FFOZ Blogs

 Teaching Team

Part 3) The Lone Voice of FFOZ

Part Three, continued from previous blog: Acts 15 Re-Examined.

First Fruits of Zion was, for a long time, the lone voice advancing the idea that Jews and Gentiles had identical obligations to the Torah. We created many of the arguments one commonly hears today in the Messianic movement to refute the plain meaning of Acts 15 and 21. We worked out explanations to try to prove that the Bible is not saying what it sounds like its saying in those passages. We made assumptions about the apostles' motives and expectations.

Arguing with the Bible
Eventually, we found we could no longer argue against the Bible. Neither could we find Jewish, Messianic Jewish, Christian, or even secular NT Bible scholars who agreed with our conclusions. At first, the sense of being the lone voice for a lost truth emboldened us. Later, as we learned more and as we studied more, we realized how foolish it was to close our eyes to the scholarship of others. Aside from the brilliant and creative exegesis of our former colleague Tim Hegg (whom we respect and continue to learn from), Bible scholars agree that the apostles exempted the Gentile believers from circumcision and full, Jewish obligation to Torah.

As we have wrestled with Acts 15 and 21, we have come to agree with the broad consensus of the scholarly community. That agreement has significantly strengthened the message of First Fruits of Zion, giving us a broad base of academic support to draw from in our arguments for Torah. We may still be a lone voice in our campaign for a restoration of Torah to the body of Messiah, but we now marshal an impressive array of the best Jewish roots scholarship to advance that goal

Collaborating Scholarship
The following is just a small sampling of Acts 15 interpretations from prominent scholars, all of them well-versed and adept in the Jewish roots of Christianity and the ongoing validity of Torah. Some of them suggest that the four essentials of the apostolic decree have some relationship to the later, rabbinic concept of Noachide law; others suggest that the four essentials are derived directly from Torah, but all of them agree that the apostles distinguished between Jewish and Gentile believers' respective obligations to Torah:

The apostolic council (James in particular?) advocated practical compromise: the Gentiles should observe the commandments enjoined on Gentiles living in the midst of Israel in Lev 17 and 18 ... The meaning of the "apostolic decree" becomes clear: Gentiles need not become circumcised Jews in order to be fully accepted into the people of God, but they are requested to keep those commandments of the Torah which are obligatory for Gentiles living among Jews. (Oskar Skausaune)1

As gentiles they were welcome (without circumcision), but not as pagans (without observing the halakah of the "righteous gentiles"). They were expected to maintain the minimal requirements of purity (and morality, of course) befitting those who have turned from idolatry to the worship of the One God. (Mark Nanos)2

According to [Acts 15:29], idolatry, shedding of blood, and grave sexual sins were forbidden to Gentile believers ... It is evident that while the leadership of the Mother Church decided to lay no burden upon Gentile believers beyond the Noachide precepts, it did not object to their voluntarily observing more. (David Flusser)3

It is essential to grasp that the relationship of Gentile Christians to the law was a quite different issue from that of Jewish Christians. It was a perfectly coherent and intelligent position to expect full and strict observance of the law by Jewish Christians without requiring the same of Gentile Christians. Gentiles who join the eschatological people of God are not obligated to be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses. (Richard Bauckham)4

James' "conclusion" not only substantiates the fact that it was already accepted that godfearers observed the noachide commandments but also accords godfearers halachic status within the early believing community ... This principle has obvious bearing on the language of "troubling" and "burdening" the Gentile believers. James' ruling for the "majority" of the Gentiles who are now turning to God through Jesus: The Jewish community in Jerusalem will not impose anything on them which they will not be able to bear as a whole. This does not preclude their taking upon themselves additional observances according to their respective abilities and desires. (Joseph Shulam)5

What was to be done with Gentile converts? Should they be expected to take upon themselves the yoke of the Law? Acts 15 and 21 propose a compromise: Jewish Christians were to continue to follow their "way of life", observing the food laws, circumcising and keeping the Sabbath; Gentile Christians were not obliged to keep Jewish customs, but were however to be subject to the "Noachide" laws. (Phillip Alexander)6

It is presupposed that Jewish Christians keep the law; this point of view harmonizes with the account in Acts as a whole. On the other hand, Gentile Christians need not keep the law in its entirety ... the apostolic decree is nothing but Mosaic law, which is applied to Gentiles living together with Israel ... Luke knows of no gentile mission that is free from the law. He knows about a gentile mission without circumcision, not without the law. The apostolic decree enjoins Gentiles to keep the law, and they keep that part of the law required for them to live together with Jews. (Jacob Jervell)7

In essence, the council came to a compromise. The decision had roots in Jewish legal discussion. The [believing] non-Jews from a pagan background would be viewed more like God fearers than like converts to Judaism ... In any case, the outcome of the council was something of a compromise. Paul would probably view these legal requirements as a maximum for the non-Jews to observe. Peter, on the other hand, would tend to view these laws as a minimum. He would hope that the new believers from pagan backgrounds would adopt more of the Jewish religious observance. (Brad Young)8

James' speech ... accepts Peter's argument and simply spells out the halakhic consequences. If indeed it is the case that in Christ these Gentiles have a portion in the world to come (to adapt Rabbi Joshua's language), i.e. that they are saved as Gentiles, then it suffices to apply to them the same ethical principles that would in any case apply to righteous Gentiles living with the people of Israel ... in their original text form the principles themselves are strongly reminiscent of the second-century lists of Noachide Commandments. (Markus Bockmuehl)9

The Jerusalemite experts in interpretation of the law at the Apostolic Council did not in practice issue any instructions new to Judaism [beyond what Judaism already required of Gentiles within the Jewish community.] (Risto Santala)10

Both [the Jerusalem Council] and Paul seem to agree that circumcision and a general obedience to the torah were not to be imposed on the Jesus-believing Gentiles and that areas of responsibility [to Torah] should be divided up. (Magnus Zetterholm)11

Does a Gentile have to observe all the laws of the Jews in order to be a Christian? The [Jerusalem] council gave a definitive answer; it said no. (Marvin Wilson)12

You might disagree with these scholars. That's OK. I did for several years. You might disagree with First Fruits of Zion. That's OK too. Different people do arrive at different conclusions about the correct interpretations of the Bible. But I hope this has helped you to understand how we understand Acts 15 and 21.

A Final Word
At First Fruits of Zion, we encourage all of God's people, Jew and Gentile, to join together and bear as much of the LORD's commandments as they are able. For us, it's not about obligation as much as it is about opportunity. We advocate the God-fearing path for Gentiles. We encourage Gentile believers to walk out even those few aspects of the Torah for which they are not liable to whatever extent that they are able.

Remember, in the days of Acts 15, the God-fearing Gentile believers were probably more Torah observant than most Messianic believers today. They worshipped in synagogues in the midst of the Jewish community. They had no other days of worship or holidays other than those of the synagogue. (They did not need to drive to get to their place of fellowship.) To share table-fellowship with Jewish believers in the community, they must have maintained the biblical dietary laws. For all practical purposes, they looked Jewish already. But they were not, and they were not liable to the Jewish aspects of the Torah like the Jewish believers. Instead, they had divine invitation to participate along with Israel.

The Sabbath, the dietary laws, the festivals, are all good, godly, and filled with blessing. Observing them is the natural path of biblical life. We believe that Gentiles will find great blessing keeping even the commandments to which they are not obligated out of a heart of love for God, respect for His holy day, imitation of His holy Son, and identification with his people Israel. But we must admit that when it comes to obligation, Acts 15 and Acts 21 makes a definite distinction between Jewish and Gentile believers.

References:
1. Oskar Skarsaune "The History of Jewish Believers in the Early Centuries--Perspectives and Framework," Jewish Believers in Jesus ([eds. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik] Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 766. / In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (Downers Grove, IN: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 170.
2. Mark Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 173.
3. David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem, Israel: The Magnes Press, 1988),630.
4. Richard Bauckham, James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (London/New York: Routledge, 2006), 148; "James and the Jerusalem Church," The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting (ed. Richard Bauckham; vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting, ed. Bruce W. Winter; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 461.
5. Hilary Le Cornu and Joseph Shulam, A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Galatians (Jerusalem, Israel: Akademon, 2005), 831,835.
6. Philip S. Alexander, "'The Parting of the Ways' from the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism," in Jews and Christians (ed. James G. Dunn; Grand rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 9.
7. Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972), 144, 190.
8. Brad Young, Paul the Jewish Theologian (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), 38, 39.
9. Markus Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000), 165.
10. Risto Santala, Paul: The Man and the Teacher In the Light of Jewish Sources (Jerusalem: Keren Ahvah Meshihit, 1995),78.
11. Magnus Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation Between Judaism and Christianity (London/New York: Routledge, 2003), 144.
12. Marvin Wilson, Our Father Abraham (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1993), 50.

Links to Related Blog Articles:
Reasoning Together
One Simple Verse: Galatians 5:3
Moral vs. Ceremonial
The Unbearable Yoke
Q&A: Divine Invitation
The Tipping Point
Acts 15 Re-Examined

About the Author: D. Thomas Lancaster is Director of Education at First Fruits of Zion, and regular contributor to Messiah Journal. He is the author of the Torah Club programs, and the books Grafted In, Restoration and King of the Jews