Acts 13-15
This week in considering Acts 13-15 with the church group the sole focus was upon the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. Several points were highlighted in the written commentary that we are using. First, that the question of importance considered by the council was not whether Gentiles should or should not keep Torah, but if the Gentile believers must convert to Judaism to be saved. Secondly, that the “whole Torah” and/or “yoke of Torah”, refers to the written Torah plus the oral Torah with its traditions, fences and legal rulings. Third, that the four minimum requirements were a set of rules that would allow Jewish and Gentile believers to share meals and communal fellowship. And lastly, that the obvious conclusion and expectation of the council was that Gentiles would participate in synagogue worship each week, hear the Torah being read, learn it, and observe it.
In considering the expressions “whole Torah” and “yoke of Torah” the group asked for clarification regarding the definition of the oral Torah. The pastor correctly stated that Torah in general means “instructions”. One lady, who brought her HaYesod book from last year’s study, referred to the lesson in which the word Torah and its broad range of uses was taught. Because the oral Torah contains the instructions of the rabbis regarding the written Torah, it too is called “Torah” or “instructions”.
The pastor stated that he found this to be the best lesson so far, because it was “filled with Jesus”. Although Yeshua in general was really not referred to in Acts 15, I understood what he meant. In the written comments the doctrine of salvation by faith was highlighted numerous times. The Gentiles received the Holy Spirit just as the Jews had. No one is saved through keeping the Torah, and when Torah is used as a means of attaining salvation it becomes “an unbearable yoke”. Torah, whether written or oral, should not be required as a criterion for salvation, salvation is by faith alone.
The pastor made an interesting comment about the four essentials, seeing in them the “basics” of the 10 commandments and a general framework for “loving G-d” and “loving neighbor as oneself”. The command against idolatry is the basic to “loving G-d”. The other three requirements show consideration in fellowship with Jewish brothers (not eating blood, abstaining from strangled/non-kosher slaughtered animals, and abstaining from sexual immorality) a basic of “loving neighbor as oneself”. He conjectured that the Gentiles, as “baby Christians” were given these essentials as practical, “first step” means of loving G-d and loving one’s neighbor.
The pastor brought his large denominational commentary bible and to my surprise he gave it to me on loan so I can consider its comments for the rest of the Acts study. I hadn’t asked for this bible on loan, but thanked him for his thoughtfulness. As the group was discussing I quickly looked up Acts 15 in this bible. The comments on v. 20 indicated that the prohibition of eating blood and/or meat that had been strangled was “only for a time”, a “temporary concession” to avoid giving offense to Jewish believers who considered this sinful and offensive. The four essentials were “requests” of the Apostles to the Gentile believers so as not to “hinder the faith of Jewish believers” — for obedience to ceremonial law was not a requirement for salvation and neither was it a prerequisite for acceptance “in the Church”.
With this thought on my mind, I turned the conversation toward the requirement of not eating blood or meat from strangled animals (not properly drained of blood). I referred to Leviticus 17 which states that not only was the “house of Israel” to refrain from blood, but also the “stranger” (non-Jew) who sojourns in her midst. I related a teaching I once heard from a rabbi in which the prohibition of blood was explained (in relation to sacrificial offerings). The “life” as in the blood can be understood to refer to the spiritual “life force” or “life characteristics” of the animal that by nature lives according to instincts, desires, and emotions. Mankind’s spiritual “life force” (soul) is made in the image of G-d. We have intellect and free-will that allows us to live above and beyond purely animalistic drives and instincts. To consume blood is to be nourished and strengthened by a life force that is purely instinctual or animal. Therefore, when an animal is sacrificed the flesh is elevated on the altar but the blood is sprinkled on the sides of the altar in a gesture of dedication. The sacrificial flesh is eaten but the blood is never consumed.
The group found this to be a pertinent thought and “fascinating” teaching. The pastor commented that the difficulty with focusing on law is that it can easily become “outward” and lead to arrogance, by being “holier than thou” or “look at me” and “what I do”. He related that after the Reformation certain groups of Christians formed denominations that “were into piety” and that looked down on others who were not as “holy” as they were. I agreed that this is certainly a temptation and error, and related Yeshua’s admonition to certain Pharisees against making their “phylacteries wide” and their “fringes broad” etc. Yet, when it comes to loving G-d, how do we know what this means? John in his epistle says love for G-d is to “keep his commandments”. Then I related a very simple concept that I was introduced to in my early “Messianic” days. G-d’s pattern is seen with Israel and the Exodus. Redemption comes before Sinai, not the other way around. Redemption/salvation leads us to “law”, to wanting to draw near to G-d, serve Him, and obey him. The pastor thought this was a “very good” analogy.
After the group left for the evening I felt a bit guilty about the study. In putting together the commentary section for this week, I naturally chose the Jerusalem Council as the topic for Acts 13-15 from a source that I had studied over the years, but without reading through it in review. As the group read around the commentary out loud, I realized that I don’t agree with some of these views anymore. The Torah as being “an unbearable yoke” is uncertain and disputable. That the four essentials were meant to enable table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles does not reflect James reference to Amos and the prophets. That James and the council encourage Gentiles to learn of Moses “every Sabbath in the Synagogue” is not in keeping with the context of the chapter. The letter sent to the Gentiles with the council’s determinations (as described in Acts 15), doesn’t mention Moses being taught in the synagogue every Sabbath, and the syntax of the Greek doesn’t support a future tense admonition. How ironic that the one lesson the pastor “loved” I felt wasn’t well presented or was misrepresented on my part, in introducing this topic.
Next week the group will consider Acts 16-18 including Timothy’s circumcision and Paul’s hair cut (Nazirite vow) in Cenchrea.
“That James and the council encourage Gentiles to learn of Moses “every Sabbath in the Synagogue” is not in keeping with the context of the chapter.” I am not certain why you feel this is awkward or out of context as all of the believers in Yeshua were worshiping together in the Synagogue and in the Temple, both Gentile and Jewish believers, including offering the sacrifices and participating in the festivals. They were learning Moses, the “New Testament” had not been written… and they did not fear or resist keeping the commandments of G-d or performing good works (mitzvot) the way our post Reformation pastors do today. I think the common practice of the community would have been natural for Peter to draw upon. And I agree with you, Peter would have never meant that the Torah was a yoke that the apostles and the Fathers could not bear. I think he was referencing the yokes created by men, such as the prohibition of Jews entering the home of a Gentile which he did in Acts 10. Tim Hegg has wonderful teaching on Acts 15 at Torah Resource (I also study with FFOZ). Peter’s letters express his love of the commandments, lots of emphasis on loving the Word/Torah and exhortations concerning conduct/commandments. Your lessons are excellent! Blessings!
Than you very much for the reply. For some clarifications regarding my doubts about this see my three part post on Acts 15 found, here, here, and here.
Thank you, I have studying to do! I am not familiar with Bilateral Ecclesiology and I will have to read James and the Gentiles by Richard Bauckham, I am so very glad you are posting your work online.