Then, after fourteen years again I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, having taken with me also Titus; and I went up by revelation, and did submit to them the gospel that I preach among the nations, and privately to those esteemed, lest in vain I might run or did run; but not even Titus, who [is] with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised (Gal. 2:1-3)
And having come to Jerusalem, they [Paul and Barnabas] were received by the assembly, and the apostles, and the elders, they declared also as many things as God did with them (Acts 15:3)
and [that] because of the false brethren brought in unawares, who did come in privily to spy out our liberty that we have in Christ Jesus, that us they might bring under bondage (Gal. 2:4)
and there rose up certain of those of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying — “It behoveth to circumcise them, to command them also to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:4)
to whom not even for an hour we gave place by subjection, that the truth of the good news might remain to you. (Gal. 2:5)
This passage demonstrates the reason for the Jerusalem council. A sect of believing Pharisees were disturbed by Paul’s gospel to the nations that removed the Gentiles from under the purview of the Mosaic Law, and (misunderstanding the nature of justification under Paul’s gospel) argued that they still needed to be circumcised and keep the Law to receive salvation.
Although some believe that this council removed all believers from needing to keep the Law, this view is mistaken. The dispute that arose at this time was only about whether the Gentiles also needed to be circumcised and keep the Law to be saved, not about whether God’s covenant people Israel needed to keep the Law.
The issue of whether Israel needed to keep the Law to enter into the covenant promises was settled over a thousand years earlier, when Moses prophesied that the Israelites would only be allowed to return and enter into the promised Messianic kingdom on earth if they “keep His commands and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law” (Deut. 30:8-10). This was reaffirmed by Jesus who said that “whoever breaks the least of these commands, and teaches men so, will be called least in the kingdom of the heavens” (Matt. 5:19-20). Therefore, the decision of the Jerusalem council absolutely cannot be generalized to all believers, whether in Israel or the body of Christ; it only pertains to those saved under Paul’s gospel.
Who was the apostle to the Gentiles?
And there were gathered together the apostles and the elders, to see about this matter, and there having been much disputing, Peter having risen up said unto them, “Men, brethren, ye know that from former days, God among us did make choice, through my mouth, for the nations to hear the word of the gospel, and to believe; and the heart-knowing God did bare them testimony, having given to them the Holy Spirit, even as also to us, and did put no difference also between us and them, by the faith having purified their hearts... but, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, even as also they.” (Acts 15:6-9, 11)
This is another passage that is sometimes used to argue against Pauline dispensationalism, because it seems to say that Peter (along with Paul) was also an apostle to the Gentiles, and therefore Paul’s message to the Gentiles cannot have been unique. However, if interpreted this way, it would contradict Galatians 2:7-9, which states that Peter’s primary audience was the circumcised Jews. So what did Peter mean by this?
The most likely interpretation is that Peter simply meant that, by his evangelization, the Gentiles would first hear the gospel, referring to the salvation of Cornelius and his household in Acts 10:23-48. This, however, was not Paul’s gospel being preached, but the gospel of the Circumcision. See the following comparison between Peter’s preaching to the Circumcision in Acts 2:36-38 and the salvation of Cornelius’ household in Acts 10:
1. Believe that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 2:36)
2. Repent of sins (Acts 2:38)
3. Be baptized in the name of Christ to the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
4. Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)
And here is what happened to Cornelius and his household in Acts 10:
1. They believed that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 10:42-43)
2. They received the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-46)
3. They repented of sins unto life (Acts 11:18)
4. They were baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:47-48), which was considered a salvation issue for them (Acts 11:16-17)
Apart from the re-ordering of steps (the Holy Spirit came upon them prior to baptism), the method by which they were saved is essentially the same as the Circumcision. In contrast, Paul’s gospel, by which one who believes that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose the third day is automatically saved (Eph. 1:13-14 cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-4), is nowhere to be found here.
So why did God allow some uncircumcised Gentiles to be saved under the gospel of the Circumcision, which was meant for God’s covenant people Israel? The answer is found in Acts 10:35, where Peter says that “in every nation, he who is fearing [God] and is working righteousness is acceptable to Him”. That is, a Gentile is only eligible for salvation if they (1) fear God and (2) work righteousness. (In stark contrast, at least some, if not most, of those saved under Paul’s gospel were entirely “without God in the world” prior to being saved, per Eph. 2:12.)
This is most likely a fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis 12:3 that those who bless Israel will, in turn, be blessed by God by taking part in the covenant promises (cf. Zech. 8:23; John 4:22). We read in Acts 10:2-4 that Cornelius “did many kind acts to the people [of Israel]”, and that it is because of these “kind acts” that he was granted the opportunity for salvation [2].
The fact that Cornelius and his household were not saved under Paul’s gospel is confirmed by what James says in the following verses:
James answered, saying, “Men, brethren, hearken to me; Simeon did declare how at first God did look after to take out of the nations a people for His name, and to this agree the words of the prophets, as it hath been written: ‘After these things I will turn back, and I will build again the tabernacle of David, that is fallen down, and its ruins I will build again, and will set it upright — that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the nations, upon whom My name hath been called, saith the Lord, who is doing all these things.’” (Acts 15:13-17)
The prophecy that James quotes is a paraphrase of Amos 9:8-15, a prophecy about how God will gather the remnant of Israel at the end of their tribulation and return them to the promised land to partake in the Messianic kingdom. This prophecy cannot be applied to the body of Christ, which will be reigning in the heavens during the oncoming ages, rather than on the earth (Eph. 2:6-7; 3:10-11; Php. 3:19-21). Therefore, as the expectation of Cornelius and his household is on the earth, whereas the body of Christ will be in the heavens, Cornelius and his household were not saved under Paul’s gospel. Instead, they were saved under the gospel of the Circumcision in accordance with Peter’s ministry.
Another objection based on this passage is that, because it says that “through grace... we [the Circumcision] believe to be saved, even also as they”, the salvation of Israel must also be by grace through faith, and there is no functional difference between Paul’s gospel and the gospel of the Circumcision; but this objection is mistaken. No one doubts that both the Gentiles and Jews are saved by their faith, through grace (this is one of the few points of similarity between the two gospels). The difference between the two is that, whereas to the Circumcision “faith apart from the works is dead” (Jas. 2:20, 26), under Paul’s gospel works are counted as debt (Rom. 4:4-5). The fact that the salvation of both groups involves grace and faith does not mean that their method of salvation is exactly the same.
A yoke too heavy to bear?
“now, therefore, why do ye tempt God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” (Acts 15:10)
Most interpreters believe that Peter was referring to the Mosaic Law here as an “unbearable yoke”. Although this is not of central importance to the issue of Pauline dispensationalism, it is still a weighty matter, because (if this is what Peter meant) God would be putting an unbearable yoke on the shoulders of His covenant people, who were still required to follow the Law (see above).
In fact, although Jesus commanded His disciples to follow the Law (Matt. 5:17-20; 19:16-19; 23:1-3), He also said that “my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matt. 18:30). Unless either Jesus or Peter was being misleading as to the ‘weight’ of the yoke - something I find highly unlikely - Peter could not have been referring to the Mosaic Law by itself when speaking of an “unbearable yoke”.
Likewise, though Peter said that this “yoke” was something that “neither our fathers not we were able to bear”, at least one of the fathers - namely, David - had a remarkably positive view of the Mosaic Law. As he said in Psalm 19:7-11:
The law of YHWH is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of YHWH is sure, making wise the simple; The statutes of YHWH are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of YHWH is pure, enlightening the eyes; The fear of YHWH is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of YHWH are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, Yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them Your servant is warned, And in keeping them there is great reward. (NKJV)
So, if Peter was not referring to the Mosaic Law by itself, what was he referring to as an “unbearable yoke”? It is important to remember what the dispute that led to the council was about in the first place. This dispute was between a Pharisaic faction of believers on the one hand, and Paul and Barnabas on the other. This recalls what Jesus said in Matthew 23:4, about how the Pharisaic interpretation of the Law (which added many more commands according to tradition) was a burden too heavy to bear. Therefore, it is not the Mosaic Law by itself that was an “unbearable yoke”, but the Pharisees’ added commands and traditions which they were trying to force upon the Gentiles.
James’ commands to the Gentiles
“Known from the ages to God are all His works; wherefore I judge: not to trouble those who from the nations do turn back to God, but to write to them to abstain from the pollutions of the idols, and the whoredom, and the strangled thing; and the blood; for Moses from former generations in every city hath those preaching him — in the synagogues every sabbath being read.” (Acts 15:18-21)
James finally ends the Jerusalem council by making a proclamation that the Gentiles should not be troubled by being circumcised, which would make them debtors to the entire Mosaic Law (Gal. 5:3) [3], but should still keep four commandments: to abstain from “the pollutions of idols”, “the whoredom”, “the strangled thing”, and “the blood”. These commands apparently had the approval of Paul, since they also appeared in the letter which he delivered to the Gentile churches (v. 29), so they must not have been arbitrarily chosen (which Paul would have opposed, per Colossians 2:20-23). So what exactly was James commanding in this passage?
The first hint as to what James may have meant is the fact that the definite article is used before each of the things that the Gentiles are to abstain from; that is, he says “the pollutions” and “the whoredom” rather than simply “pollutions” and “whoredom”. This is highly atypical, as the words used here rarely have the definite article, and so it shows that James had a specific type of each of these sins in mind.
The first three of these condemnations relate to the pagan temple feasts of the Gentiles. The first condemnation prohibits eating any meat that has been sacrificed to idols, which is something that Paul also condemned in his first epistle to the Corinthians (albeit only in cases where another brother may be offended by it; 1 Cor. 8:7-13; 10:19-30). The second and third commandments prohibit drinking blood and eating strangled things, which some have interpreted as referring to the Levitical prohibitions, but which also relate to aspects of the pagan temple rituals (see the end of this article).
Finally, the fourth commandment prohibits Gentiles from committing “the whoredom”. The Greek word that is used here, πορνεια, is almost always used in scripture to refer to temple prostitution [4], and so this can also be related to aspects of pagan temple rituals. In fact, Paul explicitly links the temple feasts with “whoredom” in 1 Corinthians 10:7-8:
Neither become ye idolaters, as certain of them, as it hath been written, “The people sat down to eat and to drink, and stood up to play”; neither may we commit whoredom, as certain of them did commit whoredom, and there fell in one day twenty-three thousand
Therefore, these four commands from James all relate to certain aspects of pagan temple rituals, which would have been good for Gentile members of the body of Christ to avoid (considering that they were no longer pagans, after all).
However, it is still important to note that even these basic commands were not considered necessary for the salvation of the Gentiles. Paul merely said that they would “do well” to avoid these things (Acts 15:29), which is similar to his statement to the Corinthians that “all things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable” (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). This is in line with Paul’s understanding of justification, based on which one’s age-during salvation is not dependent on keeping any commands or doing good works.
Conclusion
The council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:1-29 provides interesting insight into how the salvation of Gentiles was viewed differently by the apostles to the Circumcision in contrast to Paul. However, no aspect of this council disproves Pauline dispensationalism, contrary to what some detractors of this doctrine believe. The commandments which James and Paul gave to the Gentile churches all relate to aspects of pagan rituals, both temple feasts and cultic prostitution. These do not demonstrate that the body of Christ was required to keep any part of the Mosaic Law, but simply show that abstaining from pagan rituals was considered “profitable,” as Paul also later said (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23).
No comments:
Post a Comment