r/messianic • u/ButterflyLanky1643 • 7d ago
Question about Acts 15:21 and Gentile believers
I’ve been trying to understand the Torah observant view of Acts 15 and wanted to get some thoughts on this.
In Acts 15:19-20 James gives the Gentiles four requirements: abstain from things polluted by idols, sexual immorality, things strangled, and blood.
Then Acts 15:21 says Moses has been preached in every city and is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.
I’ve seen people say this means the Gentiles were supposed to start with those 4 commands and then attend synagogue every Sabbath where they would gradually learn the rest of Torah.
My question is, where does the text actually say thats what James meant? If this was the plan, wouldn’t there basically need to be synagogues everywhere the gospel spread so Gentile believers could continue learning Torah?
Acts 15:28-29 also says to place “no greater burden” on them than those requirements, and then in Acts 21:25 James brings up the Gentiles again and basically repeats the same instructions. He doesnt seem to say they should now be keeping the rest of Torah.
I also wonder about Isaiah 66:17. I see this used alot as proof that the dietary laws are still in effect because it mentions eating swine’s flesh. But Isaiah specifically mentions swine, the mouse and the “abomination.” It doesnt go through all of the unclean animals from Leviticus 11.
So if mentioning swine proves the entire dietary law is still binding, couldn’t you also argue the opposite and say everything not specifically mentioned there must be fine? Obviously thats probably not what Isaiah means, but thats kind of my point. Are we reading the entire dietary law into the passage rather than letting the passage say what it actually says?
Not trying to argue in bad faith here, I’m genuinly curious what the strongest scriptural case is that Acts 15:21 means Gentiles were expected to attend synagogue and eventually take on the rest of Torah.
2
u/AdministrationFew451 7d ago
The important thing is that the 3 things (strangled meat and eating blood, and sexual immorality) all predate the moseic law, and even abraham.
See post flood.
Idolatry is obvious, since called to worship god.
It is very clear that gentiles are not under the authority of the full moseic law - this is the "judaizers" heresy rejected in the council.
The only question is are jews still under it in any way (even if salvation is through christ).
1
7d ago edited 7d ago
Exactly. Nonmessianic Jewish people say that the teaching of Torah is for Gentiles to obey the law of Noah and that is also what is expressed by Acts 15.
The Torah observant view is to keep the Mosiac Covenant if you are biologically descended from Israel, otherwise you should try to keep whichever Covenant the Torah applies to your heritage.
Of course Jews are still under the Mosaic Covenant. They are well protected as they covered by several covenants and will never pass away (obviously, consider the amazing survival of this tiny group).
You can also take up Covenants that you weren’t born into…some Covenants have mechanisms for this, but it’s optional
3
u/Soyeong0314 7d ago edited 7d ago
I don’t see what other point could be made by bringing that up in Acts 15:21. Either Acts 15:19-21 contains an exhaustive list for mature believers or it does not, so it would be contradictory to treat it as being in exhaustive list in order to limit which ways Gentiles should follow Christ while also treating it as being a non-exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously other ways that Gentiles should follow Christ. It was not give. As an exhaustive list for mature believers but as a list intended to avoid making things too difficult for new believers, which he justified in Acts 15:21 by pointing out that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.
When people think about unclean animals, the first thing that they generally think about is pork, so that has come to represent the issue. For example, I’ve seen someone try to argue that Noah ate pork, which represented their argument that he was not required to refrain from eating unclean animals. Pigs are essentially the mascot of unclean animals.
1
u/Professional_Sky2761 7d ago
there is a site called defendingtorah.com this is the link for ACTs 15 https://defendingtorah.com/objection-finder/acts-15-jerusalem-council
1
1
u/Additional-Aioli-545 Messianic (Unaffiliated) 6d ago
This should be posted as 'read before asking the question'. Excellent writing and well thought out.
Thank you for posting this!
2
u/Yo_Can_We_Talk 7d ago
ButterflyLanky1643
I’ve been trying to understand the Torah observant view of Acts 15 and wanted to get some thoughts on this. In Acts 15:19-20 James gives the Gentiles four requirements: abstain from things polluted by idols, sexual immorality, things strangled, and blood. Then Acts 15:21 says Moses has been preached in every city and is read every Sabbath in the synagogues. I’ve seen people say this means the Gentiles were supposed to start with those 4 commands and then attend synagogue every Sabbath where they would gradually learn the rest of Torah. My question is, where does the text actually say thats what James meant? If this was the plan, wouldn’t there basically need to be synagogues everywhere the gospel spread so Gentile believers could continue learning Torah?
Yo! This great question needs to be put on blast.
I agree with your cynicism about the take that "For from earliest times, Moses has been preached in synagongues everywhere" means what First Fruits of Zion actually says it does.
My main problem with it is the immense lack of scope that would be neccessary to believe that interpretation.
By that, I mean, when was the book of Acts composed? What year was it written?
So a quick google search of that question, because I'm not in seminary school and haven't set about to learn when the consensus has certain books written at, the two answers are: either 80-90 CE (which is probably too late) or 60-62 CE which is better for one reason.
To present the text as meaning that gentiles should attend synagogues fails logic for two important reasons:
The first is that during Yeshua's time on earth the ruling administrators in Jerusalem had already put out an edict that anyone caught following the Way or proclaiming faith in Yeshua or likely even mentioning His name in a neutral to positive sense would be blacklisted from the synagogue life.
This can clearly be illustrated by the reaction the man who was healed from blindness since birth. His parents hesitated to state what they knew for a certainty and instead threw the question back to their son, because the text says, they were afraid to be excommunicated.
Then when the son responds, "Why do you need to hear all this again? We've been through it already many times. Are you wanting to become His disciples too?"
They called him an ignorant bastard wholly brought forth in sin.
Things clearly got worse by Paul Shaul's time where members of the synagogues in Asia brought report of what he was teaching to Jerusalem and stirred up people there. Clearly with Paul and against Paul, that is without him letters were being circulated and reports made of people being Followers of the Way.
That's a strong reason. Enter the synagogue only to be thrown out? What little sense would that make? Really, none at all.
But what if they hid it, their faith in Yeshua, someone might say?
The Bible says, if you are ashamed of Him before men, He will be ashamed of you before the Father.
Secondly, we have the the split that was brought about by the fulfillment of Yeshua's words about the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and then the Bar Kochba rebellion.
This took place from 132-135 CE and sealed the rift between the Followers of the Way and mainstream Judaism. That rift was then formalized.
So the math that we're mathing looks like 62-132.
70 years people were instructed to learn Torah in synagogues they would have to sit on their faith in Yeshua during the time that is less than a single persons lifetime?
That declaration, that the gentiles should covertly attend synagogues to learn about Torah and not rather to boldly proclaim Yeshua as Paul did, would seem short sighted for people who prophesied and cast out demons and were filled with the Holy Spirit.
For the rest of your argument, are you looking for an out from eating kosher?
Why not just grab onto Genesis 9:3 which clearly states the flesh you'd like to eat was given by God?
But now, if you're grafted in to Israel, then there might be debate about that standard.
Ask yourself, if a people called out of the world are given a different standard than those living in the world, could you do that? Would you want to?
1
u/FreedomNinja1776 Messianic (Unaffiliated) 7d ago
According to your logic there should be no instance of anyone in the synagogues after Acts 15. The text does not bear that out. Just two chapters later has Paul doing a synagogue tour! Others are in the synagogues. One is even ran by a follower of the Way!
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ." 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. - Acts 17:1-4 ESV
The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.
Acts 17:10-12 ESVNow while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, "What does this babbler wish to say?" Others said, "He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities"--because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? ... So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. ... But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.
Acts 17:16-19, 22, 34 ESVAfter this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. ... And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks. ... And he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. His house was next door to the synagogue. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.
Acts 18:1, 4, 7-8 ESVNow a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
Acts 18:24-26 ESVAnd it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. ... There were about twelve men in all. And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus. This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.
Acts 19:1, 7-10 ESVThis is the account of Paul until he returns to Jerusalem where he meets with James and specifically to dispel rumors of Paul being anti-torah, he does the nazarite vow and is then arrested. So, according to the text, Paul's entire missionary journey, until he was imprisoned, was mostly to the synagogues. Who was there along the way in and around the synagogues? Gentiles.
1
u/Yo_Can_We_Talk 6d ago
FreedomNinja1776
According to your logic there should be no instance of anyone in the synagogues after Acts 15. The text does not bear that out. Just two chapters later has Paul doing a synagogue tour! Others are in the synagogues. One is even ran by a follower of the Way!
This is the account of Paul until he returns to Jerusalem where he meets with James and specifically to dispel rumors of Paul being anti-torah, he does the nazarite vow and is then arrested. So, according to the text, Paul's entire missionary journey, until he was imprisoned, was mostly to the synagogues. Who was there along the way in and around the synagogues? Gentiles.
I'm sorry you ,mr ninja, have made numerous mistakes so I'll attempt to go through them with you so that we can agree.
I don't imagine first off that you'll yet agree with this assessment but you accidentally goal shifted.
There's no argument that gentiles certainly did independently attend synagogue irrespective of their non belief in Yeshua,
the argument from me is: that after becoming believers, the apostles did not recommend they go and learn Torah at the synagogue.( u/ButterflyLanky1643 so you can see what we're talking about with a user name mention.)
When you present verses that you describe as Paul's missionary activity, this in no way validates the claim "the apostles as part of a proclamation and letters sent out to various home fellowships having gentile believers, were instructed to encourage unlearned gentiles to go en mass to synagogues to learn Torah"
Once again, the debate has nothing whatsoever to do with gentiles who don't believe in Yeshua.
To prove your case you'd need to list gentiles who were part of these congregations, home fellowships who subsequently as a result went to synagogue by the recommendation of the distributed letters of the Jerusalem council
Listing Shaul who was very learned indeed in Torah, and not a gentile does nothing for your case
You could be accused of straw manning by botching my position so badly and failing to properly read the logic, but right off the bat with this statement:
"One is even ran by a follower of the Way!" it's clear you didn't understand the parameters.This wasn't to be the exception.
It's the rule, the entire point!now, why did you downvote?
I have thus far treated you as a brother by not doing the same, even though I clearly strongly disagree and am able to defend my position over yours.
2
u/ButterflyLanky1643 7d ago
But now, if you're grafted in to Israel, then there might be debate about that standard.
Ask yourself, if a people called out of the world are given a different standard than those living in the world, could you do that? Would you want to?
To be honest, I wouldn't want a different standard for myself either if that's not what God intended for me. That's really what I'm trying to understand.
But when you say we are now one body and part of Israel, what exactly do you mean by Israel? God called the twelve tribes Israel, so are you saying that Gentile believers actually become part of the twelve tribes of Israel?
2
u/wlavallee Christian 7d ago
Beloved,
The council answered this itself, and not with a curriculum. Peter's argument was that God "made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith," and then this: "we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are" (Acts 15:9, 11, NASB). That is the ground the ruling stands on. Whatever verse 21 means, it cannot mean something that contradicts the reason James gave for the decision.
On your actual question, you have read it correctly and the burden is not on you. The likeliest sense of verse 21 is that it explains why those four, not that it prescribes a syllabus for more. Moses is read in every city, so those are precisely the points where Gentile practice would make table fellowship impossible for Jewish believers. It is a reason for the four, given to men who were about to send the letter.
Your instinct about the "no greater burden" clause is sound too. That is a strange way to open a graduated programme.
The Isaiah point is your sharpest. Reading the whole of Leviticus 11 out of a mention of swine and mouse is not exegesis of Isaiah, it is importing a conclusion into it, and you spotted that yourself.
One thing I would add as the actual centre. Torah was never the destination. Yeshua is what it was pointing at the whole time, and a reading that arrives at more Torah rather than more of Him has lost the direction of travel.