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, which the Council ruled against, and which James reconfirmed against some years later - 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 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 the law 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.
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. 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 it 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.
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. They misunderstood that the Gentiles were now covenant people in their own right, and that both Jew and Gentile 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 bypassing 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 then 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.
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. If you want the True God you must join Israel, and to join Israel you must get snipped, and that results in the law. But getting snipped in this context obligates you to the entire law. So, yes, the Pharisees were arguing for the whole law. But that is just how it worked. 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 it does not do is give you a back door straight to the Sabbath day, dividing the singular body of law into chunks, and excusing you from other parts you would rather not keep. Where is it ever written that bypassing circumcision makes you free to keep just a portion of the law? 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.
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 keep the traditions, but I see no possible way that this can be only about the customs.
The initial trouble was not only about the Pharisaical customs.
LAW OF MOSES?
Let's move on to the last explanation. The Council was not only about the "law of Moses".
Some people realize this could not only have been about circumcision or the customs, but they still have an ideological commitment to protect the Ten Commandments, therefore they redefine what the phrase "the law of Moses" means. Some redefine it as the ceremonial and national portions of the Old Covenant law. They claim there is a difference between "the law of God" (ie. the Ten Commandments plus a handful of other things like tithing, meats, and holy days) and "the law of Moses" (pretty much everything else). This has become a very popular claim.
I disagree there is such a difference in the first place. We have articles on that (see "Law of Moses - Law of God" and "Law of God - Law of Moses").
Now, I realize those two posts that I just mentioned can be very confusing. They made sense when I wrote them, but they are admittedly challenging to follow. I will distill down the best parts for you here. Let's start with Nehemiah 8.
(NEH. 8:1,8) 1 Now all the people gathered together as one man in the open square that was in front of the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law [torah] of Moses, which the LORD had commanded Israel. ... 8 So they read distinctly from the book, in the Law [torah] of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading.
Same book, same law, two descriptions. In one verse it's "law of Moses". In another verse it's "law of God". In both it's "Torah". It's all the same thing.
Joshua 8:30-35 calls the whole Torah the "book of the law" and "book of the law of Moses". Remember, in Joshua's time they only had the first five books. All of it was "the law of Moses". And what will we find more than once in this 'law of Moses'? The Ten Commandments.
It's the same in the New Testament.
(Luke 24:44) Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”
That's the whole Old Testament. Jesus recognized the three divisions in the scriptures: the law, the prophets, and the psalms. But He refers to the whole law as "the law of Moses".
I Kings 2 presents this even more clearly:
(I KIN. 2: 3) And keep the charge of the LORD your God: to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses.
Oh my.
I shouldn't have to say another word about this ...but I will.
My conclusion, that there is no difference between "law of God" and "law of Moses", is precisely what was written in the Worldwide Church of God's "Systematic Theology" document, 1978 version, page 3 paragraph 2. They wrote:
"It is also important to note that the term 'law of Moses' is itself used interchangeably with the term 'law of God.'"Except, the Systematic Theology was a bit controversial and contradicted other things that were written both before and afterward. (Armstrongism always has liked to have its cake and eat it too.) Still, I find it interesting that the Worldwide Church of God in its heyday, for brief and shining moment, agreed with what I am telling you now.
Referring back to Josephus - read his works and you will see he consistently treats the laws, the Torah, the books of Moses, and Moses' legislation as one body of material. So, now we have biblical and extra-biblical reasons to believe it's all the same thing.
You see, when the Bible says "of Moses" or "of [insert name here]", it doesn't necessarily mean those things belong to that person or were invented by that person. It means those things were either primarily about that person or they were given through that person. For example, "Jesus of Nazareth" doesn't mean Jesus belongs to Nazareth. Likewise, "the book of Isaiah" was not really about Isaiah so much as it was about the prophecies that God gave through Isaiah. They were God's prophecies, but called Isaiah's because he was the conduit. "The Gospel of Mark" doesn't mean there is a gospel about Mark, separate from “gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (MARK. 1: 1). That's all "the law of Moses" means. Those laws didn't belong to him; they were given through him.
(JON. 1: 17a) For the law was given through Moses...
There is no "law of Moses" with a separate and distinct "law of God". They were all the law of God. The whole third claim is artificial and based on a predetermined commitment; a commitment to take the singular body of law and break it up into chunks, keeping a few and discarding the rest.
I realize this is a critical point for Sabbatarians, so they will disagree with me. They must. So, let's look at some of the top arguments in favor of there being a "law of God" and a separate "law of Moses"
Perhaps the foremost argument is:
The Ten Commandments were written by God's own finger and were placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, while the book of laws that Moses wrote was placed beside the Ark.
The point of this is to make the Ten separate and superior. This has some serious problems.
The first problem is: It was the second set of tablets that were put into the Ark, but it's not clear who wrote the second set of tablets.
God wrote the first set of the Ten Commandments with His own finger, but then Moses broke those tablets. As for the second set:
(EXO. 34:1) And the Lord said to Moses, “Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.
(EXO. 34:27) Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”
Who wrote the second set? Scholars have debated for a very long time whether it was God or Moses. It isn't clear. If you want to believe it was God, that's fine. But...
The second problem is: the Ten Commandments were written in the book Moses wrote, too.
It's in both places. If "the law of Moses" was that book, then this is tantamount to admitting it was all "the law of Moses". In fact, I'm willing to bet you've never read the Ten Commandments straight from the tablets. You got "God's law" from descendants of that book that was placed beside the Ark, same as the rest of us.
The third problem is: no Sabbatarian church that I've ever heard of believes only the Ten Commandments are required.
A little law always leads to more. What about tithes? What about meats laws? What about holy days? None of those are in the Ten or the "moral law" (another artificial term). So, if those aren't "Law of God" then why must anyone bother with them? And what about the four laws the Apostles said were necessary for Gentiles to observe in Acts 15? They were not in the "Law of God". And what about circumcision, which got this ball rolling in the first place? All of these are solidly in what Sabbatarians call "the law of Moses".
So, were the tablets placed in the Ark with the Aaron's staff and a pot of mana because:
A) Those three things were creating a special category of law,
or
B) Because they were special physical items that represented God's relationship with Israel?
I am going with B.
So, I do not find this argument convincing at all. And it's arguably the best one.
There is another claim which is very similar to the first.
Herman Hoeh, "the most accurately informed historian in the world", had a slight variation. In his article "Which Old Testament Laws Are In Force Today?", he claimed:
The Ten are special because they are the only laws God spoke directly to Israel, while Moses merely delivered the statutes and judgments.
While those base facts may be true, the conclusion he is attempting to reach does not hold. The way they were delivered does not make them a separate class of law. God spoke many of the laws to Moses, who them wrote down in his book. The issue is not whether God spoke these words directly or through Moses. The issue is that all of them came from God. I am not convinced by the claim, "We all have to keep these laws because these are the ones God spoke to Israel."
In Israel's view:
"All 613 of those mitzvot are equally sacred, equally binding and equally the word of G-d. All of these mitzvot are treated as equally important."
-Judaism 101, “Aseret ha-Dibrot: The Ten Commandments”.
I am not saying the Ten aren't special. They are! But their delivery or where they were placed does not make them a separate and particularly binding class of law.
There are more arguments than these, of course, but I am not going to get into them here. They get more and more ridiculous as you go along. I will simply suggest reading "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VI".
This whole section boils down to this: modern Sabbatarians say "law of Moses" refers to a particular subset of the law, but if we cannot prove that's what the people at the Jerusalem Council thought then it all falls apart. And we have no good reason to believe that's what the Apostles and Pharisees thought.
The initial trouble was not only about some portion of the law called "the Law of Moses".
CONCLUSION
The three main explanations given by Sabbatarians of what the Pharisees were trying to bind on the Gentiles are either:
A) Circumcision only. It cannot be this because Luke says, "and the law." Circumcision was not about merely being circumcised.
B) Pharisaical traditions. It cannot be this because Luke says, "the law of Moses." The oral law was not called the law of Moses.
C) The "law of Moses". It cannot be this because there is no separate "law of Moses" distinct from "law of God". They are the same thing.
We have reviewed each and shown how each of these has insurmountable weaknesses. Each one collapses under its own weight.
These three aren't reasonable explanations so much as they are rescue attempts.
I was an Armstrongist. I know the motivation - there must be a Sabbath day, and that means there must be the Ten Commandments, and that means the Apostles must be for some of the law, and that means the Pharisees must be arguing something other than what Acts 15 actually says. These three explanations are the result.
And that means the "Early Church Fathers" were all liars, and this is all Constantine's fault, and mainstream Christians are all deceived, and so on and so forth. I get it.
The Sabbatarian understanding of Acts 15 comes out of prior commitments to the Sabbath day. In short, eisegesis.
But, in case you haven't noticed, this blog has been systematically going through each individual point in the universe of Sabbatarian proof texts, and we've been pointing out the issues in each and showing other ways to understand them. What we've been driving at is - what if there is no prior commitment to the Sabbath day? What if the Apostles really did decide against requiring the law for Gentile converts? What if the New Covenant really is different from the Old, as the prophecies of Jeremiah predicted? What if these three explanations we saw today fall apart because the prior commitment itself is not valid in the first place? If these three points really are the explanation, then why are they completely incompatible with one another? It sounds like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. None of them do!
So what were the Pharisees really debating in Acts 15? I believe they were debating how to join the Covenant.
The fourth explanation is that Pharisees meant exactly what Luke wrote: The Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law.
That's what the text says.
And the decision of the Apostles was exactly what Luke wrote, and several years later reiterated when he quoted James: "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing."
But the Gentiles were not joining Israel. The Gentiles already received the Holy Spirit. They were accepted into the New Covenant in their own right without joining Israel first. Instead, both Jew and Gentile were joining the body of Christ, and all the Gentile converts had to do to keep the peace with the Jewish converts were those points of the law required of all Gentiles in Israel from Leviticus 17 & 18.
Or, to put this entire thing another way:
Other articles in this series:
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?
************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************
No comments:
Post a Comment