Did the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 give Gentile Christians a "starter pack" of laws, with the rest to be learned in synagogue later on? That's what many claim Acts 15:21 means. Or have we completely misunderstood what the Jerusalem Council was actually deciding?
Today, I want to go over Acts 15. More specifically, I want to focus on verse 21. To start off, let's see verse 21 so we can refresh our memories:
(ACT. 15:21) For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.
I was recently on social media - an unfortunate habit I keep telling myself I should break. The algorithm still thinks I’m SDA, so it subjected me to an article about some portion of Old Covenant law. Upon scanning the comments as I do (which is why the algorithm still thinks I’m SDA), I was surprised by how many people relied on Acts 15:21 as proof for their claim that Gentile converts were only given a few starter rules at first but would then learn the rest of the law later by attending synagogue.
One elaborated, “The Gentiles were converting to a sect of Judaism, so of course they would attend synagogue and learn Torah. How else would you interpret it?” Ah! That is the key question. How else could it, or should it, be interpreted? Because what Gentiles were joining and how they were joining is precisely what was under consideration at the Council of Jerusalem.
If you've read this blog at all, then you know we mention Acts 15 frequently. Acts chapters 15 & 21 are some of my personal favorite material in the entire Bible. But one thing we've never really done is thoroughly investigate this interpretation of verse 21. Let's go together and see a different way to understand this verse. Fair warning: we're going to dig deep!
CHOOSE A SIDE
There were two opposing sides at the Jerusalem Council:
The first was converts from the Pharisees who claimed Gentiles must be circumcised and take up Torah law. Let's call them "Team Pharisee". Their position was that Gentiles are required to become Jews in order to be Christians.
The second was Paul, Barnabas, and Peter - who preached to the Gentiles and personally witnessed them coming to the faith and receiving the Holy Spirit without any law involved - along with James. Let's call them "Team Apostle". Their position was that Gentiles are not required to become Jews in order to become Christians.
I realize Sabbatarians will object, saying I've misunderstood the position of both teams. They believe the Apostles were all for the law, and that Team Pharisee was either A) only trying to bind circumcision on the Gentiles, or B) only trying to bind Pharisaical traditions rather than Torah law on the Gentiles, or C) only trying to bind a portion of the law - the ones which Sabbatarians don't personally think are necessary and which they call "the Law of Moses" - on the Gentiles. They really should pick one. These explanations are very different from each other.
I simply reject all of those, and for several reasons; not the least of which is that's not what Luke wrote. I will go over this more in another post but I think by the end of this post you will better understand my reasoning.
What is the position of Sabbatarianism? That Gentiles should take up Torah law. Which team does that come closest to, by a simple reading of Acts 15? Team Pharisee.
In the letter the Council crafted to be sent out to all the churches, the very introduction reads:
(ACT. 15:24) “Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment.”
The position of Team Pharisee was rejected outright. No such command was ever given in the first place to require the Gentile converts to be like the proselytes to Judaism in being circumcised and in keeping the law. Requiring Gentile converts to keep the law was a novelty being introduced by Team Pharisee. It was not a natural requirement from the beginning.
We can test this "more law later" claim. James reaffirms the decision several years later (ACT. 21:25). No such thing was commanded. And this reaffirmation is very bad for the claim.
You can imagine what a difficult thing it is to take the words of the Council and turn them into full support of teaching the Gentiles to keep the law. That is how verse 21 is being used. An unclear verse is being interpreted in a way that completely changes several clear, key details of the chapter in the first place. But Sabbatarianism must do this. They have to have the law or they cannot have the Sabbath, and without a Sabbath there is no Sabbatarianism.
To understand why the Council decided as they did, we have to understand the background.
TWO POINTS
What do we emphasize here at ABD? Context, context, context. And what was the context of the chapter? You might say to me, "What should be expected of Gentiles now that they are called." And you would be correct. "But wait! There's more!"
The other underlying context was that Gentiles had been included at all.
Acts 15 is really the culmination of events beginning in Acts 10. You can see this in Acts 15:3 & 7-9.
The discussion in Acts 15 was essentially about two things: 1) the Gentiles having been called in the first place, same as Jews, and 2) what should be required of the Gentiles so they can live together with Jews. Many people miss point #1.
When James speaks, he begins by reiterating that Peter told a back story about how God, "visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name," referring to the calling of Abraham and the creation of Israel. Then, James goes on to cite Amos 9, where God promises to bring the Gentiles back in. Notice, James never emphasizes Sinai here. James' points were not legal; they were were historical. Those prophecies had finally been fulfilled in their time. (For more, see "What About the Gentiles?".)
James finishes it up with verse 21.
We cannot understand verse 21 unless we read it with context point #1 in mind.
Discussion on Gentile conversion. → Peter talks about Israel called from the Gentiles. → James talks about the reclamation of the Gentiles. → Verse 21.
What Sabbatarians are doing is diving into Acts 15, taking verse 21 without any context, then explaining the entire chapter in light of their own doctrines. They are not taking verse 21 in the context of the discussion it comes out of. This is the very definition of eisegesis: "the process of interpreting a text by imposing one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into it, rather than drawing meaning from the text itself."
If verse 21 suddenly becomes "Gentiles will now attend synagogue and learn Torah," then it interrupts the flow of the conversation. But if verse 21 continues James' appeal to what Israel has long heard in the scriptures, then it fits seamlessly.
VERSE 21
Now that we have the context in mind, we can move on to verse 21.
(ACT. 15:21) For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.
In light of the context, verse 21 is a way of saying all those present should be well familiar with the idea of Gentile inclusion. They all sat in synagogue and had it read to them their whole lives.
Essentially, "The Gentiles are included in their own right, the Holy Spirit proves it, and this should not come as a surprise to any of us."
Look at the first half of the verse: "For Moses has had throughout many generations..." Guess what that is not doing... speaking about the future! I ask you, had Gentile Christians been going to synagogue and hearing the scriptures read for many generations? No. Who had? Israel! James is talking about the Jews, who for many generations went to synagogue and listened.
The Greek Interlinear reads, "from generations of old". The Greek is ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων - “from generations of old / ancient times.” The word ἀρχαίων (archaiōn) points to the exceedingly distant past. Nothing in this indicates future. Very much the opposite.
James talks about Israel and the past; Sabbatarians conclude Gentiles and the future.
Some Sabbatarians think verse 21 indicates they were going to keep reading about Moses because that was how things were always done. But that was the Pharisees' point - keep joining the nation of Israel because that is how things were always done. Circumcision was done for 400 years before there was a Moses. How do you keep one thing but reject the other things? If I were on Team Pharisee, the first thing I would do is object, "Based on what, exactly?? This is entirely arbitrary." This whole reasoning falls completely apart.
Now, let's think about this plan to send Gentiles to synagogue to learn Christianity.
Remember, the Gospel was to go to all the earth. The very Apostles were the ones who would bring it. Thomas went all the way to India. How could Gentiles go to synagogue in Gentile lands where there were no synagogues? But it also begs for difficulty in Diaspora areas where there were synagogues. It ignores what we read elsewhere (JON. 9:22; 12:42). If even the rulers of Israel could not mention Jesus, what sense would it make to plan on sending Gentile converts to synagogue?
It runs headlong into even basic issues. How are Gentiles going to learn the spirit of the law in a synagogue?
And, if we are going to claim this was all about being against circumcision or traditions of the Pharisees or ceremonial law, then don't forget that is part of what you learn in a synagogue. I remind you that synagogue attendance itself is a tradition of the Pharisees (for more, see "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII"). How can we be against traditions of the Pharisees and very much for traditions of the Pharisees at the same time?
The Sabbatarian explanation of verse 21 is, in a nutshell, "Let's risk sending Gentiles to synagogue so, if they manage not to get kicked out, they can learn everything we here claim we are against."
Now, there are several other important things for us to see.
WHAT TO DO?
Having established that the Gentiles were included in their own right as the Jews were, as it was foretold, let's move on to the second context point. The big question becomes - what should be expected of the Gentiles now that we have to live together?
Here is another critical idea to understand the debate:
It is not that Gentiles were called to become Jews, as the proselytes did, but that they were called in the same way as the Jews - meaning, in their own right. Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit without first having to join the nation of Israel as was required in the Old Covenant.
In the Old Covenant, Gentiles had to join the nation of Israel. And joining Israel required what? Circumcision and the law. That is why Team Pharisee was so adamant about circumcision and the law - they felt Gentiles were joining Israel.
Team Apostle disagreed. The presence of the Holy Spirit was proof they had already been accepted; no Israel necessary. The giving of the Holy Spirit is what James meant when he said, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit..." (v.28) How could they not already be accepted if they have the Holy Spirit? And if they have been accepted, why force them to do more in order to be accepted?
Peter, Paul, and Barnabas witnessed the Gentiles being accepted by God into the New Covenant in a completely different way than Gentiles were accepted into Old Covenant. This was huge! This is the beating heart of the chapter (actually, of this section of Acts). And Team Pharisee did not understand it. They were trying to require the Old Covenant terms in the New Covenant.
Recall from the intro to this post how one person online said, "The Gentiles were converting to a sect of Judaism, so they naturally would be expected to attend synagogue and learn Torah." This is precisely the opinion of Team Pharisee! This quote misses what was really happening.
The quote is partly correct. Today, Christianity is seen as a very separate religion from Judaism, but back then it was not. Gentiles actually were converting to a sect of Judaism. But this is more nuanced than it seems.
Yes, Gentiles were joining what was considered a sect of Judaism, but they were joining a sect that was fundamentally different than any other sect, and they were joining it in a way never seen before.
RESIDENT ALIENS
The two nations had to become one. Jew and Gentile had to live together now. This wouldn't be a problem if Gentiles had to join Israel as the proselytes did. Team Pharisee's solution was rather practical. But if they were not to be proselytes, then how do the two live together in peace? There were still Jewish sensibilities to contend with. What should be expected of Gentiles?
It was the decision of the Council that the Gentiles were required only to keep the points from the law that all Gentiles were required to observe while in Israel: the laws required of resident aliens in Israel from Leviticus 17-18. (These are said to originate in the Noachide Laws. The Noachide Laws had always been the bare minimum of what would be expected of a Gentile in Israel, to consider them righteous. But that's for another day.)
But why these?
Sabbatarians read Exodus 12:49 and conclude, "There was one law for the native and the stranger, so that must mean the law always applied to everyone." Not so. The Old Covenant was not imposed upon the nations generally.
Torah law purposefully distinguished between Israelites and the nations, even excluding Gentiles in certain places - like with Passover. Only in particular situations were Gentiles brought under Israel's covenant obligations - like when a Gentile intended to worship God with Israel. If a Gentile wanted to worship with Israel and join the Old Covenant, then one law applied for all. Only then must Gentiles be circumcised and keep the law. (This was clearly top of mind for Team Pharisee.) Otherwise, circumcision and the law were not required of them.
However, the laws that consistently applied to Gentiles in Israel, whether they were joining Israel or not, were the laws of resident aliens from Leviticus 17-18.
Everyone at the Council knew this. So, that is what they decided would continue to be required. Why, as a 'starter pack' of laws? No. Because these laws applied to Gentiles who were not joining Israel. That was how the law had always worked ...the law that had been read in synagogues for generations. That explains why James called them "necessary things" (v.28).
Some say these were chosen because they were common practices in Gentile idolatry. I don't know about common so much, but they were used in idolatrous rituals at certain times and places. I find this unconvincing, though, since idolatrous rituals would no longer have been an issue for converts in the first place, there were a great deal of other things even more commonly used in pagan rituals that were not mentioned (for example, it doesn't say not to sacrifice), and choosing four obscure things to avoid the appearance of idolatry is a strange decision to make in a debate about what Jewish laws and traditions apply. Also, if the Ten Commandments were still binding, as I so often hear, then wouldn't these four points be covered in the First Commandment? That said, perhaps an avoidance of idolatry could be a subtext of this choice. But I prefer the explanation I've already given.
THE BODY OF CHRIST
Gentiles were not joining the nation of Israel. Indeed, what they were joining was something else entirely.
The decision not only goes against Team Pharisee, but it also answers the quote at the start of this section. No, they were not joining a sect of Judaism in the same way a proselyte joins Israel. The Gentiles were to remain a distinct people and be reclaimed in their own right, by faith in Jesus Christ rather than joining with physical Israel. And the opposite is also true. The Jews could retain their Hebrew traditions and yet be Christian, by faith in Jesus Christ (ACT. 21:20-21). The Gentiles did not have to become Jews, and the Jews did not have to become Gentiles (ACT. 21:25).
Recall how I said earlier, "they were joining was something else entirely." Dear reader, I want to reiterate the most important thing of all: the nature of what is being joined has changed. And it had changed for everyone; even the Jews.
And that is what Peter's claim was all about when he said, "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they." (v.11)
We join the Body of Christ (aka "Spiritual Israel") through faith in Christ, not the nation of Israel (aka "Physical Israel") through laws and rituals and symbolism. There was now a Spiritual Israel, and both Jew and Gentile were being brought into it in their own right.
This is a very deep and groundbreaking point for the Council to realize, and easy for a reader to miss.
Notice, at no point does James say the Gentiles would learn more Mosaic law later or attend synagogue. Don't you now see why not?
ONE CHURCH, TWO PEOPLES
This claim about the starter pack of laws comes mainly form the Hebrew Roots movement. They need the early church to join Israel or their movement loses momentum, and so they align with Team Pharisee. Sabbatarians, like Armstrongism and SDA, side with Team Pharisee because they need the law to get a weekly Sabbath. No Sabbath, no Sabbatarianism. Both groups believe all Christians must behave in one way (their way).
Gentile Christian groups believe the opposite - that everyone suddenly became Gentile, and our mainstream traditions today are how things always were. It might seem that way because of the sheer number of Gentiles and their many authors. But that isn't how history progressed.
None of these groups accept that there was one church with two distinct peoples who were allowed to retain their individual characteristics yet be one body. Yes, this created a grey area between two groups constantly tugging at one another. You can see it in Paul's reaction to Peter in Galatians. But the evidence is right there if you look for it.
James spells this out in Acts 21 - the Jewish converts were zealous for the law but the Gentiles were taught no such thing. That the Jews were allowed to retain their Old Covenant traditions and remain Hebrew was the whole reason they needed to impose anything on the Gentiles in the first place, else the Jewish converts would not be offended by what the Gentiles did. If you weren't going to retain Israel's customs, then who cares what the Gentile converts do?
The Council's decision only makes sense in a church where Gentiles were not required to join Israel and Israel was not required to become Gentile. Otherwise, we have to try to decipher hidden meanings in the clear text of Acts 15. The result is multiple different and incompatible explanations about what was being debated, and a "starter pack of laws" to be taught later in synagogue, and yada yada yada. This is a solution for conditions that did not exist in the first place.
That, dear reader - the insistence that everyone in the early church did everything in the same way, the Sabbatarian way - is the true source of the confusion here. "Everyone should be like me, but they aren't, so how must I reinterpret this to make them be like me?"
SHOW US THE PROOF
I ask, in what source, biblical or otherwise, do we see evidence that it was regular practice for Gentile converts to Christianity to attend synagogue? Answer: none.
If Acts 15:21 means that Gentile Christians would eventually learn the Old Covenant law by attending synagogue, one would expect to find evidence somewhere in the historical record, or this interpretation mentioned in a commentary or an epistle - especially from the early church. The Christian church has been reading Acts for nearly two thousand years. We should find evidence somewhere. So, when does this explanation actually appear?
I have searched for an early Christian commentary that matches the claim we are examining today. I have not found a single one.
In his Commentary, in the section on Acts 15, John Calvin comes close to this, but he clearly thought only Jews would learn more later, not Gentiles. And this was because he felt it would take a while for the Old Covenant traditions to die off.
The earliest discussions that I have been able to locate of anything resembling modern Sabbatarian claims appear in the early 1800s, most notably from J. K. L. Gieseler (1818–1820). The idea that Gentiles could continue learning Torah at synagogue first appears in twentieth-century commentaries.
For an interpretation that many today call "obvious" and "original", it is remarkably difficult to locate in the older literature.
Sabbatarians say they see Gentiles in synagogues in Acts. Later in Acts, Paul frequently encounters Gentiles in the synagogues, but he goes there to preach Jesus, not to further instruct those who had already accepted Him. These Gentiles were not Christians. The audience were Jews, proselytes, and God-fearing Gentiles hearing the gospel for the first time. They were desperate for more ...until certain ones realized what was really going on. Then, they tried to ruin Paul.
Again, this interpretation depends entirely on the assumption that everyone was doing things one way - the Sabbatarian way.
Acts never describes such a practice of sending Gentiles to learn the law. The Epistles never mention or command it. The earliest Christian writings never discuss it. The interpretation depends upon a historical practice for which no evidence has been produced. Show us some credible sources to back up this claim.
When I produce evidence from the early church for my claims, I hear those are all lies told by liars. Hey, believe what you want, but at least I produced something.
Now, that said, I have found evidence of Jewish converts to Christianity keeping a Sabbath, and some may have been attending synagogue (remember, there is no law commanding church/synagogue on Sabbath, that is a Pharisaical tradition). However, the indications are they would also attend Christian church on Sunday. And, yes, you can find evidence of Jewish converts influencing Gentile converts towards a more Jewish view (and vice versa). As I said earlier, there was a grey area between the Jewish and Gentile converts. But I have found nothing that says it was a regular practice to send Gentile converts to synagogue.
Instead, what we are told is the early church met in private homes. That is the evidence we have. Not synagogues.
So, the claim that James expected Gentile Christians to learn the rest of the law later in synagogue is unsupported by the contexts of Acts 15, or the rest of scripture, or the historical record. All evidence to the contrary is dismissed. It is an assumption read into the evidence, not a conclusion drawn from it.
CONCLUSION
To answer the opening question, "How else would you interpret it?" I would interpret it by not trying to force the New Covenant to be the same as the one it replaced.
The issues before the Council were far deeper and the Council’s decision was far more profound than many people realize: the nature of God's people and how they join the Covenant had fundamentally changed. It was now two peoples, not one, centered on Jesus Christ the True Israel, not the nation of Israel.
Both Physical Israel and the Gentiles are joining the Body of Christ, which we commonly call "Spiritual Israel". Gentiles join the Body of Christ directly, without first joining Physical Israel, as was required in the previous Covenant. God had accepted the Gentiles as Gentiles, by faith in Jesus Christ. This was evidenced by the giving of the Holy Spirit. And none of the law was required beforehand.
In short, Acts 15:21 does not teach that Gentile converts were given a temporary 'starter pack' and would later pick up the rest of the law in the synagogue. Instead, it means the Gentiles were accepted, they were not becoming ethnic Israel, therefore there would be no circumcision and law, and the only things that would be expected of them are the things that applied to all Gentiles - the law of resident aliens in Israel from Leviticus 17-18. And everyone there should understand this since it's been read for centuries.
Yet, the Sabbatarians continue to say, "Moses being read in the synagogue on Sabbath means the Gentiles would be taught to keep the Sabbath law later on when they attend synagogue with the people who reject Jesus."
Except:
- It misses the point of Acts 15.
- It doesn't fit the context of the chapter at all.
- It is based mainly on things the chapter does not say.
- It literally undoes the decision of the Council.
- It sides with those who troubled the Gentiles.
- Nothing in the chapter says there would be more later.
- James' reiterates the same decision years later, explicitly denying Gentiles were taught the law.
- Verse 21 speaks about the past, not the future.
- Verse 21 speaks of Israel, not the Gentiles.
- There is no guarantee there would be synagogues in Gentile lands for Gentiles to attend.
- There is no guarantee Gentile Christians would be allowed in synagogue to begin with.
- The teachings in synagogue are not what Sabbatarians would agree with.
- Most of the people who make this claim don't go to synagogue themselves.
- There is no historical record indicating Gentile converts to Christianity attended synagogue.
- I can find no record prior to the 1800s of anyone interpreting verse 21 in this way.
- It fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the New Covenant and the Body of Christ.
Other articles in this series:
Acts 15 - What Was Debated?
To help you move forward, I suggest these articles:
The Legalist Dance
Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII
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?
Conversion to Judaism or Christianity? (on the God Cannot Be Contained blog)
