Replies

No sir.

The discussion of the Jerusalem council was due to the interference of the Pharisees, attempting to inject their false laws into the congregations of the dispersed northern Israelites in Asia Minor. The dispute centered mostly on circumcision, not diet.

The intent was to gently steer them back to the true Torah that Yeshua had been sent to restore to his people.

Aside from his mission to fulfill Passover, Yeshua’s daily mission throughout his life was to restore Torah to the Kingdom of Yehova, which he did bit by bit as he denounced the Pharisees false worship that we have come to know as Judaism.

In Matthew 5 he sets out that Torah is the law of the Kingdom, until all things are accomplished, and the physical universe is dissolved.

Throughout the gospels, but particularly in Matthew 15,16, and 23, he demolishes Judaism/Phariseeism, and calls for the return to the commandments as they were delivered at Sinai.

This is also reinforced by Paul’s and James’ clear declarations that only doers of Torah would be justified.
.

We remain in disagreement then. Clearly the purpose of the council's declaration was twofold: First, to prevent unnecessary friction between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Second, to let the Gentiles know they could have full access to the blessings of Christian faith without having to adopt everything they might hear preached in the synagogues:

Act 15:20-21 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (21) For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

And while it is true circumcision was an issue, it is clear from Paul's harsh exchange with Peter that much more was entailed. Consider this passage:

Gal 2:11-12 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (12) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Notice here this issue is eating with the Gentiles. Peter was fine with it because, as AA has rightly pointed out, he understood the dietary laws to be suspended. It was only when the Judaizers showed up that he backed out of his eating with Gentiles, and other Jews in the local congregation followed his lead, much to their spiritual harm. So it cannot be argued that dietary rules were not an issue here, which is further confirmed here:

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Notice here there is no fine distinction made between the false excesses of man-made rules of the Pharisees versus the legitimately Mosaic laws of diet, festivals, etc. No, it is all lumped together. Peter is found out by Paul to be a hypocrite here, because he really believes he is free in Christ to "live after the manner of Gentiles," whilst he binds gentile believers to "live as do the Jews."

Paul is clear here. Peter knows better. This isn't just about circumcision, or the "false worship" of the Pharisees. This is about the nature of Christian justification, our legal acquittal before God, by which we transition form being hell-bound convicts to heirs in Christ of God's most amazing mercy and blessing, forgiven. That change of status is not ever the result, in a causal sense, of compliance with the law, but is based directly on faith in, belief in Jesus Christ:

Gal 2:15-16 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, (16) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Note Paul's positioning of himself and Peter, such that even though they were Jews by nature, not even they could be justified by the law, but could only be justified by faith in Christ. The broader point being that it makes no sense to hold the Gentiles in bondage to a system that cannot save, especially when they already have a Savior Who CAN save.

There is more to say, but it's late, and I must go to bed.

Peace,