The Mosaic Laws included by reference in Acts 15:21 spelled out a legal system where Gentiles were decidedly inferior to Jews in their rights and responsibilities:
“It follows that the Gentiles were excepted from the general civil laws of Moses. For example, the Law provides that if a man's ox gores and kills a neighbor's ox, the carcass and the surviving ox shall be sold, and the proceeds divided between the respective owners (half-damages). …..Here the Gentile is excepted, as he is not a "neighbor" in the sense of reciprocating and being responsible for damages caused by his negligence; nor does he keep watch over his cattle. Even the best Gentile laws were too crude to admit of reciprocity. …..The Mishnah, bearing such facts in mind, therefore declares that if a Gentile sue an Israelite, the verdict is for the defendant; if the Israelite is the plaintiff, he obtains full damages (B. Ḳ. iv. 3). It should be noted that in these tort cases public or sacred property ( ) was also an exception, for the reason that both are wanting in individual responsibility and in proper care. The principle was that the public could not be fined since it could not collect in turn. The Gemara's reliance on the technical term "neighbor" ( ) in the text as its justification for excluding both the Gentile and the public, is merely tentative.”
Plainly, the Mosaic Law referred to in Acts 15 has specific and discriminatory rights and responsibilities for Gentiles that are sharply divergent from the laws regulating the behavior of Jews.
“Similarly, the mandate concerning the oppression of or withholding wages from a hireling brother or neighbor, or a domiciled alien (Deut. xxiv. 14-15) who observes the Noachian laws, is not applicable in the case of a Gentile. That is to say, a Gentile may be employed at reduced wages, which need not be paid promptly on the same day, but may be paid in accordance with the usual custom of the place. The question arose whether a Jew might share in the spoils gained by a Gentile through robbery. One Talmudic authority reasoned that the Gentile exerted himself to obtain the ill-gotten property much less than in earning his wages, to which the Mosaic law is not applicable; hence property seized by a Gentile, if otherwise unclaimed, is public property and may be used by any person. Another authority decided that a Jew might not profit by it (B. M. 111b).”
Apartheid separation between Gentiles and Jews was enforced very strictly:
“R. Ashi decided that a Jew who sells a Gentile landed property bordering on the land of another Jew shall be excommunicated, not only on the ground that the Gentile laws do not provide for "neighbors' boundary privileges" ( ), but also because the Jewish neighbor may claim "thou hast caused a lion to lie on my border." The ban shall not be raised unless the seller stipulates to keep the Jew free from all possible damage arising from any act of the Gentile (B. Ḳ. 114a). The same Ashi noticed in a vineyard a broken vine-branch bearing a bunch of grapes, and instructed his attendant, if he found that it belonged to a Gentile, to fetch it; if to a Jew, to leave it. The Gentile owner overheard the order, and asked: "Is it right to take from a Gentile?" Ashi replied: "Yes, because a Gentile would demand money, but a Jew would not" (ib. 113b). This was an adroit and sarcastic answer. In truth, Ashi coincided with the opinion of the authority stated above; namely, that, as the presumption is that the Gentile obtained possession by seizure, the property is considered public property, like unclaimed land in the desert (B. B. 54b). ….
“Discrimination against Gentiles, while strictly in accordance with the just law of reciprocity and retaliation, having for their object to civilize the heathen and compel them to adopt the civil laws of Noah."
…..
“Another reason for discrimination was the vile and vicious character of the Gentiles: "I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation " ( = "vile," "contemptible"; Deut. xxxii. 21). The Talmud says that the passage refers to the Gentiles of Barbary and Mauretania, who walked nude in the streets (Yeb. 63b), and to similar Gentiles, "whose flesh is as the flesh of asses and whose issue is like the issue of horses" (Ezek. xxiii. 20); who can not claim a father (Yeb. 98a). The Gentiles were so strongly suspected of unnatural crimes that it was necessary to prohibit the stabling of a cow in their stalls ('Ab. Zarah ii. 1). Assaults on women were most frequent, especially at invasions and after sieges (Ket. 3b), the Rabbis declaring that in case of rape by a Gentile the issue should not be allowed to affect a Jewish woman's relation to her husband. "The Torah outlawed the issue of a Gentile as that of a beast" (Miḳ. viii. 4, referring to Ezek. l.c.).Excepting the Greeks, no Gentiles, not even the Persians, were particular in shedding blood (B. Ḳ. 117a). "Meeting a Gentile on the road armed with a sword [on his left], the Jew shall let him walk on his right [being thus ready to wrench away the weapon if threatened with it]. If the Gentile carries a cane [in his right hand], the Jew shall let him walk at his left [so that he may seize the cane if raised against him]. In ascending or descending the Jew shall always be above, and shall not stoop down for fear of assassination. If the Gentile ask to be shown the way, the Jew shall extend his own journey a point farther and shall not tarry on reaching the stranger's destination" ('Ab. Zarah 25b).Taking these conditions into consideration, the precautions against the employment of Gentile midwives can be easily understood. A Gentile woman was not allowed to suckle a Jewish babe, save in the presence of Jews. Even so it was feared that the Gentile nurse might poison the child (ib. 25a). …..The Roman laws ordained that physicians should be punished for neglect or unskilfulness, and for these causes many were put to death (Montesquieu, "L'Esprit des Lois," xxix. § 14). In a place where no Jewish physician could be found to perform the rite of circumcision the question arose whether a Gentile or a Samaritan mohel might be chosen to operate. If the Gentile is "an expert physician patronized by the public, he may be employed, as it is presumed he would not jeopardize his reputation by purposely injuring a Jewish patient" ('Ab. Zarah 27a)."
"With such a character as that depicted above, it would naturally be quite unsafe to trust a Gentile as a witness, either in a criminal case or in a civil suit. He could not be depended upon to keep his promise or word of honor like a Jew (Bek. 13b). The Talmud comments on the untruthfulness of Gentiles ("a band of strange children whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand [in raising it to take an oath] is a right hand of falsehood" [Ps. cxliv. 11]), and contrasts it with thereputation of a Jew: "The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth" (Zeph. iii. 13). Also excluded as a "neighbor" was the Gentile in whose trust property was left with all prescribed provisions (Ex. xxii. 6-14).
…..
The following blows apart the Ebionite/Judaizing/Seventh Day Adventist heresy that Gentile Christians were to follow the Mosaic food laws. Incidentally, Seventh Day Adventists are highly-selective about the Food Laws that they choose to follow:
http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm
“In dietary cases, where a Gentile is disinterested his evidence is accepted (Shulḥan 'Aruk, Yoreh De'ah, 86, 1). A Gentile's testimony to a man's death, incidentally related as a matter of fact, he being unaware that his evidence is wanted, is held sufficient to release a woman from her marriage bond and to permit her to marry again (Giṭ. 28b; Shulḥan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 17, 14; see 'Agunah).
……
While the troublesome verse in Acts 15 does reiterate that the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath,” That same law strongly prohibits Gentiles from hearing or being taught that law:
“The Talmud prohibited the teaching to a Gentile of the Torah, "the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob" (Deut. xxxiii. 4). R. Johanan says of one so teaching: "Such a person deserves death" (an idiom used to express indignation). "It is like placing an obstacle before the blind" (Sanh. 59a; Ḥag. 13a). “
The only exception to this unequivocal prohibition is where the Gentile wishes to study ONLY the moral laws of Noah:
“And yet if a Gentile study the Law for the purpose of observing the moral laws of Noah, R. Meïr says he is as good as a high priest, and quotes: "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them" (Lev. xviii. 5). The text does not specify an Israelite or a Levite or a priest, but simply "a man"—even a Gentile ('Ab. Zarah 26a).”
…..
And finally, the Mosaic law laid down some stark prohibitions against Gentiles keeping the Sabbath:
“Resh Laḳish (d. 278) said, "A Gentile observing the Sabbath deserves death" (Sanh. 58b). This refers to a Gentile who accepted the seven laws of the Noachidæ, inasmuch as "the Sabbath is a sign between God and Israel alone," and it was probably directed against the Christian Jews, who disregarded the Mosaic laws and yet at that time kept up the observance of the Jewish Sabbath.
R. Emden ( ) ….gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law.”
……
The Mosaic Law that were referenced in Acts 15 could not possibly be any clearer: Gentiles were only bound by the 7 Noahide Laws. Gentiles were absolutely banned from following the Mosaic Law, absent total conversion to Judaism. Gentiles were subject to Death for Sabbath Keeping and Torah study.
“With the conversion of the Gentile to Christianity or to Islam, the heathen and pagan of the civilized or semi-civilized world has become almost extinct, and the restrictions placed on the ancient Gentile are not applicable to the Gentile of the present day, except in so far as to consider him a Noachian observing all moral laws, in contradistinction to the Jew, who as one of the chosen people observes in addition the Mosaic laws.”
Mosaic Law could not be any clearer regarding the inferior rights and responsibilities of Gentiles: No Mosaic Law. No Sabbath observance. No Mosaic Food Laws. No Torah Study. Only the 7 Noahide Laws. That the Apostles adopted this clear reasoning in Acts 15 could not be any more obvious.
Some Christian Bible Commentaries reflect this understanding:
“The conjunction gives the reason for writing to the Gentiles, and giving them these injunctions. The Jews, who heard the Law in their synagogues every Sabbath, did not need instruction. It might be taken for granted that they would adhere to the rules now specified. So, in Acts 15:23, the encyclical letter is addressed exclusively to “the brethren of the Gentiles.”
There you have it. Acts 15:21, read in light of the Mosaic Law it incorporates by reference is a clear repudiation of ALL of the Mosaic Law, insofar that it was being argued that it should be applied to Gentiles. The Mosaic Law was and is clear: Gentiles cannot follow the Mosaic Law (including the Ten Commandments), they cannot observe the Sabbath and the Levitical Food Laws, and they cannot read the Torah. Seventh Day Adventists piously and disingenuously pout that Christians are “at war with the Ten Commandments." They do so only to try to enslave gullible Christians into a heretical Salvation by Works scheme that was vigorously denounced and excommunicated by the Early Church Fathers. That these brave Martyrs for the Christian faith were relying on the Decree from the Council of Jerusalem in their war against First Century-versions of Seventh Day Adventism simply cannot be disputed.
The "moral" laws of Noahide are virtually indistinguishable from what Seventh Day Adventists claim are the "moral" laws of the Ten Commandments. That Ellen White equated Christianity's repudiation of the Ten Commandments as giving them license to steal, kill and worship idols is a willful act of fraud. As a Bible Scholar, there is no question that she would have been aware of the Noahide Laws, their reach and their breadth. For her to argue that dissolution of the Ten Commandments invites anarchy dishonestly overlooks the entire Mosaic Law scheme. The Jewish Encyclopedia quoted here was available in 1903. Ellen White died in 1915. As a result of her willfully dishonest statements about the applicability of the Ten Commandments, millions of Adventists have lived lives of spiritual bondage, trying and failing to commemorate the Sabbath and quiet desperation born out of a partial atonement on the Cross.
It turns out, that for Gentiles Christians, Acts 15 was the first and only skirmish in the alleged “war against the Ten commandments,” insofar that Ebionite and Judaizing heretics wanted the Mosaic Law applied to Gentiles. The "War against the Ten Commandments" was fought and settled in AD 50. And the Ten Commandments lost. Ebionite heretics and later Seventh Day Adventists have demanded that Christians follow the Mosaic Laws, based on an utterly dishonest reading of Acts 15:21. They never mention the Noahide laws that actually are in force against Gentiles when making their dire predictions of murder and rapine should the Ten Commandments be allowed to wither away. When Acts 15 is read in light of the Mosaic Laws that it incorporates by reference, it is clear that Seventh Day Adventism is quite possibly the long-lasting and most colossal fraud in history.
“It follows that the Gentiles were excepted from the general civil laws of Moses. For example, the Law provides that if a man's ox gores and kills a neighbor's ox, the carcass and the surviving ox shall be sold, and the proceeds divided between the respective owners (half-damages). …..Here the Gentile is excepted, as he is not a "neighbor" in the sense of reciprocating and being responsible for damages caused by his negligence; nor does he keep watch over his cattle. Even the best Gentile laws were too crude to admit of reciprocity. …..The Mishnah, bearing such facts in mind, therefore declares that if a Gentile sue an Israelite, the verdict is for the defendant; if the Israelite is the plaintiff, he obtains full damages (B. Ḳ. iv. 3). It should be noted that in these tort cases public or sacred property ( ) was also an exception, for the reason that both are wanting in individual responsibility and in proper care. The principle was that the public could not be fined since it could not collect in turn. The Gemara's reliance on the technical term "neighbor" ( ) in the text as its justification for excluding both the Gentile and the public, is merely tentative.”
Plainly, the Mosaic Law referred to in Acts 15 has specific and discriminatory rights and responsibilities for Gentiles that are sharply divergent from the laws regulating the behavior of Jews.
“Similarly, the mandate concerning the oppression of or withholding wages from a hireling brother or neighbor, or a domiciled alien (Deut. xxiv. 14-15) who observes the Noachian laws, is not applicable in the case of a Gentile. That is to say, a Gentile may be employed at reduced wages, which need not be paid promptly on the same day, but may be paid in accordance with the usual custom of the place. The question arose whether a Jew might share in the spoils gained by a Gentile through robbery. One Talmudic authority reasoned that the Gentile exerted himself to obtain the ill-gotten property much less than in earning his wages, to which the Mosaic law is not applicable; hence property seized by a Gentile, if otherwise unclaimed, is public property and may be used by any person. Another authority decided that a Jew might not profit by it (B. M. 111b).”
Apartheid separation between Gentiles and Jews was enforced very strictly:
“R. Ashi decided that a Jew who sells a Gentile landed property bordering on the land of another Jew shall be excommunicated, not only on the ground that the Gentile laws do not provide for "neighbors' boundary privileges" ( ), but also because the Jewish neighbor may claim "thou hast caused a lion to lie on my border." The ban shall not be raised unless the seller stipulates to keep the Jew free from all possible damage arising from any act of the Gentile (B. Ḳ. 114a). The same Ashi noticed in a vineyard a broken vine-branch bearing a bunch of grapes, and instructed his attendant, if he found that it belonged to a Gentile, to fetch it; if to a Jew, to leave it. The Gentile owner overheard the order, and asked: "Is it right to take from a Gentile?" Ashi replied: "Yes, because a Gentile would demand money, but a Jew would not" (ib. 113b). This was an adroit and sarcastic answer. In truth, Ashi coincided with the opinion of the authority stated above; namely, that, as the presumption is that the Gentile obtained possession by seizure, the property is considered public property, like unclaimed land in the desert (B. B. 54b). ….
“Discrimination against Gentiles, while strictly in accordance with the just law of reciprocity and retaliation, having for their object to civilize the heathen and compel them to adopt the civil laws of Noah."
…..
“Another reason for discrimination was the vile and vicious character of the Gentiles: "I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation " ( = "vile," "contemptible"; Deut. xxxii. 21). The Talmud says that the passage refers to the Gentiles of Barbary and Mauretania, who walked nude in the streets (Yeb. 63b), and to similar Gentiles, "whose flesh is as the flesh of asses and whose issue is like the issue of horses" (Ezek. xxiii. 20); who can not claim a father (Yeb. 98a). The Gentiles were so strongly suspected of unnatural crimes that it was necessary to prohibit the stabling of a cow in their stalls ('Ab. Zarah ii. 1). Assaults on women were most frequent, especially at invasions and after sieges (Ket. 3b), the Rabbis declaring that in case of rape by a Gentile the issue should not be allowed to affect a Jewish woman's relation to her husband. "The Torah outlawed the issue of a Gentile as that of a beast" (Miḳ. viii. 4, referring to Ezek. l.c.).Excepting the Greeks, no Gentiles, not even the Persians, were particular in shedding blood (B. Ḳ. 117a). "Meeting a Gentile on the road armed with a sword [on his left], the Jew shall let him walk on his right [being thus ready to wrench away the weapon if threatened with it]. If the Gentile carries a cane [in his right hand], the Jew shall let him walk at his left [so that he may seize the cane if raised against him]. In ascending or descending the Jew shall always be above, and shall not stoop down for fear of assassination. If the Gentile ask to be shown the way, the Jew shall extend his own journey a point farther and shall not tarry on reaching the stranger's destination" ('Ab. Zarah 25b).Taking these conditions into consideration, the precautions against the employment of Gentile midwives can be easily understood. A Gentile woman was not allowed to suckle a Jewish babe, save in the presence of Jews. Even so it was feared that the Gentile nurse might poison the child (ib. 25a). …..The Roman laws ordained that physicians should be punished for neglect or unskilfulness, and for these causes many were put to death (Montesquieu, "L'Esprit des Lois," xxix. § 14). In a place where no Jewish physician could be found to perform the rite of circumcision the question arose whether a Gentile or a Samaritan mohel might be chosen to operate. If the Gentile is "an expert physician patronized by the public, he may be employed, as it is presumed he would not jeopardize his reputation by purposely injuring a Jewish patient" ('Ab. Zarah 27a)."
"With such a character as that depicted above, it would naturally be quite unsafe to trust a Gentile as a witness, either in a criminal case or in a civil suit. He could not be depended upon to keep his promise or word of honor like a Jew (Bek. 13b). The Talmud comments on the untruthfulness of Gentiles ("a band of strange children whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand [in raising it to take an oath] is a right hand of falsehood" [Ps. cxliv. 11]), and contrasts it with thereputation of a Jew: "The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth" (Zeph. iii. 13). Also excluded as a "neighbor" was the Gentile in whose trust property was left with all prescribed provisions (Ex. xxii. 6-14).
…..
The following blows apart the Ebionite/Judaizing/Seventh Day Adventist heresy that Gentile Christians were to follow the Mosaic food laws. Incidentally, Seventh Day Adventists are highly-selective about the Food Laws that they choose to follow:
http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm
“In dietary cases, where a Gentile is disinterested his evidence is accepted (Shulḥan 'Aruk, Yoreh De'ah, 86, 1). A Gentile's testimony to a man's death, incidentally related as a matter of fact, he being unaware that his evidence is wanted, is held sufficient to release a woman from her marriage bond and to permit her to marry again (Giṭ. 28b; Shulḥan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 17, 14; see 'Agunah).
……
While the troublesome verse in Acts 15 does reiterate that the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath,” That same law strongly prohibits Gentiles from hearing or being taught that law:
“The Talmud prohibited the teaching to a Gentile of the Torah, "the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob" (Deut. xxxiii. 4). R. Johanan says of one so teaching: "Such a person deserves death" (an idiom used to express indignation). "It is like placing an obstacle before the blind" (Sanh. 59a; Ḥag. 13a). “
The only exception to this unequivocal prohibition is where the Gentile wishes to study ONLY the moral laws of Noah:
“And yet if a Gentile study the Law for the purpose of observing the moral laws of Noah, R. Meïr says he is as good as a high priest, and quotes: "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them" (Lev. xviii. 5). The text does not specify an Israelite or a Levite or a priest, but simply "a man"—even a Gentile ('Ab. Zarah 26a).”
…..
And finally, the Mosaic law laid down some stark prohibitions against Gentiles keeping the Sabbath:
“Resh Laḳish (d. 278) said, "A Gentile observing the Sabbath deserves death" (Sanh. 58b). This refers to a Gentile who accepted the seven laws of the Noachidæ, inasmuch as "the Sabbath is a sign between God and Israel alone," and it was probably directed against the Christian Jews, who disregarded the Mosaic laws and yet at that time kept up the observance of the Jewish Sabbath.
R. Emden ( ) ….gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law.”
……
The Mosaic Law that were referenced in Acts 15 could not possibly be any clearer: Gentiles were only bound by the 7 Noahide Laws. Gentiles were absolutely banned from following the Mosaic Law, absent total conversion to Judaism. Gentiles were subject to Death for Sabbath Keeping and Torah study.
“With the conversion of the Gentile to Christianity or to Islam, the heathen and pagan of the civilized or semi-civilized world has become almost extinct, and the restrictions placed on the ancient Gentile are not applicable to the Gentile of the present day, except in so far as to consider him a Noachian observing all moral laws, in contradistinction to the Jew, who as one of the chosen people observes in addition the Mosaic laws.”
Mosaic Law could not be any clearer regarding the inferior rights and responsibilities of Gentiles: No Mosaic Law. No Sabbath observance. No Mosaic Food Laws. No Torah Study. Only the 7 Noahide Laws. That the Apostles adopted this clear reasoning in Acts 15 could not be any more obvious.
Some Christian Bible Commentaries reflect this understanding:
“The conjunction gives the reason for writing to the Gentiles, and giving them these injunctions. The Jews, who heard the Law in their synagogues every Sabbath, did not need instruction. It might be taken for granted that they would adhere to the rules now specified. So, in Acts 15:23, the encyclical letter is addressed exclusively to “the brethren of the Gentiles.”
There you have it. Acts 15:21, read in light of the Mosaic Law it incorporates by reference is a clear repudiation of ALL of the Mosaic Law, insofar that it was being argued that it should be applied to Gentiles. The Mosaic Law was and is clear: Gentiles cannot follow the Mosaic Law (including the Ten Commandments), they cannot observe the Sabbath and the Levitical Food Laws, and they cannot read the Torah. Seventh Day Adventists piously and disingenuously pout that Christians are “at war with the Ten Commandments." They do so only to try to enslave gullible Christians into a heretical Salvation by Works scheme that was vigorously denounced and excommunicated by the Early Church Fathers. That these brave Martyrs for the Christian faith were relying on the Decree from the Council of Jerusalem in their war against First Century-versions of Seventh Day Adventism simply cannot be disputed.
The "moral" laws of Noahide are virtually indistinguishable from what Seventh Day Adventists claim are the "moral" laws of the Ten Commandments. That Ellen White equated Christianity's repudiation of the Ten Commandments as giving them license to steal, kill and worship idols is a willful act of fraud. As a Bible Scholar, there is no question that she would have been aware of the Noahide Laws, their reach and their breadth. For her to argue that dissolution of the Ten Commandments invites anarchy dishonestly overlooks the entire Mosaic Law scheme. The Jewish Encyclopedia quoted here was available in 1903. Ellen White died in 1915. As a result of her willfully dishonest statements about the applicability of the Ten Commandments, millions of Adventists have lived lives of spiritual bondage, trying and failing to commemorate the Sabbath and quiet desperation born out of a partial atonement on the Cross.
It turns out, that for Gentiles Christians, Acts 15 was the first and only skirmish in the alleged “war against the Ten commandments,” insofar that Ebionite and Judaizing heretics wanted the Mosaic Law applied to Gentiles. The "War against the Ten Commandments" was fought and settled in AD 50. And the Ten Commandments lost. Ebionite heretics and later Seventh Day Adventists have demanded that Christians follow the Mosaic Laws, based on an utterly dishonest reading of Acts 15:21. They never mention the Noahide laws that actually are in force against Gentiles when making their dire predictions of murder and rapine should the Ten Commandments be allowed to wither away. When Acts 15 is read in light of the Mosaic Laws that it incorporates by reference, it is clear that Seventh Day Adventism is quite possibly the long-lasting and most colossal fraud in history.
Last edited:
