What were the Pharisees really trying to require of the Gentiles in Acts 15? Sabbatarians argue it wasn't what Luke plainly wrote. In this article we'll examine the first two of the three most common explanations and see whether they can withstand scrutiny.
In my last post, "Acts 15:21 - More Law Later?", we saw how the Sabbatarian explanation for Acts 15:21 is not the only way to understand the verse. I proposed the initial trouble in Acts 15 - the thing which disheartened the church, the thing which Paul and Barnabas sharply opposed, which Peter called a yoke, and which the Council ruled against - was exactly what was written: circumcision and the law.
The Pharisees felt that in order to join the Covenant, the Gentiles must join Israel, and to join Israel meant they must first be circumcised, and the result is that they must keep the law. Circumcision and law was the burden, and joining the nation of Israel was the root error that needed to be corrected.
We also saw how the "more law later" claim can be tested. We turn to Acts 21 where James contrasts the converts from Judaism, who were zealous for the law, with the converts from the Gentiles, who were taught no such thing. If even years later James was still saying the Gentiles would be taught no such thing, then there is no "more law later" for the Gentiles. The Sabbatarian reading of Acts 15:21 is flawed.
Sabbatarians disagree, of course. They assert the Apostles were fully in support of a small fraction of the law, while the Pharisees were not insisting on that but something else. The three main explanations for what the Pharisees were trying to bind on the Gentiles are either:
A) Circumcision only, or
B) Pharisaical traditions, or
C) All the law - particularly the ones which Sabbatarians don't personally think are necessary and which they call "the Law of Moses".
I disagreed with all three and said I will go over this more in another post. This is that post. (Which I have since changed into a two-parter because it was too long for one post.)
Keep in mind who we're talking about here: converts from the Pharisees. What were Pharisees like? Fastidious about the law. Tithing on every seed. Memorizing every word. Analyzing every nuance. Did they add traditions? Yes. But those traditions come from their attempt to more accurately understand and rigorously apply the law. (I agree with ABD author Bill's take on their approach to the law.)
A simple reading of the Council's decision clearly plays havoc with Sabbatarianism. Sabbatarianism needs the Old Covenant law. More specifically, it needs the Sabbath day. And to justify the Sabbath day, early Sabbatarians chose to emphasize the Ten Commandments. Yes, a commitment to the Sabbath came before an emphasis on the Ten Commandments. Sabbatarianism is now locked in to the Ten Commandments. Later Sabbatarians added additional laws, arguing amongst themselves over them. Sabbatarians reframe the debate to bring the Gentiles under certain laws while avoiding the appearance of siding with those Pharisees, claiming the debate was only about one of those three things listed above. But was it?
Let's take a look at each of those three things and see if they make sense.
CIRCUMCISION ONLY?
Let's start with circumcision because it's easiest. (That doesn't mean it's simple.) The Council was not only about circumcision alone.
Back in Armstrongism, many were taught the Council was only debating circumcision (for example, read "Reader Testimonials - Centurion", or I could pull up any number of official Armstrongist materials to demonstrate this, for example the Youth Bible Lessons series). Armstrongism at one time or the other taught all three of these incompatible explanations. But the claim is demonstrably false. If it were only about circumcision, then why was the argument said to be over circumcision and the law? Twice! (v.5 & v.24.)
I shouldn't have to say another word about this ...but I will.
Think about the position of Sabbatarianism - that only about 1/6 of the law is required. Now think of the attitude of the Pharisees. Do you think they would only care about circumcision, especially when 5/6 of the law supposedly just became unnecessary? I can't see how that is possible.
Think about the conclusion of the Council which they wrote in the letter to be sent out to all the church. If the initial trouble was about circumcision only, then what on earth does teaching the Gentiles to keep a short list of laws have to do with a debate over circumcision alone? "We had a debate which was only about circumcision, and decided against it. And because circumcision isn't needed, Gentiles should keep these four points of law that have nothing whatsoever to do with circumcision." That seems a rather odd way to solve the problem of circumcision.
It also fundamentally misses the concept of circumcision. Circumcision was never just about a snip. It was about joining a covenant people. It was the sign; the seal.
But which covenant? The Abrahamic! Not the Mosaic.
Circumcision was the required gateway to the Abrahamic Covenant (GEN. 17:10-14) and therefore the covenant people of Israel. It was joining Israel that placed one under Israel's Old Covenant obligations. Paul warns strongly that you could not snip in this context without getting the whole law (GAL. 5:3), along with its condemnations. (This doesn't mean every individual had to personally perform every law, for example some were only for the priesthood, but every person was beholden to the complete system, which included a priesthood.)
What I'm driving at is - the debate in Acts 15 could not be only about circumcision because by its very nature circumcision was not only about circumcision.
Everyone there understood the ramifications of circumcision. That is why the Pharisees insisted on circumcision in the first place - until then, that was how one joined the covenant people. "You want God? Then you join Israel." They misunderstood that the Gentiles were now covenant people without joining Israel first, and that both Jew and Gentile together were joining something new: the body of Christ (EPH. 2:11-18), and that through Christ we join the Abrahamic Covenant. It was being one with Christ that qualifies you to be a child of Abraham and inheritor of the promises.
The Pharisees did not want Gentiles to be circumcised simply to be circumcised, and the Apostles did not oppose it simply so males did not have to be injured for a few days. It was a much bigger conversation than that. It was about what we join and how. It was about the sweeping differences between the Old and New Covenants. The decision of the Council was not just about bypassing circumcision, but avoiding the entire older process.
And I realize some Sabbatarians will argue the Apostles wanted Gentiles to avoid circumcision specifically so they did not have to keep the whole law, and therefore they would be free to only keep certain parts of the law. But a) that's really claim #3, and b) that's not how this works.
A running theme in Sabbatarianism is attempting to find a way back into the Old Covenant, but only so far as to get specific items from it. Bypassing circumcision doesn't mean you now get to enter the Covenant but only so far as you'd like.
In the Old way, the progression was (in a nutshell): circumcision → join Israel → Old Covenant law. So, yes, the Pharisees were arguing for the whole law. But that was how it goes. The law are the terms of the Old Covenant. The law is a singular whole; it's an all or nothing proposition. If you take out circumcision then you are not a party to the Covenant, and so the rest falls apart.
What bypassing circumcision does not do is give us a back door straight to the Sabbath day, dividing the singular body of law into chunks, and excusing us from other parts we would rather not keep. Where is it ever written that bypassing circumcision makes one free to treat the Old Covenant like a buffet? That would mean the whole world could have been doing this the entire time! We've just undermined everything from Moses to Jesus!
You realize this is all still arguing over Old Covenant ideas, right? They are obsolete! We have so many articles on this.
The initial trouble was not only about circumcision.
PHARISAICAL TRADITIONS ONLY?
Let's move on to the Pharisaical traditions. The Council was not only about Pharisaical traditions.
Some people realize this could not have been only about circumcision, but they still have an ideological commitment to protect the Ten Commandments, so they must redefine what "and the law" means. Some redefine it as Pharisaical traditions.
But it cannot be that, either.
(ACT. 15:5) But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
The Pharisaical traditions were not called "the law of Moses". Moses didn't write the oral law. The traditions were distinct from the Torah because they came after the Torah and were meant to describe the Torah. I shouldn't have to say another word about this ...but I will.
It is true that the Pharisees added many traditions and that these traditions had the weight of law, at least among the Pharisees and those who follow them. But the Pharisaical customs are not called "the law" in the New testament and were never said to be "the law of Moses". The New Testament particularly distinguishes the law from the customs. Historically, there was the written law ("Torah") and there was the oral law ("the customs", the "Oral Torah", and eventually "the Mishnah").
Josephus is helpful here because he was from that time and place:
"What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have passed on to the people a great many observances handed down by their fathers, which are not written down in the law of Moses. For this reason the Sadducees reject them and say that we are to consider to be obligatory only those observances which are in the written word, but need not observe those which are derived from the tradition of our forefathers."
-Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews" book XIII, chapter 10, paragraph 6, verse 296-297.
Josephus rejects the idea that the oral law was the law of Moses.
Did we not spend a great deal of time on Acts 15:21 in my last post? Does that not say Moses was read? The oral law, the Mishnah, wasn't written until around 200 AD. It couldn't have been read. And do Sabbatarians not use that verse to claim it refers to Gentiles learning the Torah law? You can't have it both ways. Either the discussion was about the law or it wasn't.
And let's not forget, synagogues are a tradition of the Pharisees (for more, see "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII"). Nowhere in the Bible is there a law that commands going to synagogue (or church) on Sabbath. Synagogues developed in the Second Temple period. It was the Pharisees who ran most synagogues. How can you reject the traditions of the Pharisees and base your entire plan on a tradition of the Pharisees?
So, when Acts 15 says "and keep the law" (v.24) and "keep the law of Moses" (v.5), there is no good reason to conclude this is referring only to the Pharisaical customs. I am sure that if Team Pharisees had their way the Gentile converts would also have been required to keep the traditions, but I see no possible way that this can be only about the traditions.
The initial trouble was not only about the Pharisaical customs.
CONCLUSION
We've gone over the first two of the three main explanations given by Sabbatarians of what the Pharisees were demanding, and we have seen how they fail.
A) Circumcision only. It cannot be this because Luke says, "and the law." By its very nature, circumcision was not only about circumcision.
B) Pharisaical traditions. It cannot be this because Luke says, "the law of Moses." The oral law was distinct from the law of Moses.
Next time, we will go over the final explanation: "the law of Moses".
Other articles in this series:
Acts 15:21 - More Law Later?
To help you move forward, I suggest these articles:
The Legalist Dance
Common Legalist Arguments - Part VI
Confusing The Covenants
The Plain Truth About Peter's Hypocrisy
Shadows, Nails and the Fall Holy Days
Law of Moses - Law of God - Part I
Law of God - Law of Moses - Part II
Two Trees - Two Covenants
If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments
Lawlessness and I John 3
Sin Is The Transgression of The Law?
