Part 1
- by Wilf Hey and John Meakin -
Introduction
Recently in the PGR ("950315.PGR", Page 7) it was stated that the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15) resolved the issue of what was to be bound on Gentiles entering the Church. It is contended that not only was circumcision removed as an obstacle, but also the Law of Moses. Quote - "The law of Moses is not to be bound on Christian converts". The "law of Moses" is referred to as the "yoke" which the fathers were unable to bear . Thus this passage of scripture is used to justify jettisoning observance of any elements of the old covenant. The issue is said to be twofold... ..both based primarily on Acts 15.5
(1) circumcision
(2) obedience to the Law of Moses
It is then noted that (from v19-20) the judgment of the Holy Spirit, spoken of by James, removed these two elements from being obstructive to the conversion of Gentiles. Closer study casts a great measure of doubt upon this interpretation.
SPS
This paper attempts to fulfill Mr Tkach Jnr's admonition to "read Acts 15 again carefully". However, our conclusion is the opposite of his!
This paper sets out to show that the issue in Acts 15 is plainly ONLY circumcision in connection with - 'them which from the Gentiles are turned to God' (v19), and NOT the Law of Moses generally. To maintain that there are two issues under discussion is unwarranted and does violence to the original text .
The key verses to look at are v1, v5, v9-11, v19-21 and v24. Acts 21: 21-25 is also highly relevant. These will be explained thoroughly with reference to the Greek. Some of this discussion is inevitably detailed and technical. We have tried to keep matters as simple as possible for easy comprehension. One key element is the use of "periphrastic" expression and this is discussed in detail. There are a number of important background issues which need to be discussed. These include a detailed discussion of requirements for incorporating "strangers" (Heb - GER) into the community of Israel . Also a detailed discussion on Law (Torah), "Halakhah" ("way of walking") and the Oral Law. Several helpful quotes from various authors are included.
We conclude that the Jerusalem Conference removed the impediment of adult circumcision for Gentiles entering the Church. Nothing is said or implied about any change in the status of law, removal of law or change to any law. The law of Moses is NOT in question. The Conference in no way removed an obligation on the Gentiles to uphold the law of Moses.
Inevitably, the more one looks into the issues involved, the wider the study becomes, and the longer any research paper becomes. This paper therefore is limited as far as practicable to Acts 15 and the immediate issues raised.
Main Points
(A) The Main Issue
The issue rose from 'circumcision according to the custom taught by Moses' (v1, NIV); there is no mention of other angles to 'this question' (v2). Obedience to the law of Moses in general was not the issue . See the helpful note in Appendix on use of the term `law'.
In connection with this passage (to verse 23) Bullinger states -
"The question was whether Gentile converts, entering by the door of faith could be saved...without the seal of faith (Rom 4.11).
In other words, whether they could belong to the family of believers (up to this time... a strictly Jewish polity) without formal admission as 'strangers' in accordance with Ex 12.43-44" ( Companion Bible ).
(B) Pharisee's Viewpoint
In Jerusalem all of the Christians were Jews ; to a Jew, baptism (see note in Appendix) was the required initiation of an adult foreigner into Israel; to a Pharisee in particular, baptism must be accompanied by circumcision, but to Jews of a more liberal tradition only infants needed to be circumcised. This is a matter of interpretation of the law . Non-Pharisees saw only circumcision on the eighth day as being obedience - therefore adult circumcision was redundant. Pharisees took 'circumcise all your males' as being literal. (This is a matter that was very much debated around the time of Christ - see Talmud).
(C) Acts 15:5
The argument in v5 is surely not that the Gentiles 'must be circumcised AND required to obey the law of Moses': the Greek actually has three verbs , all infinitive: 'to be circumcised', 'to charge' and 'to preserve'. The last two are shorn of modifiers and joined together with 'and'. This is periphrastic: the first is accomplished with a view to the second. In effect a rewording can be that the Gentiles are 'to be circumcised, charged [thereby] with a view to preserving the law of Moses' . Note that the 'and' is actually placed between the second and third verbs (in the original Greek text), very much suggesting a periphrastic interpretation.
(D) Acts 15.10
This speaks of a 'yoke' placed on the disciples 'that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear' (NIV). This is a mistranslation : 'have been able' is Imperfect tense (in English) but the Greek is Aorist ! (Briefly, Imperfect conveys an action started in the past, but continued or repeated beyond a specific time; Aorist signifies a single action performed in the past ).
A better translation of ISCHUSAMEN BASTASAI would be '... could have borne' - in the sense, not that they had tried this yoke and found it difficult to bear, but that this yoke was never required of them - because they were circumcised on the eighth day. What yoke is this ? - the answer which most naturally fits the context and the construction of the Greek is ' being circumcised as an adult', rather than 'trying to adhere to the law'.
(E) Acts 15: 20 -21 Incorporating Foreigners into Israel
The four charges for the Gentile convert to observe (v20-21) are precisely those that were to be imposed on Gentiles being incorporated into Israel (as in Leviticus 17 and 18 ) by the more liberal Jewish interpretation of the law.
The implication is that these are the ONLY requirements for the Gentiles to be grafted into Israel (the Church) - not circumcision. Further teaching in the customs of the new culture was clear-cut, consistent with the rabbinical teachings (v 21) - the ministry of the Church - each Sabbath!
The requirements for incorporation into Israel of the GER (the word for an unenfranchised foreigner) consisted of:
(i) Exodus 12.48: 'When a GER shall sojourn... let his males be circumcised'.
(ii) Leviticus 17.8-9: 'whatsoever man... of the GERIM... that offereth a burnt offering... not at the gate... unto the LORD... shall be cut off'.
(iii) Leviticus 17.10: 'whatsoever man... of the GERIM... that eateth any manner of blood... I will cut him off'.
(iv) Leviticus 17.13-15: ... the GERIM shall pour out the blood' (of a hunted beast).
(v) Leviticus 18.6-26: 'thou shalt not...' [commit sexually unclean acts] '... ye shall not commit any of these abominations... nor any GER'.
NB. There are several other verses which pertain to " strangers" which are discussed later in the Appendix.
These requirements were the subject of intense debate: not so much what the law was, but how it can be applied. These verses were interpreted (and these interpretations debated) by rabbis over the generations: this continuing debate was part of the Oral Law - used by all Jews but most strenuously employed by Pharisees. ( The idea of the Oral Law was to be a 'hedge' - interpretations of law, and new rules whose obedience would ensure obedience to the written Law automatically - see later note).
(i) LET HIS MALES BE CIRCUMCISED:
This was the debate in Acts 15. By the time of Christ, Oral Law said there were three requirements in the halakhot of 'sojourning' (see below for meaning of halakhah and its plural halakhot: they were:
1) BRIS (literally 'encovenanting' ),
2) TEVILAH (baptism - see note in Appendix - though Jews avoid this Greek word because of the Christian usage) and
3) MISHNAH TORAH ('teaching of law').
Points (ii) to (v) above, were usually considered to be CHOQ (ordinances) related to teaching the law. (In addition, the Pharisees included a CHOQ that a sacrifice should be given, and explicitly they stated that this was Mishnah Torah).
In the time of Christ some rabbis believed that ' males being circumcised' meant, quite literally, that each male should be circumcised, whatever his age. Other rabbis argued that as circumcision was commanded to be done 'on the eighth day', the literal act would not fulfill the law anyway. This is identical with James' argument in Acts 15 . While many rabbis argued whether a person who had been circumcised on the wrong day AND for the wrong reason (it was quite common in other societies) could be 're-circumcised', others simply took the promise to circumcise future-born males as the fulfilment of this command, and that following this BRIS the person was 'circumcised in heart'.
Much of the contention arises from the events surrounding the circumcision of Moses' son (Exodus 4.24-26). The Talmud expands on this by explaining that Gershom had not been circumcised on the insistence of Reuel (that is, Jethro his grandfather; Jasher 78.9 - but Exodus 2.22 does not mention this). Zipporah circumcised her son when 'an angel of the Lord' sought to kill Moses and an alligator began swallowing (head first) Gershom.
From a Jew's viewpoint the NIV mistranslates Ex 4:26 : 'bridegroom of blood' refers to Moses - not to circumcision . (The translator of this portion noted his suspicion that 'bridegroom of blood' was a nickname for circumcision - but the Talmud clearly belies this ). 'Bridegroom' is a rare translation of the Hebrew word here (CHATAN); the usual meaning is 'son-in-law'.
In the Talmud Zipporah is not speaking to the circumcision (!) but to Moses ; she is not being pejorative, but commenting with dark humour that it seems to her that Moses is ' a bloody son-in-law' to her father Reuel, who had forbidden the act that saved the lives of Moses and Gershom. Pharisees in the First Century took this as proof that the physical act of circumcision was paramount - even life-saving - for the Ger. (Gershom - himself named 'stranger' or 'foreigner' - was seen as the prototype of the Ger).
By the way: the text of verse 26 certainly does not have the name of God in it - but the NIV translator puts it there - even capitalizing 'LORD' to signify the presence of the name YHVH.
Ask yourselves, if you would consider this a responsible act on the part of the "translator"
(ii) POLLUTION OF IDOLS (meat offered to idols):
As recorded, this command seems to be about the method of bringing a burnt offering rather than the object of worship - but this was reinterpreted as further grounds against idolatry.
(iii) EATING BLOOD:
(No special reinterpretation or application)
(iv) MEAT NOT BUTCHERED:
Note that the hunt was for eating (Lev 17.13); this is an example of the correct butchering of a food animal; it is not merely a repetition of (iii), but includes further examples against eating unbutchered meat (v15). The important thing to note here is that Jews - even today - summarise all unbutchered meat as TEREIF ('torn' - as in v 13), using this as an antonym of KOSHER. Note that in Greek - PNIKTOS ( 'strangled' - as in Acts 15.20) is precisely the same idiom - 'not bled' - as will be confirmed by any source, including Strong's Concise Dictionary (4156).
(v) ESCHEWING FORNICATION:
In Deuteronomy 24.1 the law gives the example of divorce when a man finds ERVAH in his wife. This same word appears 23 times in Leviticus 18 - an adequate definition! Jesus refers to this in Matthew 5.32 as PORNEIA - again used in Acts 15.20 (and 29) where KJV renders it 'fornication' . It seems clear that Acts 15 cross-references Leviticus 18 - NOT 'unmarried sex ' (particularly). Thus the meaning of PORNEIA is made clear. See also 1 Thess 4.3-4 where PORNEIA is contrasted with ' knowing how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour'.
It seems quite clear that items (ii) to (v) correspond EXACTLY with the requirements placed by the Jerusalem council upon Gentile converts. What has happened specifically is that these Gentiles were enfranchised as covenant-members in Israel (the Church) - surely because this is seen as part of the salvation process! What has been decided is NOT a break from the law, but specifically that the Pharisaical interpretation of Exodus 12.48 was not required of them.
