UNDERSTANDING ACTS CHAPTER 15
CORRECTING MISINTERPRETATIONS
There have been misunderstandings of Acts Chapter 15.
With regard to the circumcision of Gentiles after Salvation, there is not just one attempt to do so in Acts 15, but three separate examples set forth in the Scripture.
First we need to look at Acts 13 to see what happened in context that brought about later events in Acts 15.
Starting in Acts 13:13 we see that the Apostle John returned to Jerusalem. This would indicate that he was there with James, and that James was not running the Jerusalem Assembly "single-handedly".
Then we see that "Paul and his company" went to Antioch in Pisidia:
"But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, AND WENT INTO THE SYNAGOGUE ON THE SABBATH DAY, and sat down." Acts 13:14
And then?
"And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets THE RULERS OF THE SYNAGOGUE SENT UNTO THEM (Paul and his company), saying,
'Men and Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.'
"Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, 'Men of Israel, and you that fear G-d give audience.'"
Paul then preaches Yeshua to the people (Jews and proselytes) all assembled inside the Jewish Synagogue. This would have included Gentile converts and and those seeking to convert known as "G-d fearers".
He does so from Acts 13:16 to 13:41. What happened then?
"And when the Jews were gone out of the Synagogue, the Gentiles (the G-d fearers) besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath." v. 42. We will return to this soon.
What did they do when they heard Pauls' preaching that Sabbath day in the Synagogue?
"Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes (G-d fearers) followed Paul and Barnabus: who speaking to them persuaded them to continue in the Grace of G-d." v. 43
Then what happened the next Sabbath day?
"And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the Word of G-d." v. 44. This would be outside the Synagogue. Paul preaching to all assembled, Jews and Gentiles alike.
What happened next?
"But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spoke against these things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming." v. 45. (Not all of the Jews were involved here).
You see, the Jews were receiving the Word IN THE SYNAGOGUE, but when all the Gentiles were to be preached to also, OUTSIDE AS NEW COVENANT EQUALS, there arose a tumult. Scripture says the tumult arose "because of envy" that Gentiles would also have an EQUAL COVENANT without being circumcised according to Moses' Law. Not all Jews were involved in this either.
Word spread regarding what happened there in Acts 13. This sets the stage for the events in Acts 15 where Judaizers start to encourage and condone Gentiles being circumcised AFTER Salvation. Let us look at the three examples from Acts 15 concerning what happened next.
THE THREE EXAMPLES FROM ACTS 15
The first example Juadaizers put forward: to "be saved".
"And certain men came which down from Judea taught the Brethren, 'Except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved.'" Acts 15:1
First of all, concerning the definition of "saved" in this passage: the word is not "Eternal Life-specific", and can mean ANY category of "being saved"; "unique spiritual improvement", deliverance, "spiritual promotion" -or- Eternal Salvation; Eternal Life. Any promise made of being "saved" (or somehow "spiritually improved"), by citing some "advantage", either collectively or individually, connected with the Rite of circumcision of Gentiles after Salvation, is not a part of the New Covenant (Brit Chadashah).
Many "teachers" focus solely on the above passage, proclaiming that they are not promising Eternal Life from the ritual of circumcision, so therefore it is "permitted". As we have seen, to "be saved" can also encompass other "spiritual advantages", such as to "be delivered", or "made perfect" as well as Eternal Life. This is also stated elsewhere in the Brit Chadashah, but we will continue on to the next example in Acts 15.
The second example of an attempt to circumcise the Saved Gentiles:
"And rose up certain of those of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying 'It is necessary to circumcise them, and charge to keep the Law of Moses (the Torah).'" Acts 15:5
First of all, the key word is "necessary" (DEI)[1]. This word has multiple meanings also, and means "necessity" OF ANY KIND. The necessity of custom, tradition, obligation, "allowance", what is fitting, what one "should" do, inner necessity growing out of a given situation; ("to create a Jewish home" for example), propriety, duty or even fate. This includes "necessity by permission" because of any event, custom, practice or tradition. This word "covers all the bases" and every sort of motivation of any kind! So then the Apostles Ruling against this position, completely removes any "reason" or "allowance" for doing so.
It should be noted that these were Pharisees who believed in Yeshua. These Jewish believers in Yeshua were attempting to placate Jewish unbelievers who demanded circumcision according to Moses' Law. Such teaching would have pleased the Jews who did not believe in Yeshua, and only knew of the Mosaic Covenant and not the New Covenant.
Those that would still argue that circumcision is fine for Gentiles after Salvation have no way around this verse. Whatever "motivation" the individual has, is incorrect, as the Apostles Ruled.
The third example of circumcision after Salvation for Gentiles is here:
"Inasmuch as we have heard that certain from amongst us troubled you by words, upsetting your souls, saying 'Be circumcised and keep the Law (Torah)'; to whom we gave no such Command..." Acts 15:24a
In this passage anyone ("from amongst us") that says, "Be circumcised.." (undergo circumcision after Salvation) is at that moment acting OUTSIDE of Apostolic Command, as well in disagreement with the Epistle of the Apostles, elders and brethren to the Assemblies of Yeshua.
ACTS 15:21
In Acts 15:21 the Apostle James (Yakov) is interpreted by Judaizers as giving "authorization" for Gentiles to wholly follow the Torah (to become circumcised) because of a reference to Moses being preached in the synagogues every Sabbath (emphasis added):
"For Moses from generations of old in every city has THOSE proclaiming him in the synagogues, every Sabbath being read." Acts 15:21
The Apostle James in this passage is drawing a distinction between the synagogues before Yeshua Arrived (and then with the other Jewish synagogues that had not aligned themselves with the Assemblies of Yeshua [he uses the words, "has THOSE proclaiming him (Moses)" in contradistinction to the Assemblies who preached Yeshua]); and the Assemblies of Yeshua that preached Yeshua (Christ) instead. In the synagogues BEFORE He Arrived, they preached Moses as the major authority, but in the Assemblies of Yeshua NOW they were preaching:
"Yeshua HaMoshiach (Jesus Christ) and Him crucified." Yeshua Is The Major Authority in the Assemblies. In the Assemblies, Yeshua now had Authority over the preaching of Moses alone.
The Apostle James is openly showing the difference between the True Assemblies of Yeshua and "THOSE" synagogues that did not preach Yeshua. In "THOSE" synagogues, Moses and circumcision are preached. But in the True Assemblies of Yeshua, "Yeshua HaMoshiach (Jesus Christ) and Him crucified"; the GOSPEL! was now preached.
"For the Law (Torah) was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth by Yeshua HaMoshiach (Jesus Christ)." John 1:17.
Moving on, we will now look closer at passages that follow, in context. It will be clearly seen from New Testament Scripture that there was never "authorization" to circumcise Gentiles and that is not what Acts Chapter 15 implies, intends or means, but exactly the opposite!
Yeshua said:
"But woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men: for you neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer you them that are entering to go in." Matthew 23:13
In this case, Judaizers place a stumbling-block for the Gentiles over being circumcised in the flesh after Salvation.
The Apostles gave Commands all throughout the Brit Chadashah (New Testament). They were Being Led By The Holy Spirit.
WHERE IN THE BRIT CHADASHAH DID THE APOSTLES EVER COMMAND GENTILES TO BE CIRCUMCISED BEFORE THEY COULD HOLD ANY "SPECIAL OFFICE" IN THE ASSEMBLIES?
"'Inasmuch as we have heard that certain from among us having gone out troubled you by words, upsetting your souls, saying, 'Be circumcised and keep the Law (Torah)'; to whom we gave no Commandment[2]; it seemed good to us having come with one accord, chosen men to send to you, with our beloved Barnabus and Paul, men who have given up their lives for the Name of out L-rd Jesus Christ.
"'We have sent therefore Judas and Silas also themselves by word telling the same things. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit[3] and to us, no further burden to lay upon you than these necessary things: to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication; from which keeping yourselves, well you will do. Farewell.'
"So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch, and having gathered the multitude delivered the Epistle. And having read, they rejoiced at the consolation. And Judas and Silas, also themselves being Prophets, by much discourse exhorted the brethren, and established [them]." Acts 15:24-32
This passage makes it very clear that the Apostles and Prophets of the early Assemblies, Led by The Holy Spirit, never required Gentiles to be circumcised before they could hold any Special Office in the Assemblies. Also note that in verse 28, it is the Holy Spirit that Leads the Apostles and Prophets here. The Apostle James (Yakov), called "James the Just" the leader of the Jerusalem Assembly, is also included in those so Led.
Another seemingly strong case for Gentile circumcision after Salvation comes from Yeshuas' Command, "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, whatsoever they bid you Observe these things Observe and do, for they say and do not." Matthew 23:3
Yeshua also Said:
"Not one iota or one curl [4] will pass from the Law (Torah) until all Be Fulfilled." Matthew 5:18
Was there a "Fulfillment"? Have some things indeed "passed from the Law (Torah)" just as our L-RD Prophesied?
CONSIDER THE VARIOUS OLD TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS WE NOW HAVE
Is there a completely 100% accurate ancient manuscript of the Old Testament today? No. The Hebrew Manuscript that the original LXX used no longer exists. Not even the manuscripts found at Qumran all agree, no matter how many "teachers" would attempt to convince or assure otherwise. The Torah itself has no "100% reliable text". Passages, words and letters have "passed from the Law (Torah)". These passages, words and letters are either missing or have been added to the various Old Testament manuscripts.
YESHUAS' SACRIFICE BROUGHT ABOUT CHANGES IN THE TORAH: YESHUA HAMOSHIACH NOW MINISTERS AT THE ALTAR IN THE HEAVENLIES ON OUR BEHALF AND NOW IS THE ETERNAL HIGH PRIEST EVEN OVER THE HIGHEST PRIESTHOOD EVER GIVEN BY G-D TO MAN: THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD[5]
Has anything else changed with Yeshuas' Statement, "It is Finished"? We believe many things have changed.
The Brit Chadashah says that things most definitely have changed.
"For the Priesthood being changed, from necessity also a change of the Law (Torah) also takes place. For He of whom are said these things (Yeshua) a different Tribe (Yehuda, Judah) has part in, of which no one has given attendance at the Altar. For manifest that out of Judah has sprung our L-RD, as to which Tribe, Moses spoke nothing concerning the Priesthood. And more abundantly yet quite manifest it is, since according to the similitude of Melchetzaddik arises a different Priest, Who Not according to [the] Law (Torah) of fleshly Commandments has been Constituted, but according to Power of Life Indestructible. For He Testifies, 'You Are A Priest Forever After the Order of Melchetzaddik' For there is a putting away of the Commandment going before, because of its' weakness and unprofitableness, (for the Law (Torah) Perfected nothing), and [the] Introduction of A Better Hope by which we Draw Near Unto G-d." Hebrews 7:12-19
After all, if the Old Testament is "over" the New Testament at any point, then why didn't Melchetzaddik pay Tithes to Avram instead of vice-versa? Genesis 14:20
To be fair, let us also examine the rest of the New Testament. Are there any other passages that "authorize" circumcision of Gentiles after Salvation?
The Book of Galatians doesn't authorize it. In fact, it says that any such Gentile who becomes circumcised after Salvation for any "religious" reason would "fall from Grace." Galatians 5:2-4
The argument of Avrahams' household is sometimes presented as well. (Genesis 17:12,13)[6]
Such Gentiles then go back under the lesser Mosaic\Levitical Covenants, and no longer have Access to the Grace of our Superior Melchetzaddik Covenant.
The Brit Chadashah is not some "New Testament Torah" as some say it is. The Brit Chadashah changes things in the Torah and adds to them. The Brit Chadashah has authority over the Torah. The Torah does not have authority over the New Testament. By this it is meant that in every place where there is a change, the New Testament Command outranks and supercedes the Torah.
The New Testament Announces a "Better Covenant" than any that G-d Has Ever Made With man. It is a Better Covenant than that which was previously given; the Torah, because our New Covenant In Yeshua Is Based upon Better Promises. Hebrews 8:6-13.
So where in the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) do we find ANY authorization requiring Gentiles be circumcised before they can attain unto any "Special Office" in the Assemblies?
It is clearly not found anywhere in the New Testament. Any person or group that says otherwise is just plain wrong. Teachers who teach such things are preaching a "different Gospel".
THE GENTILES WHO BELIEVE IN YESHUA ARE ALREADY CIRCUMCISED IN THEIR HEARTS
The Brit Chadashah is clear on this point also. The Gentiles who believe in Yeshua are "circumcised with the circumcision of the heart, not made with hands." This is Acceptable with G-d, as He Has "Purified their hearts By Faith"[7]. Romans 2:29, Acts 15:9
Here is a passage (emphasis added):
"Take heed lest there shall be ANYONE who makes a prey of you through PHILOSOPHY or EMPTY DECEIT, according to the TRADITION OF MEN, according to the elements of the world, and not According to Moshiach (Christ). For In Him Dwells All The Fullness of The G-dhead Bodily; and you are COMPLETE IN HIM Who Is The Head of ALL Principality AND Authority, In Whom also you were Circumcised with Circumcision NOT MADE BY HAND, in the Putting Off of the body of the sins of the flesh, In The Circumcision of HaMoshiach (The Christ); Having Been Buried with Him In Baptism, in which also you were Raised With Through THE FAITH of The Working of G-d Who Raised Him from among the dead." Colossians 2:8-12
Do we have other sources that address this issue? Yes, we do. There are references from the 1st Century regarding this issue, such as Josephus, who himself recommended that the Gentiles be NOT circumcised. [8]
ARE THE GENTILES NOT EQUAL BROTHERS IN THE NEW COVENANT?
If uncircumcised Gentiles are not Equal to the Jewish brethren in the New Covenant, then WHERE in the New Testament does it say they are NOT? It does not say it! It does say this: the Apostle Peter speaking:
"And G-d, Who Knows the hearts, Bore Witness to them (the uncircumcised Gentiles), Giving to them the Holy Spirit, as also to us (circumcised Jews), and put NO DIFFERENCE between both us and them, by The Faith having Purified their hearts." Acts 15:8,9
Here it is seen there is NO DIFFERENCE between uncircumcised Gentiles and circumcised Jews in the New Covenant as far as Access to G-d, Gift of the Holy Spirit or ANY OTHER Spiritual Advantage Given by G-d, as He Himself Bore Witness to them. They are now in the Superior Melchetzaddik Covenant.
Who then would seek to "invent" a "spiritual advantage"? Judaizers who were never given ANY Command to do so whatsoever in the Brit Chadashah, but just the opposite! They were Commanded over and over to NOT do so!
IF THERE IS A "SPIRITUAL DIFFERENCE" THEN IS THIS NOT "SPIRITUAL DISCRIMINATION" (BASED ON THE FLESH AND HAVING NO COMMAND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT[9]) AND ALSO A REJECTION OF -UNCONDITIONAL- ACCEPTANCE OF ONE FOR WHOM YESHUA SUFFERED AND GAVE HIS VERY LIFE?
The Apostle John wrote of those that would "discriminate" against their Brothers. Discrimination[10] is a form of enmity.
"He that says he is in the Light, and hates his Brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loves his Brother Abides in the Light, and there is no occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hates his Brother is in darkness, and walks in darkness, and knows not where he goes, because the darkness has blinded his eyes." I John 2:9-11
More Following Soon! (Galatians and I and II Corinthians next): The Apostle Paul rebukes Judaizers further and strictly warns Gentiles that to follow the teaching of anyone who says circumcision after Salvation is in any way beneficial are "false brethren", and cause said Saved Gentiles to "fall from Grace" if they do become circumcised.
PEOPLE OF G-D MINISTRIES
Click HERE for Free HTML Code For Your Website!
� Copyright 1999-2004 People of G-d Ministries, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No reproduction or redistribution without the written Consent and Premission of People of G-d Ministries.
FOOTNOTES
[1
[2
[3
[4
[5
[6
"And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in his generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed.
"He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised:......"
In these passages none of these persons (children or slaves) is anywhere stated as Saved. They would therefore have been circumcised -before- Salvation, and -not- afterwards.
[7
[8
"That when Izates, the son of Helen queen of Adiabene, embraced the Jews' religion (note Josephus speaks of Judaism here as "the Jews' religion", which would line up with another passage in Josephus where he writes about Jesus, "He Was The Christ". ed.), Ananias declared he might do it without circumcision; but Eleazar maintained that it was a great impiety to remain uncircumcised."
And when two eminent Gentiles fled to Josephus (as he relates in the history of his own life) 'the zealots among the Jews were urgent for their circumcision; but Josephus dissuaded them from insisting upon it.'"
From "Matthew Henrys' Commentary", Acts to Revelation, Book VI, MacDonald; McClean, Virginia, p, 188. ISBN# 0-917006-21-6
[9
[10
