDDAH - the separation of a menstruous woman (Lev 12.1-5 and 15.9-33) rather than NZR - the separation of a consecrated thing . Baptism is required because of filth rather than for the sake of holiness. It is separation with the emphasis on from rather than to .
4. The Meaning of "Torah"
The Hebrew word TORAH is translated into Greek as NOMOS (=law). It is important to know that TORAH does not mean "law", but "doctrine" . The New Bible Dictionary (NBD) has an excellent article on Law (which should be considered essential reading):
"The translation of the word TORA into Gk. nomos has often been criticized, and not without foundation, as TORA, as we have seen, has a wider and deeper meaning, and above all implicates, more than nomos , a living and merciful God as the giver of this `instruction'." (NBD page 721)
When we see reference in the New Testament to 'the law' we must endeavour to make distinction between a particular law or the whole law - especially in a context using a Hebraism, where a Jew might naturally refer to those aspects of the law that relate to a particular question. For example in Luke 2.39 'the law' refers specifically to Leviticus 12, and similarly in Acts 15.5 'the law' refers to Leviticus 17-18. Also it should be noted that:
"In general discourse 'Torah' can mean not only the first five books of the Old Testament but also:
(1) The actual Scroll, containing the five books of Moses, hand-written on parchment (kept in the 'ark' in a synagogue or temple, behind the high altar), from which specified readings are publicly given on the Sabbath, on Mondays and Thursdays, and during festivals.
(2) The divine teachings of the Lord.
(3) The Old Testament as a whole.
(4) All Jewish Law, including the oral tradition of Judaic religion and moral precepts.
(5) Living in accordance with the teachings of Judaism; 'to live Torah', 'to live by Torah', 'to practice Torah', mean to practice Judaism's prescriptions about faith, compassion, study and duty to one's fellow man." Leo Rosten Guide Notes on Torah and Talmud
Much of this variance in use of the term 'Torah' arises from the time of Ezra; in the re-establishment of partial Israel (in the form of Judaism) he developed a system that interpreted and applied the law indirectly through teaching statutes and judgments (Ezra 7.10 and Nehemiah 8.7-8).
It is absolutely essential to be aware of the considerable flexibility in the use of the term `law' ( nomos ) in the New Testament. For example the term `law of Moses' can be understood as embracing more than was strictly Mosaic.
"There is thus great diversity in the denotation of the word `law', and sometimes there is deep-seated difference in connotation. The result is that a meaning totally diverse from that intended by the New Testament speaker or writer would be imposed upon his words if we did not appreciate the differentiation which appears in the usage. There are instances, especially in Paul, where transition from one meaning to another appears in adjacent clauses....And on numerous occasions it is difficult to ascertain what the precise denotation is. In the main, however, when the distinctions given above (which see - Ed.) are recognized, the interpretation will be relieved of frequent distortions and needless difficulties will be resolved." (NBD, Page 722)
5. Thought
Is circumcision on the eighth day still in place - still a command for new-born Jewish males? Does it apply to new-born males who are children of Gentile Christians? Is the image of Gentiles becoming 'grafted into' Israel a judicial fact (instead of a colorful metaphor)? (Romans 11). None of these three issues is directly dealt with in Acts 15, but it would seem that for the answers to be consistent with all the above, they would be in the affirmative .
NB. Comments and critique on this imperfect paper are greatly welcomed by the authors in the interests of a continuing search for a fuller truth of the scriptures.
