Acts 15:21 - More Law Later?

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:

1. It misses the point of Acts 15.
2. It doesn't fit the context of the chapter at all.
3. It is based mainly on things the chapter does not say.
4. It literally undoes the decision of the Council.
5. It sides with those who troubled the Gentiles.
6. Nothing in the chapter says there would be more later.
7. James' reiterates the same decision years later, explicitly denying Gentiles were taught the law.
8. Verse 21 speaks about the past, not the future.
9. Verse 21 speaks of Israel, not the Gentiles.
10. There is no guarantee there would be synagogues in Gentile lands for Gentiles to attend.
11. There is no guarantee Gentile Christians would be allowed in synagogue to begin with.
12. The teachings in synagogue are not what Sabbatarians would agree with.
13. Most of the people who make this claim don't go to synagogue themselves.
14. There is no historical record indicating Gentile converts to Christianity attended synagogue.
15. I can find no record prior to the 1800s of anyone interpreting verse 21 in this way.
16. It fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the New Covenant and the Body of Christ.

Other articles in this series:

Acts 15 - What Was Debated - part I
Acts 15 - What Was Debated - part II

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)

************

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

************

Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII

A critical look at using the claim, "If Jesus and the Apostles did it then we must do it too," as a justification for requiring Christians to attend church on Saturday.

---

In my last post in this series, "Common Legalist Arguments Part VII", we saw many "back doors" legalists use to break into the abrogated Old Covenant. We explored the idea that the law applied to Israel, and since we are Spiritual Israel the law applies to us. We saw two Israels are being confused and two Covenants are being combined. This cannot be!

This time, I would like to explore a very common argument that people resort to when all else fails -- just claim we all need to be Jewish.

ARGUMENT #8
"If Jesus and the Apostles did it then we must do it too."

At first, this sounds like a fantastic idea. What could possibly be wrong about doing what Jesus and the Apostles did? Isn't that the definition of discipleship? Let's get some context. Let's see how this argument is being used.

An associate at In Him Ministries recently posted onto social media an excellent article about the Sabbath in the New Covenant. The main idea was the Old Covenant with its terms (laws) is gone, and the New Covenant with its terms has come. Short, simple, and agrees with what we write here.
I took a few moments to read the comments, as is my tradition. One person asked if the readers could find any direct command in the Bible to go to church on Saturday. No one could, because there is no such command in the Bible. The fourth Commandment says nothing about going to church. Since their entire identity depends on this one thing, the Sabbatarians all headed in the same direction: they ignored their usual requirement that everything must be commanded in law and instead appealed to the tradition of Jesus and the Apostles. One person said, simply, "Jesus and apostolic precedent!"

You might be thinking, "I still don't see the problem."
Let's get something perfectly clear - this isn't about true discipleship and following Jesus' examples of faith, love, self sacrifice, mercy, justice, etc etc, it's about justifying Sabbatarianism, for which there is no law. This is not about the spirit of the law or even the letter of the law, it's about workarounds.

Allow me to put this argument into other words so we can more clearly see what's really going on:
"There was no law about going to church. But since Jesus and the Apostles lived like Pharisaical Jews, we all must live like Pharisaical Jews, too. Everybody Shabbat!"

Pharisaical Jews?? Yes. Come along and see.

OLD COVENANT JEWS

We must ask ourselves, why did Jesus and the Apostles do what they did? Answer: because they were literally Old Covenant Jews.

We cannot simply ignore this fact. They were working-class Jews in Israel, born under the Old Covenant, during the Second Temple Period, while the Temple yet stood. This was their lifestyle. This was their culture. This is why they did what they did. Are we all to be first century Jews now? (Be careful here! Say 'no' and this argument falls apart, but say 'yes' and your church falls apart.)

Most common legalist arguments are attempts to get back to the Old Covenant law, but that would be pointless here since today's common legalist argument only exists in the first place because there was no "go to church on Saturday" law to get back to.
This common argument is a disguised demand that we must all become ancient Jews.

But if this were really so important, wouldn't you suppose it would be applied across the board? The "we must do what Jesus did" claim is being applied in a completely inconsistent way.

How is it inconsistent? Consider, except for the 40 days between Jesus' resurrection and assumption, His entire ministry on earth was during the Old Covenant period. That Covenant ended when He died and not before. People tend to forget the Old Covenant is in the New Testament. That means when we read the Gospels we are seeing Jesus and the Apostles living under all 613 Old Covenant laws. All of them, not just the Sabbath.
This "Jesus and apostolic precedent" argument is only intended to get the Sabbath, but as it turns out it applies to everything else. We can't appeal only until we get what we want then back out. That is the inconsistency: it attempts to pick and choose what it wants then leaves the rest behind.

So, out of one side of the mouth there is an appeal, and out of the other a dismissal. It's a highly advanced stealth appeal! It flies undetected into the ancient land of Israel, grabs the Sabbath, and heads back out before the other 612 laws even know it was there.

This goes beyond laws. If following Jesus' and the Apostles' routine is so important (as opposed to, say, following His example of faith, love, mercy, justice...) then why don't people do what they actually did? Jesus and the Apostles:

• Went to synagogue and listened to a Rabbi.
• Argued with Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, and lawyers.
• Went to Temple.
• Paid the Temple Tax.
• Went to Jerusalem for the three pilgrimage holy days each year.
  
• Observed "Jewish" traditions and holidays, like Hanukkah.
• Preached daily, not just weekly.
• Lived in what we would consider mud brick huts, wore sandals and likely a turban, and walked about Judea.
• Faced persecution and death.

I could go on and on like this. Do Sabbatarians do any of these things? No.
The advanced stealth appeal flies undetected into ancient Israel, grabs a tradition or two, then heads back out before the rest of the culture even knows it was there.

Why must we go to church on Saturday when there is no such command? Forget the New Covenant because we've got Jesus and apostolic precedent!
Why don't we wear tassels on our garments? Forget Jesus and apostolic precedent because we've got the New Covenant!

In the end, it doesn't seem to matter what Jesus and the Apostles actually did. This lays bare the inadequacies of today's common argument. This claim is not really about following examples. It's about supporting a predetermined conclusion; coming up with a decent sounding alibi for basing an entire movement on going to church on Saturday without any law or truly compelling reason to do so. But that reduces this common argument to a preference rather than some binding imperative.

You want to go to church on Saturday? Go for it! But don't tell me how I'm a sinner because of your highly selective personal preference.

Now that we've shown what the argument is at heart, let's focus on the Sabbatarianism. We need to understand something about what Jesus was doing.

SYNAGOGUE  ≠ CHURCH

(For those who do not know, that ≠ symbol means 'does not equal'.)

Ask any Sabbatarian how to do what Jesus did and most of the conversation will gravitate around going to church on Saturday, "Not like those sinful pagans who replaced the Sabbath with Sunday." But therein lies the rub. Jesus did not go to church; He went to synagogue,

Synagogue is not church. So, nobody follows Jesus' precedent by going to church. How much less, then, did Jesus go to a middle school auditorium to set up folding chairs and listen to a "Minister" drone on and on about his own importance in prophecy.

If this argument was really intended to do what it says on the surface, Sabbatarians would do what Jesus actually did and go to synagogue, listen to a Pharisee Rabbi, then get up and teach from Torah with no reference to the New Testament. The claim is, "We must do what Jesus and the Apostles did," right, not, "We must do something roughly analogous but not really what they did," right?

Again, the appeal is to nothing more than Jews being Jewish.
Four times, Acts uses the phrase "synagogue of the Jews" to distinguish. There is no "synagogue of the Christians". There is no New Covenant example of Gentile converts to Christianity taking up synagogue. If Gentiles were in synagogue then they were already there, for Judaism, but not for Christ. All of the accounts of going to synagogue after Jesus' death are in the book of Acts alone, and most involve Paul going there to preach Jesus to Jews, proselytes, and devout people already participating in Jewish synagogue traditions. Then, he would get kicked out (much like Jesus had been kicked out) and go elsewhere to preach to Gentiles who were not associated with Judaism.
So, must we do what Jesus and Paul did and go get kicked out of a synagogue? I don't recommend that.

In many ways, synagogue and church are similar. They are both houses of learning and worship. Early churches and liturgies were patterned after elements from synagogue. So, similar? Yes. Identical and interchangeable? Most certainly not. Early Christians exchanged synagogue for church for a reason, and modern Sabbatarians follow that for the same reason: we aren't Jews.

So, this argument appeals to Jews being Jewish, but only long enough to get Jewish Sabbath traditions. After that it rejects what it just appealed to, because we aren't Jews.

But think about this.
If we can exchange synagogue for church, then why not exchange Saturday for Sunday? That is the very heart of this common legalist argument, is it not? If there is no law to go to church on Saturday, and Jesus did not "go to church", and you're not going to do what Jesus actually did by going to synagogue because you go to church, then why not go to church on Sunday?
It's a valid question.

Trying to force a Jewish-specific practice into a universal Christian mandate is like trying to fit a square tradition into a round command. Historically and theologically, it just doesn’t work.

WHAT CHURCHES?

This introduces another contradiction. Most Sabbatarians will claim there were no churches in the first century. Whether strictly accurate or not, what an interesting thing to ponder!

When I was an Armstrongist, I sat through many a sermon claiming, "'Church' is translated from 'ekklesia' which just means 'the body of believers'. Jesus founded a church, not a building." And this is true! We have no evidence the very earliest Christians built basilicas or any such thing. As best we can tell, they gathered together where they could, read, prayed, sang, and had a meal. So, they did gather together regularly, but they didn't go to a church until some years later when they could no longer fit into houses.

Am I the only one who finds it odd to minimize church when attacking Sunday services, only to turn right around and emphasize church to support Saturday services?

Let's take this one step further.

DAYS OF THE WEEK

Some of the more clever type will recognize the issue here and exchange "go to church" for "worship". Jesus worshipped on Sabbath. This removes any confusion over "church". But!

Jesus prayed and taught daily - which means others were learning and worshipping daily (MAR. 14: 49). The Apostles met in the Temple and in Christian houses daily (ACT. 2: 46; 5: 42). There is no wrong day to preach and worship.

So, now we must specify that 'worship' refers to corporate worship. Jesus went to corporate worship on Sabbath. And He did. But!

Did you know Jews of Jesus’ time primarily gathered in synagogues on the Sabbath, but they also met on Mondays and Thursdays? It's true!

“The people assemble on Mondays and Thursdays to read the Torah and study, as is the custom.”
-Mishnah Megillah 4:1

The Mishnah was written after Jesus' time, but it was not inventing, it was preserving.

When we read about Jesus and the Apostles going to synagogue, many verses state it was on Sabbath. Other verses do not state when it was. Those instances could be on any of the three assembly days.

Why aren't we morally obligated to do the same? Now where are the demands that we have to do this because it's what Jesus and the Apostles did? Why isn't anyone out there saying, "We are not saved by going to church on Monday and Thursday, but we cannot be saved without it?" Why are there no Mondatarians or Thursdatarians?

So, if your standard is doing what they did, then stick to it. Except you don't!

Here's another fact for you - did you know most Christian churches have services on Saturday? Even a great number of Catholic churches have a Mass on Saturday. It's true! But that doesn't count, does it? One wonders why not? It's on Saturday.

Mainstream churches offer services on Saturday, but that doesn’t count. Jews went to synagogue on Monday and Thursday, but that doesn't count. Jesus and the Apostles worshipped and taught daily, but that doesn't count. Verses like ACT 20: 7 and I COR 16: 2 strongly suggest Christians gathering on Sunday, but that doesn't count. Extra-biblical literature like the Didache, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and Barnabas all tell us the main day for corporate worship was on Sunday, but that doesn't count. Early literature like Eusebius, Sozomen, and Socrates Scholasticus tell us many Jewish converts who kept a Sabbath also went to church on Sunday, but that doesn't count. In fact, there is no extant Christian source from the first three centuries that clearly describes Saturday-only corporate worship, but that doesn't count. To put it even more bluntly - nowhere in or out of the Bible is Saturday commanded or demonstrated as the exclusive day of Christian corporate worship.

So, what does count?

The pattern is clear. Today's common legalist argument is not built from the law or from what Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Christians were doing, but from selectively editing that out.

When you look at it this way, it makes this common legalist argument seem rather opportunistic.

But somehow it manages to get even more contradictory.

TRADITIONS OF MEN

At the opening of this post, I said, "But since Jesus and the Apostles lived like Pharisaical Jews, we all must live like Pharisaical Jews, too". I bet that "Pharisaical" part turned some people off. Then, why did I say it? Because there is a deeper layer to this appeal than just Jews being Jewish.

Did you notice there is no command or example anywhere in the Bible to go to Temple only on Sabbath? Did you notice there is no command in the Bible to go to synagogue at all? Did you notice synagogues are not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament, not even once? That's because they are a more recent addition. Whose addition? The Jews!

Do a study on the history of synagogues. They appear to have started during the Babylonian captivity, but no one knows exactly when or where or by whom. The Temple was destroyed, the Levitical Priesthood was crushed, and the people were dispersed in a foreign land far away from Jerusalem. So, they did what they thought was necessary to keep their culture alive - they created little local places of worship and Torah study. Much later, when the Israelites were allowed to return to Judaea and the Temple was rebuilt, the Temple priesthood became the domain of the Sadducees and the tradition of local synagogues became the domain of the Pharisees. That's why synagogues were Pharisaical and led by a Rabbi rather than a Priest, and that is why Jews do the same today. Modern Judaism is largely descended from the Pharisaical tradition.

So, when the common argument says, "Jesus and apostolic precedent," what it's really appealing to is Pharisaical precedent. Traditions of men!

This Sabbath vs Sunday debate is not rooted in His divine command but in Pharisaical practice. Sabbatarians, who insist that they reject the oral law, are now appealing to the very thing they reject. Sabbatarians who fervently insist God hates manmade traditions are basing their entire identity on Jesus keeping a manmade tradition. They say Jesus opposed the Pharisees' traditions and would never do such a thing, but here He is doing it and all they have depends on it. Odd, no? When did Pharisaical tradition become so important that we cannot be saved without it? If Jesus hated traditions of men, as Sabbatarians frequently and vehemently claim (especially around the holidays), then does Jesus hate going to church on Sabbath, too? It would be very difficult to get more contradictory than, "We cannot be saved unless we do what Jesus hated."

In Esther, the Jews create Purim for themselves. God is fine with this and records it in the Bible for all to see. Legalists reject it.
In Maccabees, the Jews create Hanukkah for themselves. God is fine with this and John records Jesus in the temple at Hanukkah, using the imagery of Hanukkah in reference to Himself as Messiah - He is the light and He is the sanctification in the very Temple which the leadership was defiling. Legalists reject it.
But Jesus keeps a Pharisaical synagogue tradition, as any Jew form His background would, and Legalists set that up as a condition of salvation.

Do you see? Not only is this entire common legalist argument nothing but layers and layers of contradictory rationalizations and cherry picking, but -- it is itself a tradition of men. Sabbatarians have taken the synagogue tradition of the Pharisees and turned it into a church tradition for themselves. All traditions of men.

In the end, we see a command is neither here nor there, laws are neither here nor there, traditions are neither here nor there, and history is neither here nor there. Seems this whole appeal to commandments and traditions is really nothing but situational ethics and convenience; an attempt to have it both ways.

CONCLUSION

Today, we looked at the claim "If Jesus and the Apostles did it, that means we must do it, too." It sounded great at first, but like all the rest, it comes apart when you dig in. We peeled back layers of conflicts and inconsistencies until we saw how this argument is really based on Jews being Jewish, who went to synagogue not church, because of a tradition of the Pharisees. We saw how there is no direct command or early example of exclusive Sabbath-only worship. The argument is not really about what Jesus and the Apostles did, but it uses them to rationalize a means to create a law where there is no law.

Sabbatarianism is not supported by the full historical and biblical witness, but by cherry-picking and excluding whatever does not fit. It is not a clear mandate, but an opinion.

I mean no offense to Jews in this post. Jews are supposed to be Jewish. I am simply pointing out the absurdity of Gentile Christians pretending to be Jewish while denying it.

You might come away from this post thinking I reject the very essence of discipleship and don't believe we should be like Jesus our Teacher. Ah, but I do believe we should be like Him! Only, I do not think He came to teach a class on first century Jewish culture. I don't think Sabbatarians believe He did either, or they would be more consistent about it.

One thing As Bereans Did has emphasized through the years is: Gentiles do not need to become Jews to be Christians, and Jews do not need to become Gentiles to be Christians. Instead, we encourage everyone to worship God constantly, pray ceaselessly, and live every moment as a reflection of Christ's spiritual message.

I argue for freedom in Christ. I believe the Bible argues for this as well. I know people who go to church on Saturday and Sunday. It's not the day but the faith that counts (and God knows the heart). What I am arguing against here is reformatting tradition into a command, stripping that freedom into an obligation, elevating it to a salvation-level issue, turning it into a tool to beat others with, and doing it for no better reason than off-the-cuff self justification.

----

If you are interested in more information about the history of synagogues, I recommend these three sources:

• James C. VanderKam, "An Introduction to Early Judaism".
• E.P. Sanders, "Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE".
• Lee I. Levine, "The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years".

[Also see Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, & Part VII]

************

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

************

Response To: Galatians; Holy Days or Pagan Days?

This comment, regarding the 5/12/08 post, was left early this morning, and because this is such an important issue, I'm posting their comment along with my response (Seeker Of Truth also left a response in the comments section of the original post):

Anonymous said...

Its all fine to go pointing to other parts of the book to say that Gal 4:9 is not talking about Pagan days, but you only have to look at the preceding verse to see otherwise...8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.Sorry, but I'm afraid it is talking about going back to observing pagan gods.As for living only under faith, how do we show our faith?James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

May 13, 2008 2:50 AM

My Response:

Gal 4:8 "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods.

9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?

10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!

11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you."

(Quote; Jeremy Weaver doxoblogy.com)
Galatians 4:3, 9 “The elements refer both to pagan gods and their worship and the law. Paul compares the two in order to show the Galatians that when they had not formerly known the true God they were involved in a religion of works. Through faith, they had now come to know the true God and sought Him by grace. But now they were returning to a basic system of works salvation by allowing the Judaizers to turn them to the law.

Paul is talking about keeping days and season’s period, as if it will please God. Pagans kept days for their gods, and for a time Israel had the same requirement. God commanded Israel to do many things similar to the pagans; armies, kings, gave them rules for slavery, and detailed laws to cover everything. Legalism is a human invention, god gave man his own version of legalistic law to make a point, and to bring man to the only truly godly law which is Christ in you.

The entire context of Galatians is the law that; 1) had served its purpose, Gal 3:24 “So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ,” and

2) is no longer needed, 3:25 “we are no longer under the supervision of the law,” because Co l2:16…… a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” And this is certainly not referring to pagan days which could hardly have pertained to Jesus.

It’s clear that the Galatians are both familiar with the law, and are being pressured to keep it. Why would they be so familiar with a law they never kept? All one has to do is note the places Paul spoke at, and of who his audience consisted of, to gain a clue as to the likely background of the church in Galacia. Acts18:44 “Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.” The Greeks could only be converts to Judaism, or they wouldn’t have been there. The Jews were scattered, and more lived elsewhere than in Palestine. They kept their traditions and drew in local converts. In Acts Paul spoke at the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch 13:14-16; the synagogue in Iconium 13:42; the synagogue in Thessalonica 17:1-2; the synagogue in Berea 17:10-11; the synagogue in Athens 17:17 (which states God fearing Greeks were there along with the Jews); the synagogue in Corinth 18:1-4 (again, both Jews and Greeks in attendance).

The Jews were clearly living in every Greek city, and they and their local converts to Judaism were Paul’s usual soil in which to plant a new church. The Greeks would have been converted twice; from pagan beliefs they learned of the writings of the Old Testament that became a foundation for belief in He for whom they testified.

Acts3:23 “Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.” This is speaking to both Jew and Greek. Some had once kept pagan days, others had not. And for both, keeping of a legalistic set of rules to try to please God, or a false god are equally an exercise in futility.

Faith by works

James 2:14 “ What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?” People see what this verse says and immediately;

1) get the cart before the horse. Eph2:10 ”For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”The question is; what comes first, good works or faith;

2) Default to the old covenant rules to define what those works should be. The New Covenant, like any contract spells out what is required.

The first step is; 1John 4:15 “If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.” The second step: Rom 8:9 “You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you.” The third step is Gal5:22 “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”

God does the work through you. He provides the faith, no less than he provides the mind by which you reason. God provides the natural affection by which any good is done without faith, but he provides what is so much greater in the fruits of his spirit which transcend the natural, which he originally provided. And the good works God does by his spirit through you is the proof of the faith God gives, he makes you a vessel of good works that brings glory to God. This is the reason you were born.

The Legalist Dance

For years now, I've been watching a dance. The legalist dance. I didn't realize it at the time, but back when I was a legalist in the Armstrongist system, I was doing this dance myself. What is it? Please allow me to explain.

Legalism is very much like a conspiracy theory. Everyone in the world has it wrong except the legalist and a few other people who think as closely as possible like they do. Everything else is a lie. History is wrong. Books are wrong. Statues and carvings tell a tale that's wrong. Tradition is wrong. Christians are wrong. Jews are wrong. Others in their own church are often wrong. Everything and everyone, but themselves, is wrong.
Once you dismiss everything that could possibly witness against the conspiracy, then you start piling on the theories as if they're true. You can't prove it right or wrong, because absolutely everything is a lie except their claims. Something has to be right. Guess what. It's them!

No proof, because proof is dismissed. Just baseless claims shouted into a vacuum.

The conspiracy bleeds into the Bible. The legalist's interpretations of the Bible do not come out of the Bible, they are forced into it, based on other things the legalist has accepted. The Bible has to change because they need it to change to get the conclusions they want. Conclusions are pre-determined. If you believe in a "lost century" and a "great falling away" after the Apostles died, and the Early Church Fathers were all liars and deceivers, then everything from mainstream Christianity must be false. Therefore, we have to force new interpretations into the Bible, where the Jews are wrong and the Christians are wrong but the conspiracy is right. This will require much proof-texting and cherry-picking.

Take Acts 15 for example.

They rush into the chapter, grab verse 1, then head off as quickly as possible.
The legalist must undo the decision of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 in order to retain legalism. So, they will remake the discussion to one that's all about circumcision and Pharisaical customs. They reframe everything in the light of a misreading of verse 1, saying, "You have to understand the discussion was only about circumcision, and only because some Jews were saying circumcision is needed for salvation." (A guy said that to me just this week.) They must focus on verse 1, willfully blind to the context of the entire chapter and the culture in that place and time, purposefully skipping right past verses 5 and 24, and you can forget about Acts 21: 25. Then they are off once again.

In, grab, out, skip. 1-2-3-4.
But what happens if we linger a while and read?

The debate was never about circumcision only. No Jew ever thought circumcision all by itself was anything. No one at any point thought circumcision led to salvation. No Jew thought babies were saved at eight days old. Verses 5 and 24, with Acts 21: 25, make it abundantly clear that the entire point was law-keeping. If we stop interpreting three clear verses in the light of one, and start interpreting one unclear verse in the light of three, then we'll see this. Circumcision is merely the gateway to the law. Can't keep the law if you're not circumcised (for men, at least).
And those Pharisaical customs, yes, they were burdensome. They annoyed Jesus. They sometimes contradicted the very law they were meant to interpret. However, Peter threw the context backward in time to "our forefathers", which reaches back in time to Moses himself, before Pharisees existed (ACT. 15: 10). James didn't boast to Paul about Jewish converts being zealous for customs before saying, "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing" (ACT. 21: 25). No, that was about the law. And if it was about the law, then it also handled circumcision and customs besides. And, at times, the legalist preaches that it was about the law. One moment, they boast about the law-keeping in Acts 21: 20, then spin right around the next moment and say it was only about circumcision and customs.

Verses 5 and 24, with Acts 21: 25, make it beyond clear that the debate was over teaching the Gentiles to be circumcised and keep the whole law, and that the decision of the Council was against this. But if it was about the law, then Mainstream Christians are right after all and the conspiracy disintegrates. This will not do. The legalist cannot allow it. Therefore it must be twisted into a new interpretation. They have little choice. It's either rewrite Acts chapters 15 and 21, or give up the beloved conspiracy.

After verse 1, they samba to verse 21. But not the whole verse! Only the second half.
They say, "Moses being read in the synagogue on Sabbath means the Gentiles were being taught to keep the Sabbath law." (That same guy said this to me, too.) Except this interpretation nullifies everything else in the chapter as well as James' reiteration of the decision in Acts 21. It makes James' words into a secret message, encoded for those with gnosis to understand that, despite what they clearly said and wrote, the real decision was against Paul and Barnabas - to teach the Gentiles to keep the law after all. Secret codes and hidden messages are like candy to a conspiracy theorist.
Oh wait! So, it is about the law after all. It's not about the law, but it is about the law, at the same time.
They want James to say, "Some came to us, troubling you. The Holy Spirit is against this. We only burden the Gentiles with these necessary things: the whole law (except the parts requiring circumcision, and the parts forbidding Gentiles to participate, and sacrifices, oh, and national laws, and some things we don't want to do like travelling to Jerusalem.) Never mind the whole law. Gentiles should keep 2% of the law. We could say that clearly, but instead we say, 'Moses is read in the synagogues.' So, leave your Christian house church and go to Jewish synagogue. And none of this is written in the letter we send with Paul and Barnabas. You'll find this out when Luke writes Acts later on. Many of you will be dead by then. Farewell."

Makes perfect sense.

Let's go back to verse 21 and look at the first half of the verse, which is generally ignored. "For Moses has had throughout many generations..." Guess what verse 21 is not doing... speaking about the future! Had Gentile Christians been going to synagogue and listening about Moses for many generations? No. Gentiles had only been called to the faith for a short while, not generations. Who had? The Jews! It's about the Jews, who for many generations went to synagogue and listened about Moses. The Greek Interlinear reads, "from generations of old". Use of the Greek word "archion" proves this is not just past tense but quite old. And did Moses write about the Pharisaical customs? No. Moses wrote about the law. So, the burden no one could bear was not the Pharisaical customs. It was the law. And do these legalists believe Gentiles were going to synagogue in the first place? They say they do, but they also say they don't. Christians were meeting in Christian churches, not Jewish synagogues. The legalist believes the Jews were corrupt, so synagogues would be avoided. Gentile Christians could not go to Jewish synagogue. Even Jews who believed in Jesus could not go to synagogue. So, Peter and James are referring to their forefathers, the Israelites, who, over centuries of time, sat every week and listened to the law given by Moses. This is not at all some secret code for instructing future Gentiles to keep the law.

I could give you multiple other examples of the legalist dance besides Acts 15. Jeremiah 10 and Christmas Trees, for one. The legalists read all the way to verse 4, then it's off like a shot. They got a tree and gold and they're gone before the rest of the chapter, the context of the book as a whole, the parallels in Isaiah, and the history of the Middle East can obliterate the conspiracy.

This same legalist I mentioned also said this to me, "You have to pay attention to what they are saying. Circumcision is not a custom of Moses, they {Judaism} added it from the Abrahamic covenant, into the instructions of Moses..."
Circumcision is a conspiracy! According to the conspiracy, circumcision was a lie stolen from Abraham by those evil Jews, then secretly added into the Old Testament in several places. All those verses about circumcision - lies! And that's the message we need to hear from Acts 15.
Now, even the Old Testament is false.

See what I mean?

You just go ahead and try to point this out to them. I'll wait.
What did they do? They ignored you, didn't they? They raced off to some other idea as quickly as they could, didn't they?
That's the dance. The dance is a metaphor for proof-texting, driven by conspiracy theories.

The legalist dance is diving in and out of ideas and verses as fast as possible, staying only long enough to get what they want from the selection, then they're off again to something else before the context can dissolve their conspiracy. A hop here. A pirouette there. Like a honeybee going from flower to flower. Stop, take a bit, move on. On and on and on. Perhaps I should have titled this post "Biblical ADHD".

And if you find the intestinal fortitude to follow them through this dance to its end, you will only discover it starts all over again from the beginning, as if nothing at all had been discussed up to that point. Round and round they spin. The conspiracy simply must be right. They have too much invested to abandon it.

As I said, I've been watching this dance for years. Longer than I've had this blog! Because I used to do this dance back when I was a legalist. I just didn't realize it.

************

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

************

Were Gentiles in Corinth Observing the Feast of Unleavened Bread?

I remember one of the last conversations that I had with a minister in the Armstrong Church of God I was attending, prior to my decision to leave.  We were discussing some of the doctrinal difficulties that we both struggled with.  At one point in the conversation he became frustrated with all the inconsistencies and just threw up his hands and said, “well, all I know is that I’m going to keep observing the Holy Days just like the church in the New Testament!”    So I asked him where in the New Testament the church was shown to be observing the Holy Days.  He replied, “well right there in I Corinthians chapter 5 where Paul instructed them to keep the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread!  Why would Paul even mention those days to a gentile church if they were not observing them?”

My minister friend actually asked two questions:  

Did Paul instruct the Corinthian church to observe the holy days?

Why would Paul use Jewish Holy Days like the Passover and Feast of Unleavened bread to illustrate a point in his letter to the gentile Corinthian church unless the church knew about these days?  

Here in the passage that follows is the “proof” that the church in Corinth was keeping the Holy Days.

(1Co 5:7-8) Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

See, it is right there as clear as day, “Let us keep the feast”!   Paul is telling the church in Corinth to “keep the feast” found in the Law of Moses just like the Jews of his day did, right?    

But such an interpretation creates the kind of inconsistencies that gave my minister friend so much frustration.  If it were true that Paul were commanding that parts of the Law of Moses were required to be observed by gentiles, then that would seem to conflict with the decision made in the Acts 15 council and with so many of Paul’s other writings.    

So let’s take a closer look.

Paul first preached the gospel in Corinth during his second missionary journey (Acts 18), which we will get to in a moment.  Later, during Paul’s Ephesian ministry, he received reports from “some of Chloe’s household” (1:11) that there were factions in the Corinthian church who identified themselves with particular leaders.  You’re probably aware that first Corinthians is not really the first letter written to the Corinthian church by Paul.   There was an earlier letter, sometimes referred to as “the previous letter” that Paul had written to deal with issues of immorality, but much of that letter has been lost to time.  

It is not clear for sure if Paul in 1 Cor 5 was dealing with additional issues brought to him by Chloe’s household, or if he had been told of these issues by the three church delegates, Stephanas,  Fortunatus, and Achaicus (16:17).    Regardless, it is clear that in chapter 5 of 1 Corinthians Paul was further addressing the issue raised in the “previous letter”.   This is important because it makes clear the context of the chapter.  

A reference to this previous letter occurs immediately following the passages that we are looking at.

(1 Cor 5:9-11)  I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.  Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

Paul was not addressing holy days

It is not very difficult to see that the context of this chapter concerns a problem with sexual immorality in the church.   A Corinthian member was carrying on an incestuous affair with his stepmother, a relationship prohibited in both the Old Testament (Lev 18:18, Deut 22:22) and in Roman law (Cicero Cluentes 6. 15 and Gaius Institutis 1. 63).   Apparently proud of this member’s social status, the church did not exclude him from their fellowship.   Paul’s message was that this man should be taken away from among the church.

(1 Cor 5:1-2) It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife!  And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you.

In the next few verses, 3 – 5, Paul passes the strongest judgment that he can on this man, calling on the church to gather in Jesus name to cast the man out from the church. 

Timing of the Epistle

Paul wrote this letter just weeks after the Jews had celebrated the Passover and Feast of Unleavened bread.   This feast is called a “pilgrim feast”, meaning that all the Jews and Hellenistic Jews would have recently returned from their travels to Jerusalem.  (Dt 16:16).   

The reason given by Paul for casting the man out from the church was based in part on this Old Testament Feast of Unleavened bread.   Just as the unleavened Passover bread could be corrupted by just a little yeast, just one sinful man could corrupt the entire church.   Here it is the permeating properties of yeast that underscore the symbolism.

(1 Cor 5:6-8) Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?  Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Paul’s instruction reveals a deeper meaning to the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Paul’s instruction to “purge out the old leaven”, a Jewish proverb at the time, referred to removing the sinful incestuous man, not physical leaven.  And the place from which the “old leaven” is being purged from is not their houses, but rather it is purged from the church.    The church is “truly unleavened”, that is they are considered to be without sin.   How is the church considered “unleavened”?   The church is unleavened because indeed Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us, thereby cleansing our sins by his blood. 

Now we come to the passage in question.  

Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

The words are right there in front of us.  Paul’s instruction is to keep the feast not with the old leaven, or with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth!   Paul has elevated the Feast of Unleavened Bread from a physical ritual of putting leaven out of a house to a moral imperative to put a sinful believer out of the church.   The church was to be sincere and truthful, not just appearing like followers of Christ, but demonstrating by their actions that they truly are following Christ.

The Passover sacrifice that had occurred year after year had been replaced by a once for all sacrifice, Jesus our Passover.   And the Feast of Unleavened bread has become a continued observance for the Christian believer, not to put old leaven out of our houses but to rejoice in the light of Christ’s sacrificial death as our Passover and therefore live with a repentant heart daily.

This sinful incestuous man did not have a repentant heart.  So what was Paul's concluding directive? 

(1 Cor 5:13) “Therefore, put away from yourself this evil person”

Does any of this sound like an instruction from the Apostle Paul to the Corinthian church to observe the Feast of Unleavened bread the way the Jews did?  Was Paul focused on putting leaven out of houses? 

No, of course not.  That is not even the topic being discussed here. 

So then why would Paul refer to these holy days if the gentile church did not observe them?  How would they have known what the feast even meant?

The church had many Jewish members including the ruler of the synagogue

Now this starts to get easy.  Because the premise made that these are all gentiles in Corinth with no understanding of Jewish customs is simply a false premise. 

The account of Paul’s first visit to Corinth is found in Acts 18.  

(Acts 18:1-2) After these things Paul departed from Athens and went to Corinth.

And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them.

Note this, around 49 A.D. emperor Claudius issued a decree that expelled all the Jews from Rome.   Suetonius, a biographer of Roman Emperors, in his work, Life of Claudius, indicated that this decree was issued as a result of constant riots at the instigation of Chrestus.   It is believed that the name Chrestus is a reference to Christ.    This banishment of Jews from Rome added to the Jewish population in Corinth including that of the church.

Corinth:  A large and populous mercantile city, and the center of commerce alike for East and West; having a considerable Jewish population, larger, probably, at this time than usual, owing to the banishment of the Jews from Rome by Claudius Caesar (Acts 18:2).  [Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Ac 18:1). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.}

According to his custom, Paul began his evangelism in the synagogue preaching to Jews, Hellenistic Jews and gentile “God fearers”.   All people who would know the Old Testament scriptures and the holy day practices.

(Acts 18:4) And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.

Notice that Paul reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and Greeks.  Many of the gentile believers were “God fearing” gentiles.  That is, they believed in God and went to the synagogues but had not yet become Jews through circumcision.  Cornelius was such an uncircumcised “God fearer”, for example (Acts 10:1). 

Paul testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ but when they did not respond he decided to go to the gentiles and went to stay with Justus, a Greek whose house was right next door to the synagogue (verse 5-7).     Even the ruler of the Synagogue and his family became believers at the preaching of Paul.

(Acts 18:8)  Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.

So what we see here are facts that the Armstrongist churches have left out of their presentation of 1 Cor 5.    The church in Corinth was most certainly gentile, but had a large Jewish population even including the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth.  This in part was the result of a decree made by Claudius Caesar that expelled the Jews from Rome sending many Jewish believers to Corinth.

Would they have known about the Jewish holy days?  Of course, especially since the feast had occurred only weeks earlier. 

But what about the members of the church who were gentiles and had not previously had any exposure to the scriptures?  Would they have understood chapter 5 of Paul’s letter?

The apostles used the Old Testament scriptures to preach to gentiles that Jesus was the Christ

How do you suppose that the apostles persuaded gentiles to believe that Jesus is the Christ?

Well, when Philip encountered the Ethiopian Eunuch he taught him from the book of Isaiah.   And in Thessalonica Paul reasoned from the scriptures (Acts 17:1-4).   And what happened there?

(Acts 17:4)  And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.

Gentiles came to be believers in Jesus Christ through Paul’s reasoning from the scriptures.   Do you think that Paul ever mentioned that Jesus fulfilled the meaning of the Passover lamb?   Seems very likely doesn’t it?

And in Ephesus Paul also reasoned from the scriptures (Acts 18:24). 

And in Berea, the namesake of this blog, the Bereans searched the scriptures daily to see if what was being preached were so (Acts 17:11).     Again, the result was that Greeks, gentiles, became believers.

(Acts 17:12)  Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.

So we see that gentile believers would indeed be familiar with the scriptures and with various Jewish holy days.   There were Jews that lived among them and they were also taught from the scriptures in order to be persuaded to believe that Jesus is the Christ.

Conclusion

Let’s go back to our original questions and summarize what we have just examined.

Did Paul instruct the Corinthian church to observe the holy days?

No. 

Nowhere does Paul give instruction to keep the holy days according to the Old Covenant.  Instead he uses a practice known to the masses in order to show the Corinthian church how to deal with a sin issue.  And in so doing Paul reveals a deeper meaning to Feast of Unleavened bread.

Why would Paul use Jewish holy days like the Passover and Feast of Unleavened bread to illustrate a point in his letter to the Corinthian church unless the church knew about these days?  

The church did know about the holy days.  It is not true that the church in Corinth was wholly gentile, there was a large population of Jews in Corinth as we have pointed out.  And the gentile believers had significant instruction in the scriptures.

Paul used these days in his letter because many in the Corinthian church were Jews or God fearing gentiles and were very familiar with the practices accompanying the holy days.   In addition, the letter was written shortly after the Passover and Feast of Unleavened bread.  This was a pilgrim feast and the Jews would have recently returned from their travel to Jerusalem with the events fresh in their memories.

It was both timely and appropriate for Paul to use the meticulous removal of leaven from the homes of the Jews to demonstrate the meticulous way a sinful man should be removed from the church.

We do not have to throw our hands up in frustration because of contradictions between our doctrines and what the Bible clearly teaches.   The New Testament makes clear that the Law of Moses was not mandated upon gentiles.  They did not observe the Old Covenant holy days.  Rather the gentile believers marveled at the fulfillment of these days in the person of Jesus Christ.

Christians truly are unleavened!   

Let us therefore rejoice in the light of Christ’s sacrificial death as our Passover and live with a repentant heart daily.   

************
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
************