[An exegetical analysis of Acts 15 which establishes that Christians are not obligated to keep the Law of Moses, even the Ten Commandments.]
by Douglas Goodin
Context
The book of Acts is the story of the Gospel’s progress from Jerusalem to Judea, to Samaria, to the ends of the earth (1:8). As it moved away from its Jewish center, it naturally made inroads into Gentile states. Some Gentiles believed the Gospel, some shrugged their shoulders at it, and some tried to permanently quiet those who proclaimed it. Some of the Jews also persecuted Gospel preachers in an attempt to snuff out what they believed to be a blasphemous cancer eating away at their true religion. Nevertheless, the Gospel moved on, gaining followers from every nation, both Jews and Gentiles.
This is the setting into which Acts 15 comes. As the number of non-Jewish followers of the Jewish Messiah rose, the inevitable question finally appeared—What role does the Law of Moses play in the life of Christians? For centuries, the Law formed the basis of the relationship between God and His people. Now the message was, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” Where does the Law fit into this message? That was the question prompted by a group of Jews who were not wiling to let Moses fall completely out of the picture.
Summary of the text
Some Jews traveled to Antioch insisting that circumcision was required for salvation (v1). This prompted a weighty discussion, and a decision to take the matter to the leaders in Jerusalem (v2). After Paul and Barnabas reported about God’s saving work among the Gentiles, a group of Pharisee believers took up the cause of requiring circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses (v3-5). After other arguments were presented, Peter spoke up and recounted how God had used him to reach Gentiles, even pouring out His Spirit upon them to evidence their having been justified by their faith (v6-9). Peter then made the bold assertion that requiring Gentiles to obey the Law of Moses was tantamount to testing God. Furthermore, he reminded them that neither the patriarchs nor they themselves had obeyed the Law. Salvation for Jews and Gentiles comes by grace, not Law-keeping (v10-11). Paul and Barnabas shared more of God’s mighty acts among the Gentiles. Then James took the floor and appealed to Old Testament prophecies which foretold of God’s plan to bring the nations to Himself (v12-18). James concluded that only four things from the Law of Moses should be asked of Gentile converts—abstention from things polluted by idols, sexual immorality, things choked, and blood. The reason he gave was that the Mosaic Law was preached in cities and synagogues all over the world (v19-21). The apostles, the elders, the church, even the Holy Spirit agreed with this conclusion, and a letter was sent via Paul and Barnabas to the brothers in Antioch with the instruction about the Law of Moses (v22-30). The brothers rejoiced at this word (v31).
Explanations, arguments, conclusions
1. This text is definitive for the question of a Christian’s relationship to the Law of Moses because that is the very question being addressed by the apostles and elders. When constructing an argument about the Christian and the Law, this passage must lie at the foundation. It should inform our presuppositions, not be interpreted by them.
2. Nowhere in the text is the Law of Moses divided into the traditional categories: moral, ceremonial, and civil. To find such a division requires a previous commitment to it. When this text speaks of the Law of Moses, we should think, “the Law in its entirety.”
3. Peter made two remarkable assertions about the Law of Moses (v10):
• It was an unbearable yoke which no Jew had kept. None of their Jewish forefathers—David, Solomon, even Moses himself—had kept the Law. Peter had not kept the Law. The Pharisees themselves had not kept the Law. Therefore, to require Gentile converts to keep the Law was to place expectations on them which nobody (including them) had met. Moreover, what made the Law so unbearable was the severe curses promised to all who disobeyed it (Deut. 28; Lev. 26). Why, asks Peter, would they desire to bring Gentiles under such a threat?
• Requiring the Gentile converts to keep the Law of Moses was tantamount to testing God. In other words, since God had already proven His acceptance of the Gentiles by giving them His Spirit (v8) and by cleansing their hearts by faith (v9), to require something else of them (i.e. circumcision and Law-keeping) was to call into question God’s work in their lives. That is a serious matter, indeed.
4. James introduced evidence from the OT prophet Amos that God would one day call Gentiles to Himself. After hearing the testimonies of Peter, Paul, and Barnabas that God had begun fulfilling this prophecy, he concluded that requiring the Gentiles to be circumcised and keep the Law would be troubling to them. It should not be done.
5. Some want to confine this passage and the decision of the church leaders to the realm of justification. According to this argument, no one can be justified (i.e. declared “righteous”) by keeping the Law of Moses (which, they maintain, is the point of the Jerusalem debate). It would be overwhelming trouble to require Gentile converts to keep the Law in order to be justified. They would no more be able to keep it perfectly than the Jews were. However, they argue, this does not mean that the Law of Moses is troubling as a means of sanctification. (Not all of it, mind you, but the “moral Law” is God’s eternal standard by which Christians, Jew or Gentile, determine how to please God.)
The bottom line of this assertion—The Pharisees sought to maintain the Law as a means of justification. The church ruled against this position. They concluded that the Law of Moses must never be used as a means of justification, but it remains the Christian’s guide for sanctification.
But,
• The text makes no distinction between justification and sanctification.
• The text makes no distinction between the “moral Law” and other kinds of Law. There is just law. (Nor does this or any other text explain how to determine which laws are “moral” and which are not.)
• The text explicitly reveals which commands from the Law were urged upon the Gentile converts and why (see below, and note that it was not the Ten Commandments).
• The assertion assumes rather than proves that the Law of Moses is intended as a perpetual standard for Christian sanctification.
6. Rather than troubling the Gentile converts with the entire Law, James recommended that a letter be sent instructing them to avoid four things (v20):
• Things polluted by idols.
• Sexual immorality.
• Things choked.
• Blood.
James then explained why he wanted the Gentiles to avoid the things listed in v20—because Moses had preachers in every city and every synagogue at every Sabbath service, going back to antiquity. In other words, James’ concern was not to keep the Law of Moses, but rather to prevent obstacles that would impede the evangelistic efforts of those trying to persuade those who keep the Law. If the Gentiles violated these four things, Jews living throughout the lands would not give them a hearing. The Gospel, not the Mosaic Law, is the reason for adherence to these four commandments.
7. Practical application for believers today:
• According to the apostles and the Holy Spirit, the Law of Moses is not binding upon the Christian either for justification or sanctification.
• When seeking to evangelize the Jewish people, we should consider how to remove obstacles that may prevent open discussion.
• James interpreted the progress of the Gospel among the Gentiles as fulfillment of Amos’ prophecy. This should inform our hermeneutic in interpreting OT prophecies.
Implications for Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology
Covenant Theology
1. The eternal nature of the Decalogue per se is inconsistent with the teaching of this passage. It teaches explicitly that the Law of Moses (which would include the Decalogue) is not binding upon Christians.
2. To divide the Law of Moses into separable categories—moral, civil, and ceremonial—is arbitrary and should not be used in theological conclusions.
Dispensational Theology
1. The Law was a yoke which no Jew could or did keep. Therefore, if Jews are still under the Law of Moses, they are subject to its unbearable yoke (i.e. its curse).
2. The text does not explicitly state that Jews are no longer under the Law of Moses, nor does it state that they are under the Law. Other texts will have to determine the relationship of Jews to the Law.