Acts 15 PArt 2
Circumcision in the Bible
The commandment focused on in the Jerusalem Council is that of circumcision. As mentioned above, God first commands circumcision in Genesis 17:
The commandment focused on in the Jerusalem Council is that of circumcision. As mentioned above, God first commands circumcision in Genesis 17:
And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant” (9–14).
In Genesis 15, God made a covenant with Abraham, promising that he would have a son (4), that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars in heaven (5), and that God would give Abraham’s offspring the land of Canaan (18-20). Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness (6). Later, in Genesis 17, God commands circumcision as the sign of those in covenant with him. The timing of these events is crucial. God declared Abraham righteous before he commanded him to be circumcised. Paul implores us to remember this pattern in Romans 4:9-12, as discussed above. God never intended circumcision to be a requirement to enter into relationship with him, but rather a response to relationship with him.
The same pattern continues when a new generation of Israelites is about to enter the land of Canaan. In Deuteronomy 29, Moses calls this generation to enter into covenant with God:
The same pattern continues when a new generation of Israelites is about to enter the land of Canaan. In Deuteronomy 29, Moses calls this generation to enter into covenant with God:
“You are standing today, all of you, before the LORD your God: the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner who is in your camp, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water, so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the LORD your God, which the LORD your God is making with you today, that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. It is not with you alone that I am making this sworn covenant, but with whoever is standing here with us today before the LORD our God, and with whoever is not here with us today” (10–15).
The Israelites have been wandering in the desert for forty years, and the first generation has died off. Here in Deuteronomy, God calls this new generation to enter into covenant with him. However, we learn in Joshua that these same men were not circumcised:
At that time the LORD said to Joshua, “Make flint knives and circumcise the sons of Israel a second time.” So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the sons of Israel at Gibeath-haaraloth. And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: all the males of the people who came out of Egypt, all the men of war, had died in the wilderness on the way after they had come out of Egypt. Though all the people who came out had been circumcised, yet all the people who were born on the way in the wilderness after they had come out of Egypt had not been circumcised. For the people of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, the men of war who came out of Egypt, perished, because they did not obey the voice of the LORD; the LORD swore to them that he would not let them see the land that the LORD had sworn to their fathers to give to us, a land flowing with milk and honey. So it was their children, whom he raised up in their place, that Joshua circumcised. For they were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised on the way (Joshua 5:2–7).
Again, the timing of these two events is crucial. God invites the Israelites into covenant with him before they have been circumcised. It is not until after they have crossed over the Jordan that they receive circumcision. Circumcision, once again, is not a prerequisite to covenant relationship with God. Like all God’s commands, it is an important act of obedience but not an entrance requirement as a member of the people of God.
A Manmade Yoke
If obeying the Torah, and specifically circumcision, is not a burden placed upon believers, then what is the unbearable yoke to which Peter refers in 15:10? Remember, the men from Judea were teaching that only the circumcised can be saved (15:1). The unbearable yoke, then, is the teaching that circumcision or following the Torah is a requirement for salvation. A salvation-by-works doctrine is placed heavy on the shoulders of those who want to respond to the gospel and become a part of the family of God. The origin of such a teaching is not of God but of man.
This stands in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches about salvation: that all people, Jew and Gentile alike, are “saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus” (15:11). The gospel message is not:
Rather, we believe in the truth of the gospel and are saved, and then God begins to teach us how to follow him. When God called his people out of Egypt, he did not require them to obey all his commandments before he would deliver them. Rather, the only entrance requirement was that they apply the blood of the Passover lamb over their doors. God brought them out of slavery and then gave them the Torah. God’s model for salvation is consistent throughout the Bible: God saves us, then teaches us how to walk with him. Paul remarks similarly in his letter to the Galatians,
A Manmade Yoke
If obeying the Torah, and specifically circumcision, is not a burden placed upon believers, then what is the unbearable yoke to which Peter refers in 15:10? Remember, the men from Judea were teaching that only the circumcised can be saved (15:1). The unbearable yoke, then, is the teaching that circumcision or following the Torah is a requirement for salvation. A salvation-by-works doctrine is placed heavy on the shoulders of those who want to respond to the gospel and become a part of the family of God. The origin of such a teaching is not of God but of man.
This stands in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches about salvation: that all people, Jew and Gentile alike, are “saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus” (15:11). The gospel message is not:
- follow the ten commandments first … then you can be saved
- wear tassels on your cloak … then you can be part of God’s people
- go to church every week … then God will accept you.
Rather, we believe in the truth of the gospel and are saved, and then God begins to teach us how to follow him. When God called his people out of Egypt, he did not require them to obey all his commandments before he would deliver them. Rather, the only entrance requirement was that they apply the blood of the Passover lamb over their doors. God brought them out of slavery and then gave them the Torah. God’s model for salvation is consistent throughout the Bible: God saves us, then teaches us how to walk with him. Paul remarks similarly in his letter to the Galatians,
Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? (Galatians 3:2–6)
From the beginning with Abraham, with the Israelites, and with the early church in Acts, God’s method of salvation is consistent. We are saved through faith and not works.
Peter finishes his testimony that even the Gentiles are saved through faith, and all the assembly falls silent (12). Paul and Barnabas then share the many signs and wonders that they witnessed God do among the Gentiles (12), similar to Peter’s experience with Cornelius’ household. Finally, James confirms their testimony with Scripture, citing Amos 9:11-12:
Peter finishes his testimony that even the Gentiles are saved through faith, and all the assembly falls silent (12). Paul and Barnabas then share the many signs and wonders that they witnessed God do among the Gentiles (12), similar to Peter’s experience with Cornelius’ household. Finally, James confirms their testimony with Scripture, citing Amos 9:11-12:
“After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old” (Acts 15:16–18).
At this point, there are three separate witnesses to the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God: Peter, Paul/Barnabas, and now the Word of God. This is consistent with the Torah which states that a charge must be established by two to three witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15). There can be no doubt in the council’s mind on God’s acceptance of the Gentiles. Now, the men must make some practical decisions about how this will play out.
The Four Requirements
After quoting Amos and confirming the testimonies of Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, James sets forth four requirements for Gentile believers:
The Four Requirements
After quoting Amos and confirming the testimonies of Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, James sets forth four requirements for Gentile believers:
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood (19–20).
Most understand this to mean that believing Gentiles must abstain from:
At first glance, this seems a rather odd list. Perhaps abstaining from sexual immorality resonates with modern day believers, but the other three requirements are foreign to most. So why does James set forth these four commands as crucial for new converts? Commentators have arrived at varied explanations for the inclusion of these four requirements. There are five common positions regarding the commands:
We will examine these five positions, considering the strengths and weaknesses of each, in an attempt to determine which is the best explanation.
Moral Prohibitions
Some argue the four requirements are moral prohibitions. Those who find the prohibitions to be moral in nature generally follow the reading of some Western Greek manuscripts, which omit strangled things. This leaves things polluted by idols, sexual immorality, and blood. The first is taken to mean refraining from idolatry and the last is interpreted as murder, or bloodshed. Thus all three prohibitions are moral. However, this view is quite weak since the stronger textual evidence includes four prohibitions, not three. When all four are considered together, it seems that only the second is moral and the other three are related to diet. As Acts scholar Craig Keener notes,
- things polluted by idols (i.e. eating meat sacrificed to idols),
- sexual immorality,
- (eating) strangled animals, and
- (eating/drinking) blood.
At first glance, this seems a rather odd list. Perhaps abstaining from sexual immorality resonates with modern day believers, but the other three requirements are foreign to most. So why does James set forth these four commands as crucial for new converts? Commentators have arrived at varied explanations for the inclusion of these four requirements. There are five common positions regarding the commands:
- They are moral prohibitions.
- They are related to the Noahide laws.
- They are based on laws in the Torah for the strangers dwelling in Israel.
- They help to maintain table fellowship among Jews and Gentiles.
- They are related to pagan temple worship.
We will examine these five positions, considering the strengths and weaknesses of each, in an attempt to determine which is the best explanation.
Moral Prohibitions
Some argue the four requirements are moral prohibitions. Those who find the prohibitions to be moral in nature generally follow the reading of some Western Greek manuscripts, which omit strangled things. This leaves things polluted by idols, sexual immorality, and blood. The first is taken to mean refraining from idolatry and the last is interpreted as murder, or bloodshed. Thus all three prohibitions are moral. However, this view is quite weak since the stronger textual evidence includes four prohibitions, not three. When all four are considered together, it seems that only the second is moral and the other three are related to diet. As Acts scholar Craig Keener notes,
The textual evidence, however, strongly favors reading all four elements here rather than three, and the moment we admit the food prohibition of things strangled alongside idol food, “blood” becomes likely a food prohibition rather than a prohibition of murder (2260).
Also, the moral category is unhelpful in that it is culturally-based. Again, Keener notes:
The “moral” approach also may impose a modern category on an era that defined its categories differently. Meat with blood in it may not offend modern “moral” sensibilities, but it offended keepers of Torah. In listing sins inviting the destruction of Judah (Ezek 33:27–29), Ezekiel lists eating meat with blood in it (33:25) alongside idolatry, bloodshed (33:25–26), and adultery (33:26) (2261).
Modern day readers of Acts might not understand how diet and morality can be connected, but the Bible has much to say about what we should and should not eat. Still, a “moral prohibition” understanding of the four requirements is not helpful because it leaves out many important “moral” commandments such as honor your parents, do not steal, and do not covet. Weren’t Gentiles to abide by these things too?
Noahide Laws
Others have offered the explanation that the four prohibitions are an abbreviated version or pre-conception of the rabbinic Noahide laws. These constitute a rabbinic understanding of what God required of Gentiles, who were descended from Noah but not of Abraham. In other words, they were laws that God wanted all of humanity to follow. The Jewish writing called the Tosefta, which is a fourth century AD commentary on the Mishnah, is the earliest reference to the Noahide laws, and includes prohibitions against idolatry, incest, shedding blood, profaning God’s name, robbery, injustice, and eating live animals (Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8.4). Perhaps James was applying an abbreviated form of these to the new Gentile converts. However, there are significant problems with this explanation. First, there are several prohibitions in the Noahide laws that are not included in Acts 15, such as robbery and injustice. Why wouldn’t James include these? Second, many scholars have pointed out that it is anachronistic to interpret the Acts 15 requirements as abbreviated Noahide laws since the latter do not appear in any written form until several centuries later (Witherington 464; Hegg 20). We are left seeking a better explanation.
Strangers in the Land
A third explanation is that the four requirements were based on the laws in Torah for strangers residing in the land of Israel, and specifically those found in Leviticus 17 and 18. In these passages, laws are given concerning:
When God gives these commands, he repeats for each of them that they are for “any one of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them” (Lev 17:8; cf 17:10,13-15;18:24-26). There are certainly some connections between these passages and Acts 15 such as the eating of blood and sexual immorality. However, Acts scholar David Peterson points out some problems with this interpretation. For example, the laws in Leviticus 17 and 18 are for strangers in the land of Israel, but the Gentile converts in Acts 15 were not in the land but were living in the Diaspora (434-435). Furthermore, Peterson continues:
Noahide Laws
Others have offered the explanation that the four prohibitions are an abbreviated version or pre-conception of the rabbinic Noahide laws. These constitute a rabbinic understanding of what God required of Gentiles, who were descended from Noah but not of Abraham. In other words, they were laws that God wanted all of humanity to follow. The Jewish writing called the Tosefta, which is a fourth century AD commentary on the Mishnah, is the earliest reference to the Noahide laws, and includes prohibitions against idolatry, incest, shedding blood, profaning God’s name, robbery, injustice, and eating live animals (Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8.4). Perhaps James was applying an abbreviated form of these to the new Gentile converts. However, there are significant problems with this explanation. First, there are several prohibitions in the Noahide laws that are not included in Acts 15, such as robbery and injustice. Why wouldn’t James include these? Second, many scholars have pointed out that it is anachronistic to interpret the Acts 15 requirements as abbreviated Noahide laws since the latter do not appear in any written form until several centuries later (Witherington 464; Hegg 20). We are left seeking a better explanation.
Strangers in the Land
A third explanation is that the four requirements were based on the laws in Torah for strangers residing in the land of Israel, and specifically those found in Leviticus 17 and 18. In these passages, laws are given concerning:
- where a person can make a sacrifice to the Lord
- the eating of blood (prohibited)
- the eating of dead animals (prohibited)
- and various sexual sins (prohibited)
When God gives these commands, he repeats for each of them that they are for “any one of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them” (Lev 17:8; cf 17:10,13-15;18:24-26). There are certainly some connections between these passages and Acts 15 such as the eating of blood and sexual immorality. However, Acts scholar David Peterson points out some problems with this interpretation. For example, the laws in Leviticus 17 and 18 are for strangers in the land of Israel, but the Gentile converts in Acts 15 were not in the land but were living in the Diaspora (434-435). Furthermore, Peterson continues:
It is difficult to align the command to avoid ‘the defilements caused by idols’ with Leviticus 17:8-9 and hard to explain why other laws binding on resident aliens are not included in Acts 15:20 (e.g. Lv. 16:29; 17:15-16; 20:2; 22:18; 24:22; 25:47) (435).
In other words, there is not a clear parallel of Acts 15’s command to avoid idolatry found in Leviticus 17 and 18, and there are many more commands given to strangers in the land in Leviticus that are not included in the Acts 15 requirements. Additionally, there are other laws in the Torah for Gentiles living in the land such as keeping the Sabbath (Exodus 23:12), and participating in the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:29), the Feast of Weeks (Deuteronomy 16:11), and the Feast of Tabernacles (Deuteronomy 16:14). If these special days were for Gentiles living in the land of Israel, and that is the criteria James uses for his list here in Acts 15, then why are these not included? It is an unsatisfactory explanation.
Maintaining Table Fellowship
A very common analysis of the four prohibitions is that they helped maintain table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers. At least three of the four seem to be related to food (that which was polluted by idols, was strangled, and contained blood). Because Jews followed the Torah, they would not eat any meat that fell into these categories. How then would they be able to eat with Gentile believers, who might be partaking in these things? Acts scholar John B. Polhill supports this when he says, “The Gentiles were to be asked to follow the four proscribed areas of the “apostolic decree” —not as a law, but as a basis for fellowship” (335). Keener further explains the position:
Maintaining Table Fellowship
A very common analysis of the four prohibitions is that they helped maintain table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers. At least three of the four seem to be related to food (that which was polluted by idols, was strangled, and contained blood). Because Jews followed the Torah, they would not eat any meat that fell into these categories. How then would they be able to eat with Gentile believers, who might be partaking in these things? Acts scholar John B. Polhill supports this when he says, “The Gentiles were to be asked to follow the four proscribed areas of the “apostolic decree” —not as a law, but as a basis for fellowship” (335). Keener further explains the position:
But as a compromise solution, Gentiles can be asked to follow some basic, minimal expectations for table fellowship to maintain unity with the Jewish believers (15:20). Not each of the expectations is moral, but all are necessary qualifications for Jews (both believers and nonbelievers in Jesus) to regard these believers as righteous, trustworthy Gentiles, with whom table fellowship might appear less problematic for Jewish believers (2258).
Keener says the four requirements are necessary for Gentiles to be regarded as righteous and trustworthy. However, there is a blaring issue with this: what about the food laws in Leviticus 11? Certainly having pork or shellfish on the table would offend a Jew, but nothing in Acts 15 mentions which specific animals could or could not be eaten. Also, consider the one prohibition in Acts that seems moral in nature: avoiding sexual immorality. Eating with the sexually immoral might certainly have been offensive to the Jews, but would not eating with a murderer be equally offensive? The four requirements in Acts 15 cannot be explained as a means to maintain table fellowship.
Pagan Temple Worship
A final explanation of the four prohibitions is their relationship to pagan temple practices. Acts commentator Ben Witherington suggests this view when he says,
Pagan Temple Worship
A final explanation of the four prohibitions is their relationship to pagan temple practices. Acts commentator Ben Witherington suggests this view when he says,
Furthermore, the issue is not just where one might find one or another of the four elements in the decree in isolation, but in what social setting one might find them together. Here the answer is again likely to be in a temple, not in a home, and in particular at a temple feast. That Jews regularly thought such a combination of activities was likely by pagans in a temple can be seen from a text like 2 Maccabees 6:4-5, which in recording the suppression of Judaism and the defiling of the Jerusalem temple by the forces of Antiochus tells us the following transpired: “For the temple was filled with debauchery and reveling by the Gentiles, who dallied with prostitutes and had intercourse with women within the sacred precincts, and besides brought in things for sacrifice that were unfit. The altar was covered with abominable offerings that were forbidden by the laws.” Here we see the very same sort of combination of idol meat and sexual activity in the temple venue as in Acts 15 with an emphasis that it is Gentiles who undertake such abominations (461-462).
Witherington argues that all four activities prohibited by James were commonly found in first century idol worship. The worshipers engaged in temple prostitution and offered meat to idols, then ate it. They also strangled their sacrifices and drank the blood of the animals as part of the worship (464).
Some might wonder if eating unclean meats such as pork would also be a part of these practices, and if so, why didn’t James include them in the Acts 15 prohibitions? James, however, does not have to break down specific kinds of meats to avoid if the context is idolatry – all meats sacrificed to idols are to be avoided, clean and unclean. Learning about the food laws in the Torah can come later, but avoiding idolatry must be immediately addressed among converts.
Some might wonder if eating unclean meats such as pork would also be a part of these practices, and if so, why didn’t James include them in the Acts 15 prohibitions? James, however, does not have to break down specific kinds of meats to avoid if the context is idolatry – all meats sacrificed to idols are to be avoided, clean and unclean. Learning about the food laws in the Torah can come later, but avoiding idolatry must be immediately addressed among converts.