Let's start by looking at the ruling of the Jerusalem Council. First, note that Ya'akov actually sides with Sha'ul in not forcing Gentile believers in Yeshua the Messiah to become circumcised (that is, become ethnically and completely Jewish) or to keep the whole Torah as a prerequisite to salvation and fellowship.
The conclusion they came to was that the Tanakh (the OT) actually referred to Gentiles--not converted Jews--being called by God's Name, and moreover God had shown His acceptance of them by giving them His Spirit (e.g., Cornellius) upon their coming to faith in the Messiah of Israel. We also see in Galatians, which was apparently written before the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 (since Sha'ul does not reference the Council in his defense of the Gentiles) that it was understood very early on that salvation was by God's grace, received by putting one's faith in the Messiah, not by keeping the Torah in just the right way (works).
Note that at no point is the question even raised about Jewish believers keeping the Torah: It was assumed as a given that they should. The question was how to handle the influx of Gentile converts.
If they encouraged them to circumcise--which in the first century meant giving up one's status as a Greek, a Roman, a Scythian, or whatever and becoming Jewish--then they would be saying that salvation was by faith plus being Jewish, a clear distortion of Yeshua's teachings which ignored the Spirit's evidence among the uncircumcised believers.
If they emphasized Torah-observance and in any way made it a prerequisite to fellowship, then they would a) send out the message that salvation is by faith plus works, and b) put an enormous stumbling-block in the way of those who wanted to come to God. Let's look at those two issues separately a moment.
Issue A is intimately tied to the racial issue, but it was also tied to avoiding making Christianity just another mystery religion. Every mystery cult had their "path to salvation" where if you did x, y, and z exactly right you could supposedly ascend. Christianity was not only the only faith which said that God only wanted your trust and love, but which said that if you tried to earn the gift that was freely offered, you were insulting your Benefactor.
Issue B was just as much a problem: The fact was that many Gentiles simply could not keep the whole Torah as a matter of practicality. A slave could not insist on taking the Sabbath off, for example, nor could even many free men. Being circumcised was considered self-mutilation by the Greeks; imagine if you tried to join a church and they insisted that you had to cut off your right ear! Therefore, if they made Torah-observance a matter of fellowship, many who would otherwise want to repent and come to God would be discouraged.
Therefore, they came to a most merciful and graceful decision: They set the bar for fellowship low. They insisted only that new converts "abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." Each of these four items is directly tied to the pagan practices of the day: Idolatry, temple prostitution, strangled sacrifices, and drinking blood were all regular practices which, if the new believer avoided them, would prevent him from participating in the pagan culture of the first century.
Some propose that these items were meant to be the only requirements on Gentile Christians forever, but if so, by what right did Sha'ul tell the brethren to stay away from theft and contentiousness or to honor their parents and send monetary support to Jerusalem? Why did Ya'akov command support of the poor and not favoring the rich? None of these items were on the list!
Therefore, it is understood by those of us on the Messianic side that the four commandments were never meant as an end, but as a starting-point. By separating the Gentile believers from idolatry (and this would have its own social consequences), they would become "clean" enough to enter the synagogues as God-fearers to worship and learn about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob alongside their Messianic Jewish brethren. This is why Ya'akov concludes with, "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day" (v. 21).
The idea was that since the Holy Spirit was being given freely to the Gentiles who believed, that the Apostles would trust the Spirit to finish what He had started in His own time. However, even within that expectation, we see the Apostles exhorting the churches, giving specific commands, and even passing judgment on those who sinned, so it was not expected to be an automatic or smooth process.
In the meantime, while the Church was undergoing her growing-pains, one of the cheifmost concerns of the Apostles was unity. They greatly feared the division of the Church into battling sects, especially at so early a stage, or into the Gentile believers vs. the Jewish belivers (which did happen, but at the fault of the Gentile Christians) so we see them in their letters trying to smooth over differences between the Gentile and Jewish believers, constantly reminding them that love for one's neighbor was to remain paramount. Thus, believers with honest differences of opinion are told to "be convinced in (their) own mind" and not to judge each other over the "minors" (e.g., Rom. 14).
Lastly, Sha'ul and Ya'akov weren't in disagreement at all; they just emphasized the same points differently. Where Ya'akov said, "Faith without works is dead" (Jas. 2:26), Sha'ul goes on from pointing out that salvation is by faith and not works to adding, "For we are his workmanship, created in Messiah Yeshua unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:8-10).
Short on time, but meant to add that the Gentiles would be under the Noachide Covenant and thus not have to keep the whole Torah. Since Gentiles weren't expected to be circumcised, no doubt this helped to determine that they still didn't need circumcision.
#208 BTTT. Very well said.
Yes, along with another reminder of these necessary things:
Acts 21
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
I would guess that James knew that circumcision was never required of the gentiles and that the Noachide Covenant was for perpetual generations and everlasting.
We also see in Galatians, which was apparently written before the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 (since Sha'ul does not reference the Council in his defense of the Gentiles)
I think he does.
Galatians 2:6,9
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
The problem with this is that he doesn't mention the other 'necessary things'. Balancing the ceremonial and moral laws.
Matthew 24:11 - And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 - And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
The word "iniquity" comes from the Greek word "anomia". Thayer's Greek lexicon defines it this way:
iniquity greek 458 anomia {an-om-ee'-ah} from 459; TDNT - 4:1085,646; n f AV - iniquity 12, unrighteousness 1, transgress the law + 4060 1, transgression of the law 1; 15
1) the condition of without law
1a) because ignorant of it
1b) because of violating it
2) contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness
And Strong's Lexicon defines it: "illegality (i.e. violation of the law)"
Basically, Jesus predicted, that because of false prophets, illegality or violation of the law and a condition of without law will abound. Looks like he was right on target.
These are the various types of people we are dealing with in the first century.
From the Greek: 4339 proselutos pros-ay'-loo-tos from the alternate of 4334; an arriver from a foreign region, i.e. (specially), an acceder (convert) to Judaism ("proselyte"):--proselyte.
1) a newcomer
a) a stranger, alien
2) a proselyte
a) one who has come over from a Gentile religion to Judaism
++++
The Rabbis distinguished two classes of proselytes, proselytes of righteousness, who received circumcision and bound themselves to keep the whole of the Mosaic law and to comply with all the requirements of Judaism, and proselytes of the gate, who dwelt among the Jews, and although uncircumcised observed certain specific laws, esp. the seven precepts of Noah, i.e. against the seven chief sins, idolatry, blasphemy against God, homicide, unchastity, theft or plundering, rebellion against rulers and the use of "flesh with the blood thereof".
I think its entirely possible that the followers of Jesus were a sect within Judaism, and never intended for there to be a 'new religion' called Christianity, based on the teachings of a Jew, yet removing his Judaic beliefs, customs, religious faith and upbringing, and basically stripping him of all his Jewishness. How does one base a religion on a Jewish Rabbi and yet ignore how this Rabbi lived and what he represented??
Gentile Godfearers who wanted to become full-fledged believers in God through the ministry of Jesus had ALREADY received Moses' instructions concerning how people are to live, as taught in the Noachide and Sinatic covenants since when Moses [Pentateuch-first 5 books of the Bible] is taught, such teaching encompasses both the Laws of Noah and the Mosaic Covenant.
A lot of these Gentile Godfearers already attended synagogue and or attended the Festivals and Holy Days, like Cornelius. All that was needed for a full conversion from Godfearer to Jew was, being cicumcised. And James had already pointed out that cicumcism wasn't necessary to be grafted into the family. So, the big thing that the Godfearers were lacking in was understanding of the dietary guidelines, and fornication like not having relations with ones sisters, aunts, uncles, neices etc.
They already had certain basics, just not the fundamental guidelines in dietary regulations since they didn't with Jews nor would they know how to properly prepare their food. (kosher)
You can SEE through the way the Jews lived, some of what was expected. But, without dining with them, or watching them prepare their foods, you wouldn't KNOW how to go about preparing kosher meals. They wouldn't have realized that their was a difference. They needed to be told and then instructed on how to do that.
It wasn't about making Jews more comfortable around Gentiles, it was about making Gentiles acceptable of God. It was about being a part of the family and being able to sit together at the 'wedding feast'.
It is wrong to tempt someone to break God's Law. If the Gentile didn't follow the dietery guidelines, and a Jew were over for dinner, it would be tempting for the Jew to break his dietary guideline. Better for all to be following the same dietary rules that the Jews use, since Gentiles are grafted to the Jews and not the other way around.
Note that at no point is the question even raised about Jewish believers keeping the Torah: It was assumed as a given that they should. The question was how to handle the influx of Gentile converts.
Right. You used the family analogy earlier. So, lets say a devout Torah observant Jewish family ADOPTS a gentile child. Will they welcome this child into their home and treat this child differently than the rest of the family? Or will they raise this adopted child as part of the family, expecting the child to adhere to the same rules as the other children and members of the family?
As I pointed out above, it is wrong to tempt someone to sin or break Torah. Since the Torah observant Jews, that you agree would be expected to continue in their adherence of Torah laws, would still be required to follow kosher meals, that means thet they would have to know how that meal was prepared, the pots and pans, the cooking utensiles, the storage of the food and the cupboards. That means if a gentile didn't prepare the food in the correct manner, the Jew wouldn't be able to eat it. The Jew couldn't be certain that it was kosher. The same for celebrating the feasts together. The Jew would never be able to enjoy table fellowship at the home of the Gentile, unless the Gentile were following the dietary guidelines.
Some propose that these items were meant to be the only requirements on Gentile Christians forever, but if so, by what right did Sha'ul tell the brethren to stay away from theft and contentiousness or to honor their parents and send monetary support to Jerusalem? Why did Ya'akov command support of the poor and not favoring the rich? None of these items were on the list!
Different types of laws. Just as Yehoshua taught.
Mat 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
He placed 'moral' law above 'ceremonial' law. This is why some 'thought' that he 'broke' the law. You have to remember that Jesus taught in a period of transition, during the development of different schools of interpretation in Judaism. It is inevitable that there would be variant interpretations of the Law as recorded in the Gospels. With the Pharisees, Jesus accepts the Law of the Sabbath; he differs only in the interpretations of that law as found in the Oral Law. The Oral Law detailed the many conditions that allowed for the breaking of the Sabbath.
For example, the Rabbis of the Hillel School of Pharisaism declared that is was permissible to violate the Sabbath to preserve life, that in doing so you violate a Sabbath to ensure the observance of future Sabbaths. This was accepted interpretation by the Hillel Pharisees of which Jesus belonged, but not to the Shammai Pharisees or the Sadducees who were ultra-strict, always adhering to the 'letter of the Law' over the 'spirit of the Law' (Oral Law). It has been said that in elevating the spirit of the Law over the letter of the Law one can understand the minimizing of the ceremonial laws. But it is not that simple according to Jesus. As gentiles, we are not aware that the Oral Law brought a proper understanding to the Written Law if matters were in doubt.
These (least commandments) you ought to have done, without neglecting the others (grave-weightier commandments). In drawing such a contrast, Jesus does not annul the Written Law (613 laws), nor even the ceremonial laws; he only brings priority to the obedience of all the Laws. Jesus did not stand against the Written Law or Oral Law, nor even Pharisaism, but only against the elevation of the 'letter of the Law' above the 'spirit of the Law'.
Rev 2:19
I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last [to be] more than the first.
Notice that works is mentioned twice. The 'moral laws' and 'ceremonial laws'.
Lastly, Sha'ul and Ya'akov weren't in disagreement at all; they just emphasized the same points differently. Where Ya'akov said, "Faith without works is dead" (Jas. 2:26), Sha'ul goes on from pointing out that salvation is by faith and not works to adding, "For we are his workmanship, created in Messiah Yeshua unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:8-10).
Another good one to remember.
Matthew 19
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
I think there was tension between Paul and James. In Acts 15 the 4 'necessary' things were determined. Circumcision was ALREADY deemed unnecessary. So, why did James summon Paul back to Jerusalem? (Acts 21).
When Paul first decides to preach the gospel, why does he wait three years to meet with James, Peter and John? Wouldn't you think that he would want to make sure that he was instructing the Gentile converts correctly?
Then, there is still his verbiage in Galatians.
Galatians 2:6,9
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
Considering that Paul never heard Yehoshua speak when Jehoshua was still alive, wouldn't you think that he would 'want' to meet with those that knew Yehoshua best? Wouldn't you think that he would give or show them more respect than calling them 'somewhat, whatever they were'? Instead of calling them the pillers of the community, he says they 'seemed' to be pillers, but then goes into this, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me.'
Yes, he did take the vow at James' suggestion, and made blood and sin offerings. (25 years after Yehoshua was supposed to have been the last 'sacrifice'.
More on the four 'necessary things.
This first item, abstinence from meats sacrificed to idols, is based on Leviticus 17:8-19 and was understood, at least by Paul (I Cor. 10:28), to refer to foods known to have been consecrated to pagan Gods but not to meals eaten at Temples.
The second, abstinence from blood, has to do with the dietary regulations of Leviticus 17:10-12, and was so interpreted later (Eusebius, H.E. 5, 1, 26). I haven't found the verses where Paul instructs the Gentile converts on this.
The third, abstinence from the meat of animals which had been strangled, without their blood being drained; was an ordinance certainly Jewish in origin (Lev. 17:13-14) and enforced among Jewish Christians (Clem. Hom. 7,8; 8,19; Clem. Rec. 4, 36). This was not discussed by Paul as far as I can determine.
The fourth item, abstinence from "fornication," seems strange in this context, although Paul may refer to it in letters from and to Corinth (1 Thess. 4:3; I Cor. 5:1, 6:13; 7:2). Among Jewish Christians it was referred to rules about marital intercourse and ritual washings (Lev. I8:6-19).
I have been looking for verses where Paul instructs the Gentile converts about these '4 necessary things', that the Jerusalem Council and the Holy Ghost determined necessary. I'm not having much luck. Perhaps you know the verses?
If not, then why didn't Paul instruct the Gentile converts about those 4 necessary things as he was instructed to do?