Acts 15:1 & 15:10

First, I'll give my current position on the text. Verse 1 seems to indicate that the entire text is a question on the means of salvation. Namely, circumcision and keeping Torah. But we all know that circumcision doesn't garauntee you a place in the world to come. Neither does observing the Torah for that matter. So the correct interpretation is most likely that circumcision, and keeping Torah is not a means of salvation, and that salvation comes by grace through faith. That's the only interpretation I've heard so far that is in harmony with the rest of Scripture.

However, for some reason HaShem has burdened my heart lately to "chew" on Acts chapter 15. I've already heard every interpretation under the sun for this passage, so can we please refrain from debate? This passage has been dealt with to death already.

However, for some reason verse 10 wasn't sitting well with me. Peter makes an interesting statement:

(Acts 15:10)
"Now therefore why do you tempt God by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have had the power to bear?

So I started to ponder on this verse. What exactly was it that Peter said neither them, nor their fathers were able to bear? Surely it wasn't circumcision because they all had been circumcised as infants. No biggie. And surely it wasn't Torah, because both they, and their fathers delighted in Torah. Then it hit me...persecution! Without a doubt the persecution that the Jews had suffered up that point was unbearable. Could Peter be saying that if they circumcised these new converts, and had them observe Torah to it's fullest degree then they would be recognized by the heathen as Jews, which in turn would subject them to persecution? Let's face it, anyone who lived a Torah observant lifestyle stuck out like a sore thumb amongst the heathens. Plus we must take into account that this "yoke" was tempting HaShem. How does that figure into the mix?

Anyway, I just wanted to share some thoughts on this passage with you guys, and maybe get some feedback.

The yoke Peter is refering to as unbearable could indeed be the Oral Torah. However, I think that's highly unlikely. Judaism has always maintained that the Oral Torah was part of the revelation of HaShem at Sinai. Plus we need to consider the fact that modern Jews do not find the Oral Torah absolutely unbearable. Why would it have been different in the early first century? On the other hand, this might just be a question of the school of Hillel vs. the school of Shammai halachically speaking. But if that's the case, where does the part about their fathers not being able to bear it fit into the mix, since the school of Shammai was relatively new at that time? Peter could be talking about their immediate fathers, rather the Patriarch's, so the "two school" theory does have some weight to it.

Back to the persection idea. I know there was a "circumcision tax" in the early 1st century, as well as MANY other oppressive laws for the Jews. Could this be the burden Peter speaks of as unbearable? That of just being recognized as a Jew under Roman rule?

Plus we can't leave out the part about "tempting HaShem." I did a little search last night (but it's still imcomplete) about tempting HaShem. The first time we see that mentioned in the Torah is when the children of Israel "tempted" HaShem to give them something to drink in the wilderness. HaShem had to miraculously intervene on their behalf (Exodus 17:7). Just like Yeshua told the satan when he asked him to throw himself down off the Temple, "You shall not tempt the L-rd your G-d." HaShem would have had to miraculously intervene to save Yeshua from death via the heavenly host (Angels). So this "tempting G-d" idea that is in Acts 15:10 most likely relates to forcing HaShem to miraculously intervene on behalf of His childeren. Considering the fact that thousands and thousands of people were coming to the faith of Judaism, the Jewish nation would have had a sudden population explosion. Add to that the political turmoil of the day, as well as the faction of the Zealots who wanted to rebel against Roman rule, this population explosion could have been a HUGE threat to Roman government. It could have been a threat to the nation of Israel for yet ANOTHER exile, or harsher persecution, including war. Naturally, this would have forced HaShem into miraculously intervening on behalf of His children, Israel.

Yafet has suggested in another thread that these Gentiles spoken of in Acts 15 are actually Ephraimites (part of the lost 10 tribes). That has some merit although I still need to study that out. But what if he's right. Wouldn't it make sense that the decision of the Jerusalem council was one of love for their brethren, that they NOT be recognized as Jews and be put under Roman rule? Wouldn't forcing the new disciples to be recognized as Jews hinder others from coming to the faith?

Anyway, I'm just sorta thinking out loud here. I do believe that there's more than meets the eye in this chapter. Any thoughts on my ramblings?

* sidenote *
Please keep in mind while reading Acts 15, that the Nestle-Aland Greek text omits saying "You must be circumcized, and keep the Law." in Acts 15:24. Which changes this modern text:

(Acts 15:24 KJV)
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

To this:
(Acts 15:24 RSV)
Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,

And the vast majority of English versions omit it too. So in light of verse 24 saying that the new converts souls were unsettled to begin with, but after the decision of the Jerusalem council, they rejoiced exceedingly (Acts 15:31) we should ask ourselves this question....What would be more unsettling to their souls, Torah observance (Oral & Written) or being recognized as a Jew in an extremely oppresive Roman rulership? I think I might just be on to something here.

simchat_torah said:

It is a straw-man to declare that Judaism teaches (or has ever taught) that salvation comes through circumcision. This is not (nor has ever been) the doctrine of circumcision in Judaism.

Forgive me if I misunderstand the implications of what you're saying here... but I had to point out this is NOT the Jewish understanding.

Click to expand...

Straw man as in the text was altered? Is that what your suggesting? I NEVER rule that out, especially in the NT. And yes, we both know that Judaism never taught you must be circumcized to be saved. That's a slanderous report from Churchianity.

JudaicChristian said:

Yahshua and the disciples did teach the keeping of the commandments.

Click to expand...

I know that. What they did NOT teach was a Torah observant lifestyle as the means of salvation. It's been by grace through faith from the very beginning.

JudaicChristian said:

A good question here is: What is, or is not, the New Covenant of God?

Click to expand...

That would be an excellent topic for a new thread. I don't want to rabbit trail off the original text too far. You make it, I'll discuss it with you for sure.

Tishri1 said:

ok my thoughts

why tempt God by burdening gentiles with circumcision when its obvious God had circumsized their hearts already as was witnessed by the fact they had the Holy Spirit inside them.....

is His power not enough to prove these are approved

Click to expand...

Tish,

Can it logically be said that the "unbearable yoke" Peter is refering to is the act of circumcsion? He clearly says it was an unbearable burden, both for them (everyone present at the Jerusalem council) as well as their fathers. Seeing as how they were all 8 days old when circumcised, it's a safe bet to exclude circumcision as the unbearable yoke Peter's talking about. Not only that, but as an uncircumcised Gentile myself, I can assure you that if circumcision was a requirement for salvation, I would gladly submit to it. I would hardly consider it unbearable. Unpleasant yes, but unbearable no.

Plus we read a little further and the next thing you know Sha'ul is circumcising Timothy.

I think perhaps there's something else going on here that has been overlooked by traditional interpretations.

simchat_torah said:

Within that context it should be pretty obvious, eh?

Click to expand...

Yep.

I was hoping you would maybe comment on the ideas I expressed in the first couple of posts. The idea you presented that the Gentiles spoken of in Acts 15 are Ephraimites has stuck with me as a possibility (although I haven't actually looked into as of yet). Bear with me a bit here. Let's say these Gentiles in Acts 15 are indeed Ephraimites. Then the Jerusalem council makes a decision they shouldn't be circumcized right away, and we also see that observing Shabbat was shockingly left out of the list of things these converts were to observe. This would make them "closet Jews" (for lack of a better term) because it wouldn't be obvious to the Romans they were converts to Judaism. Wouldn't this be to their advantage for an uprising against Rome, which eventually did happen? Not to mention it would keep some of their brethren from persecution. I've read how oppressive the Romans were to the Jews in the 1st century.

The Romans even forced it's citizens to worship the pagan gods under penalty of death. Yes, there was religous freedom of sorts, but they did stipulate that Rome's gods were to be worshipped on set days. Could this be what Sha'ul was talking about when he said "We know that an idol is nothing" refering to eating with "Gentiles" who sacrificed to idols?

Anyway, I'm rambling.....LOL