Acts 15: Circumcision and the Law

Gregory Wilson

Active Member
Jul 10, 2015
79
24
33
✟9,194.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hello Folks!

You all might have posted on my last thread - "the least of these", discussing how Jesus says those who keep the least of the commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Well, in Acts 15, it begins with"some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." - Acts 15:1. Later, some believing Pharisees at a Jerusalem council say "it is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the law of Moses." -Acts 15:5. Ultimately it is decided, apparently by the Holy Spirit as well, that: "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burdern than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell." - Acts 15:28-29.

When James speaks regarding these things, he says, "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath." - Acts 15:19-21

So it seems they are not requiring these new believers to get circumcised, but then it seems that James is saying that they have Moses preached, so they can grow in obeying the law as they go...

To line up with Jesus' teaching like I mentioned at the beginning, we know that the Law is good. But what was the actual law about circumcision. If it was that they circumcise their babies on the eighth day, that is a lot different than circumcising an adult.. The latter more painful, I would think!! And so, maybe it is not necessarily going against the law to say that the adults don't need to be circumcised. Because they missed out when they were eight years old. And you can't go back in time.

Thoughts on this passage, Acts 15, and how it relates to following the Law?? Thanks, guys.

-Greg
 

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
The law never required all Gentiles to become circumcised or to become Jewish proselytes or to keep their customs in order to be saved. So by rejecting those requirements, they were rejecting man-made laws and upholding God's laws, which is a common theme throughout the Bible. We should obey God rather than men.

When an employer highers a new employee, they don't want to make it too difficult for them, so they don't start by teaching them everything that they will ever need to know about how to do their job up front, but rather they start with teaching them the basics with the understanding that they will learn the rest on the job. That's the same line of thought that is happening in Acts 15:19-21, with them not wanting to make it too difficult for Gentiles turning to God by requiring them to learn all the laws in the Torah up front. They started with the basics of what would make a clean break from paganism and allow them to have fellowship with other Jewish believers and they excused this in verse 21 by saying that new believers would continue to learn about Moses in the synagogues every Sabbath. So this list was intended to be for new believers, not an exhaustive list of everything that would be required of mature believers. Jesus gave other commands in the NT and there were other commands elsewhere in the NT, so I think very clearly those four commands were not meant as an exhaustive list.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Wilson

Active Member
Jul 10, 2015
79
24
33
✟9,194.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The law never required all Gentiles to become circumcised or to become Jewish proselytes or to keep their customs in order to be saved. So by rejecting those requirements, they were rejecting man-made laws and upholding God's laws, which is a common theme throughout the Bible. We should obey God rather than men.

When an employer highers a new employee, they don't want to make it too difficult for them, so they don't start by teaching them everything that they will ever need to know about how to do their job up front, but rather they start with teaching them the basics with the understanding that they will learn the rest on the job. That's the same line of thought that is happening in Acts 15:19-21, with them not wanting to make it too difficult for Gentiles turning to God by requiring them to learn all the laws in the Torah up front. They started with the basics of what would make a clean break from paganism and allow them to have fellowship with other Jewish believers and they excused this in verse 21 by saying that new believers would continue to learn about Moses in the synagogues every Sabbath. So this list was intended to be for new believers, not an exhaustive list of everything that would be required of mature believers. Jesus gave other commands in the NT and there were other commands elsewhere in the NT, so I think very clearly those four commands were not meant as an exhaustive list.
Good word!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soyeong
Upvote 0

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Hello Folks!



Well, in Acts 15, it begins with"some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." - Acts 15:1. Later, some believing Pharisees at a Jerusalem council say "it is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the law of Moses." -Acts 15:5. Ultimately it is decided, apparently by the Holy Spirit as well, that: "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burdern than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell." - Acts 15:28-29.

When James speaks regarding these things, he says, "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath." - Acts 15:19-21

So it seems they are not requiring these new believers to get circumcised, but then it seems that James is saying that they have Moses preached, so they can grow in obeying the law as they go...

To line up with Jesus' teaching like I mentioned at the beginning, we know that the Law is good. But what was the actual law about circumcision. If it was that they circumcise their babies on the eighth day, that is a lot different than circumcising an adult.. The latter more painful, I would think!! And so, maybe it is not necessarily going against the law to say that the adults don't need to be circumcised. Because they missed out when they were eight years old. And you can't go back in time.

Thoughts on this passage, Acts 15, and how it relates to following the Law?? Thanks, guys.

-Greg


Hi Greg, Notice that I highlighted the part where James speaks his decision. These were not the proselytes that were in the synagogues, but these were heathens who had a lot of baggage to get rid of. Once you are circumcised you are in the covenant and are held to the laws governing that. Baby steps not Giant leaps are what is necessary to not overwhelm anyone.

It was a safeguard for those not born into the family. It actually gave them a chance to 'try it on' first before buying it lock stock and barrel. But the problem was that the Pharisees believed that salvation was tied up in the circumcision.

Yes, James was not giving out four things but categories like the ten commandments, remember my chart? These involved things that would be abhorrent to Jews if the Gentiles continued doing it. They involved basic things like eating, religion, idolotry and family purity, all things that affect those around you. This was the basics of interacting with Jews and they would learn more each week as the Torah and haftarah was read.
 
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,918
8,033
✟572,541.44
Faith
Messianic
Hi Greg, Notice that I highlighted the part where James speaks his decision. These were not the proselytes that were in the synagogues, but these were heathens who had a lot of baggage to get rid of. Once you are circumcised you are in the covenant and are held to the laws governing that. Baby steps not Giant leaps are what is necessary to not overwhelm anyone.

It was a safeguard for those not born into the family. It actually gave them a chance to 'try it on' first before buying it lock stock and barrel. But the problem was that the Pharisees believed that salvation was tied up in the circumcision.

Yes, James was not giving out four things but categories like the ten commandments, remember my chart? These involved things that would be abhorrent to Jews if the Gentiles continued doing it. They involved basic things like eating, religion, idolotry and family purity, all things that affect those around you. This was the basics of interacting with Jews and they would learn more each week as the Torah and haftarah was read.
Yep ... "from blood".... how does one go about that?
 
Upvote 0

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Yep ... "from blood".... how does one go about that?
Not sure what you are asking Vis

I put: eating, religion, idolatry and family purity,

Figuring I guess that Greg was familiar of the four categories , all those I mentioned could entail 'from blood'.

  1. eating - Don't eat things strangled or containing blood
  2. religion - blood was drunken in the heathen religions during rituals such as the Bacchanalia rituals eating the flesh and blood of the god
  3. idolatry - anything sacrificed to idols contained blood, this also includes sacrificing human beings
  4. family purity - to keep from touching a woman or things she touched during her menstrual time and after.
All these have to do with holding life over death in esteem.
 
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,918
8,033
✟572,541.44
Faith
Messianic
Not sure what you are asking Vis

I put: eating, religion, idolatry and family purity,

Figuring I guess that Greg was familiar of the four categories , all those I mentioned could entail 'from blood'.

  1. eating - Don't eat things strangled or containing blood
  2. religion - blood was drunken in the heathen religions during rituals such as the Bacchanalia rituals eating the flesh and blood of the god
  3. idolatry - anything sacrificed to idols contained blood, this also includes sacrificing human beings
  4. family purity - to keep from touching a woman or things she touched during her menstrual time and after.
All these have to do with holding life over death in esteem.
It is the idea that many Christians throw at us, that they are only to keep the Acts 15 covenant... but they do not have the slightest clue nor do they abide by it... in the example which I gave... "Blood" ... they do not even consider "blood" to be something to consider. That was what I was driving at. You have brought forward, there is much to learn about the ruling regarding the "blood". Now ask them do they abide by Acts 15 covenant requirements... and you know the answer you get will be some duck and dodge.... or should I say some shuck and jive.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
The council of Jerusalem essentially ruled that no Gentile need be circumcised by obligation.

My question was, if you are a person that believes that Gentiles should follow all the laws, why would you make an exception and say that Gentiles don't need to follow the law that says you should be circumcised?

More specifically, they ruled that Gentiles did not need to become circumcised as part of becoming Jewish proselytes and keep their customs in order to be saved.

Even at the time when the law was given to Moses, no one was required to keep all 613 laws. For instance, some laws were for the King, High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, widows, children, people living in the land, foreigners living among them, and for everyone. The command to become circumcised specifically applies only to the physical household of Abraham and his servants and to those who want to eat of the Passover lamb.

Romans 2:26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

Paul also argued that the value of physical circumcision was dependent on whether someone obeyed God's laws and that those Gentiles who kept the law were regarded as being circumcised. If circumcision of the heart is much greater than circumcision of the flesh, then how much more does it meet that requirement?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
They upheld the law saying that the Gentiles do not have to follow the Torah.It was true then as it is now-from a Jewish POV. However, Jesus advocated upholding the Torah. Did they rule against his wishes?

The fact of the matter is that both Jews and Gentiles are told to have a righteous and holy conduct (1 John 3:10, 1 Peter 1:13-16) and that involves obeying God's laws in the Torah. The Jerusalem Council ruled that the Torah does not require Gentiles to become circumcised, they did not rule that Gentiles are not required to obey the Torah. Jesus advocate upholding the Torah and so did Paul (Romans 3:31). Both spoke against sin and it is the Torah that tells us what sin is (Romans 7:7), so we can not on one hand say that Gentiles should not sin, while on the other say that that Gentiles shouldn't obey what the Torah says about sin. Jesus came, among other reasons, to teach how to follow the Torah both by word and example, so to rule against Gentiles obeying God's commands would have gone against his wishes, but the Jerusalem Council did not do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: visionary
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Hello Folks!

You all might have posted on my last thread - "the least of these", discussing how Jesus says those who keep the least of the commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Well, in Acts 15, it begins with"some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." - Acts 15:1. Later, some believing Pharisees at a Jerusalem council say "it is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the law of Moses." -Acts 15:5. Ultimately it is decided, apparently by the Holy Spirit as well, that: "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burdern than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell." - Acts 15:28-29.
I think you missed the initial point of the argument.
When James speaks regarding these things, he says, "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath." - Acts 15:19-21

So it seems they are not requiring these new believers to get circumcised, but then it seems that James is saying that they have Moses preached, so they can grow in obeying the law as they go...

To line up with Jesus' teaching like I mentioned at the beginning, we know that the Law is good. But what was the actual law about circumcision. If it was that they circumcise their babies on the eighth day, that is a lot different than circumcising an adult.. The latter more painful, I would think!! And so, maybe it is not necessarily going against the law to say that the adults don't need to be circumcised. Because they missed out when they were eight years old. And you can't go back in time.

Thoughts on this passage, Acts 15, and how it relates to following the Law?? Thanks, guys.

-Greg

In order to understand Acts 15 you have to properly understand WHAT is being argued.

Verse 1 tells you plainly what is being argued. WHO CAN BE SAVED.... this is the debated. Nothing else. It is a positional argument.

You MUST understand the framing of the argument and the thinking involved. You CAN NOT look at Acts 15 from a modern mindset. Since the days of the Exodus G-d had made one and ONLY one covenant with Israel. All others were explicitly excluded. It would have been natural for them to assume that ONLY the Jew can be saved. Indeed this is exactly what the men who came down from Judea were saying. The gentile had to be circumcised and follow the commandments of Torah.


This is plain to see when you focus on the testimony given by Paul, Barnabas and the testimony of Peter ALL dealing with G-d's dealing with the gentiles and the miracles being done among them. Their testimony had nothing to do with should or should not the gentiles keep Torah it was all refuting testimony concerning positional status.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soyeong
Upvote 0

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Paul was trying to talk Gentile believers out of getting circumcised/following the law. Talking about circumcision of the heart as a better deal was one of his tactics. But certainly Paul considered getting circumcised and following the law as going together.
And why would Paul try to keep Gentiles from keeping G-ds laws?

Just whom was Yeshua speaking of being taught the commandments of G-d. Jews? Who should have been brought up knowing them, as that is a commandment too (Shema).

18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
That makes no sense would it not be the heathens who did not know G-d so need to be taught?
 
Upvote 0

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
They upheld the law saying that the Gentiles do not have to follow the Torah.It was true then as it is now-from a Jewish POV. However, Jesus advocated upholding the Torah. Did they rule against his wishes?
This is a good question, however I don't believe that James was teaching this, nor the other Apostles, it seems to have come from Paul alone. What he (Jesus) did does not change the commandments, nor should it. There still needs to be a separation and the things said in Acts 15 show a beginning not an end. It clearly says that James was speaking of those 'Gentiles who are turning to G-d' clearly showing that they needed initial instruction, the rest they would learn at synagogue readings from Torah each week.
 
Upvote 0

BelieveTheWord

Hebrew Roots Christian
Jan 16, 2015
358
131
✟8,702.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
And why would Paul try to keep Gentiles from keeping G-ds laws?

Just whom was Yeshua speaking of being taught the commandments of G-d. Jews? Who should have been brought up knowing them, as that is a commandment too (Shema).

18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
That makes no sense would it not be the heathens who did not know G-d so need to be taught?
People like to avoid verse 19 because it clearly puts the context of Torah guarding in the Kingdom of Heaven. The idea that what he said "was just for the Jews" doesn't work.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jsimms615

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2006
10,996
1,713
✟143,480.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
MOD HAT ON

This thread has been cleaned because of people posting in this area of the forum who want to teach/debate who do not belong to this faith group. Please remember the following rule:

Congregational Forum Restrictions and Christians Only Forums
Members who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum. There are forums reserved for Christian members only. Please do not post in these forums unless you are truly a Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is)

Unfortunately, a large number of posts had to be deleted because you all have been ignoring this rule. Please follow this in the future.

MOD HAT OFF
 
Upvote 0

pinacled

walking with the Shekinah
Apr 29, 2015
3,311
1,007
United states
✟171,798.77
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
MOD HAT ON

This thread has been cleaned because of people posting in this area of the forum who want to teach/debate who do not belong to this faith group. Please remember the following rule:

Congregational Forum Restrictions and Christians Only Forums
Members who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum. There are forums reserved for Christian members only. Please do not post in these forums unless you are truly a Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is)

Unfortunately, a large number of posts had to be deleted because you all have been ignoring this rule. Please follow this in the future.

MOD HAT OFF
?
 
Upvote 0

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟78,078.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The law never required all Gentiles to become circumcised or to become Jewish proselytes or to keep their customs in order to be saved. So by rejecting those requirements, they were rejecting man-made laws and upholding God's laws, which is a common theme throughout the Bible. We should obey God rather than men.

When an employer highers a new employee, they don't want to make it too difficult for them, so they don't start by teaching them everything that they will ever need to know about how to do their job up front, but rather they start with teaching them the basics with the understanding that they will learn the rest on the job. That's the same line of thought that is happening in Acts 15:19-21, with them not wanting to make it too difficult for Gentiles turning to God by requiring them to learn all the laws in the Torah up front. They started with the basics of what would make a clean break from paganism and allow them to have fellowship with other Jewish believers and they excused this in verse 21 by saying that new believers would continue to learn about Moses in the synagogues every Sabbath. So this list was intended to be for new believers, not an exhaustive list of everything that would be required of mature believers. Jesus gave other commands in the NT and there were other commands elsewhere in the NT, so I think very clearly those four commands were not meant as an exhaustive list.

A common analogy but a flawed one. Simple question- is something that is a sin allowed to be done just because one is a "beginner"? Obviously not. So, if the Apostles did not teach the Gentiles to be circumcised (a Torah commandment) nor teach them to be shomer shabbos (a Torah commandment) nor teach them to wear tzitzis (a Torah commandment) then aren't the Apostles guilty of allowing and propagating sin? Aren't they compromising on the Torah by not clearly telling their talmidim to keep the whole of the Law?

This would be unthinkable in a Jewish setting.

So the analogy is flawed because it makes the Apostles out to be antinomian according to convenience, and thus makes their Lord and the Holy Spirit who led them guilty of moral and legal cowardice!

So, obviously the fact of the matter is that the Jews (and thus the Church in agreement with them!) then and now are right: Gentiles have never been, nor ever will be bound to the whole of the Torah, in same manner that not every law applies to every person. Laws for women don't apply to men, vice versa, laws for priests don't apply to the people etc etc. Laws specifically for Jews don't apply to Gentiles and vice-versa. It's not rocket science. Live according to all the Laws that apply to you personally- found in both Testaments.
 
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,918
8,033
✟572,541.44
Faith
Messianic
A common analogy but a flawed one. Simple question- is something that is a sin allowed to be done just because one is a "beginner"? Obviously not. So, if the Apostles did not teach the Gentiles to be circumcised (a Torah commandment) nor teach them to be shomer shabbos (a Torah commandment) nor teach them to wear tzitzis (a Torah commandment) then aren't the Apostles guilty of allowing and propagating sin? Aren't they compromising on the Torah by not clearly telling their talmidim to keep the whole of the Law?

This would be unthinkable in a Jewish setting.

So the analogy is flawed because it makes the Apostles out to be antinomian according to convenience, and thus makes their Lord and the Holy Spirit who led them guilty of moral and legal cowardice!

So, obviously the fact of the matter is that the Jews (and thus the Church in agreement with them!) then and now are right: Gentiles have never been, nor ever will be bound to the whole of the Torah, in same manner that not every law applies to every person. Laws for women don't apply to men, vice versa, laws for priests don't apply to the people etc etc. Laws specifically for Jews don't apply to Gentiles and vice-versa. It's not rocket science. Live according to all the Laws that apply to you personally- found in both Testaments.
Sins are defined in the TEN .... those commands to wear tzitis, circumcision etc are for the walk.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
A common analogy but a flawed one. Simple question- is something that is a sin allowed to be done just because one is a "beginner"? Obviously not. So, if the Apostles did not teach the Gentiles to be circumcised (a Torah commandment) nor teach them to be shomer shabbos (a Torah commandment) nor teach them to wear tzitzis (a Torah commandment) then aren't the Apostles guilty of allowing and propagating sin? Aren't they compromising on the Torah by not clearly telling their talmidim to keep the whole of the Law?

This would be unthinkable in a Jewish setting.

So the analogy is flawed because it makes the Apostles out to be antinomian according to convenience, and thus makes their Lord and the Holy Spirit who led them guilty of moral and legal cowardice!

So, obviously the fact of the matter is that the Jews (and thus the Church in agreement with them!) then and now are right: Gentiles have never been, nor ever will be bound to the whole of the Torah, in same manner that not every law applies to every person. Laws for women don't apply to men, vice versa, laws for priests don't apply to the people etc etc. Laws specifically for Jews don't apply to Gentiles and vice-versa. It's not rocket science. Live according to all the Laws that apply to you personally- found in both Testaments.
Impeccable logic.
 
Upvote 0