Nazarenes and the Oral Law
Nazarenes and the Oral Law
By James Trimm
There has been a great deal of discussion in the movement today over how
we as Nazarenes should view Jewish tradition, Oral Law and the Talmud.
Now it is important to understand the first century world from which
Nazarene Judaism emerged. There were three major sects of Judaism at the
time: Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes.
The first century writer Josephus writes of the Pharisees:
"...the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by
succession from their fathers, which are not written in the law of
Moses;..."
(Josephus; Ant. 13:11:6)
The Pharisees became what is known as Rabbinic Judaism and eventually
wrote these traditions (known as "Oral Law") down in the Mishna and later
the Talmud. The Mishna and Talmud are not the Oral Law, but they do contain
the Oral Law as recorded by the Pharisees.
The core of the Talmud is the Mishna. The Mishna was complied around 250
CE by Rabbi Y’hudah Ha Nasi from ealier oral and/or written traditions.
It cites the opinions or Rabbis and teachers who lived in the generation
immediately following Ezra and Nehemiah, up until the time of its
composition. The Talmud was compiled around 500 CE and consists of the
Mishna written in Hebrew and the commentary to the Mishna, known as the
Gemara, surrounding it in Aramaic characters.
The Sadducees rejected these traditions, as Josephus continues:
"...for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we
are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written
word, but are not to observe what are delivered from the tradition of our
forefathers..."
(ibid)
The Sadducees HAD to reject the Oral Law. They did not believe in a resurrection or an afterlife. They had rejected the things that Judaism has always held to. It was hard enough to make their views compatible with the Written Torah, it was easier for them to simply reject the Oral Torah out of hand. In fact they HAD to reject the Oral Law if they wanted to reject any understanding of the written Torah that included a resurrection and an afterlife!
Then there were the Essenes, these are they who are believed to have
written the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Essenes did not reject the concept of
Oral Law, as the Sadducees did, but they did have an ALTERNATE set of such
traditions, many of which are recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among the
Scrolls is a document called MMT ("Some of the Works of teh Torah). In
this document the Essenes point out some of their differences with the
Oral Law as recorded in the Mishna. For example in the Mishna (Hullin
4:1-5) there is an Oral tradition forbidding the eating of the fetus of a
slaughtered animal, while item 12 in MMT allows the eating of such a
fetus. Many of the points addressed in MMT are addressed directly at
points of Oral Torah found in the Mishna. Essenes did not reject the Oral
Torah, they had their own understanding of it.
Now our Nazarene forefathers had roots in Pharisaic Judaism and in Essene
Judaism but not in Sadduceean Judaism.
Yeshua's teachings often echoed those of the famous Pharisaic teacher
Hillel. When Yeshu was still a child Hillel taught "Do not do to others
what you would not have them do to you" while Yeshua grew up to teach "do
onto others as you would have them do to you."
The Nazarenes also clearly had roots in Essene Judaism. There is evidence
that Yochanan the immerser ("John the Baptist") came out of the Qumran
community. Several of Yeshua's Talmidim (including Kefa) had first been
talmidim of Yochanan. Both the Essenes and the Nazarenes called
themselves "The Way" and "Sons of Light".
The Esseneic and Pharisaic origins of Nazarene Judaism are easily
documented and could fill volumes. I have reduced them here to a short
paragraph each.
The written Torah is not complete in itself. Instead it presupposes that the reader also has access to additional information. For example the observance of Torah involves the use of the Hebrew calendar. Nowhere does the written Torah tell us the inner workings of this calendar, it presupposes that this information was also passed down to us orally by our forefathers.
There are actually two types of “Oral Law” and they are very different from one another.
The first is Oral Torah from Sinai. Moshe was on Mt. Sinai for forty days. During this time her received much of the material that we know as the Written Torah as recorded in the five books of Moses. However if one to get the five books of Moses as a “books on tape” edition, it would not take anywhere near forty days to listen to them. It would not even take one day to listen to them. So is this ALL the information Moses received on Mount Sinai? Why does Leviticus 26:46 say that Moses received “Laws” (plural) on Mount Sinai? Could he have received Torah She-Bi-Khatav (The Written Torah) and Torah She-Al-Peh (The Oral Torah)?
As we stated earlier, there is not sufficient information in the written Torah to allow it to be observed without some additional information.
For example the written Torah says not to go out of ones “place” on the Sabbath (Ex. 16:29) but just what does this mean? If the Sabbath starts and I am in the latrine, must I stay there until it is over? If I am in my home and the Sabbath starts, must I wait until the Sabbath end to go out to the latrine? Does it mean I cannot leave my house? my yard? my city? Surely the ancient Hebrews (our forefathers) asked Moses what this commandment meant. Did Moses shrug his shoulders and say “heck if I know”, or was this part of the information he also received on Mount Sinai? If so then our forefathers had this information. Is this what the Psalmist means when he says:
1: Give ear, O my people, to my Torah: incline your ears to the words of my mouth.
2: I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:
3: Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us.
4: We will not hide them from their children, showing to the generation to come the praises of YHWH, and his strength, and his wonderful works that he hath done.
(Ps. 78:1-4)
Another example can be found in Deut. 12:21 which tells us that if we live to far from the Temple and need to slaughter an animal to eat, YHWH says we may do so as long as we do it “as I [YHWH] have commanded you”. But there are no instructions for the ritual slaughter of an animal in the written Torah. This commandment of the written Torah must be alluding to an oral companion to the written Torah.
One can give many more examples. What does it mean not to “work” on the Shabbat? what constitutes “work”? How does one “celebrate” the Shabbat (Ex. 31:16)? What constitutes a “Bill of Divorcement” (Deut. 24:1f) what is it supposed to say?
When Ezra read the Torah to the people in Nehemiah 8:1-8, he and the Levites also “gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading” (8:7-8). They gave them an oral companion to the written text:
1: And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spoke unto Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Torah of Moses, which YHWH had commanded to Israel.
2: And Ezra the priest brought the Torah before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.
3: And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the Book of the Torah.
4: And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam.
5: And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:
6: And Ezra blessed YHWH, the great Elohim. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped YHWH with their faces to the ground.
7: Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the Torah: and the people stood in their place.
8: So they read in the Book in the Torah of Elohim distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
(Nehemiah 8:1-8)
When the old Worldwide Church of God began observing the biblical festivals, one of the problems they ran into was how to celebrate them. Only sketchy information is given in the written Torah on many of these festivals (we will revisit this issue again later in this article in relation to Yeshua’s observances of Sukkot and Passover).
When it comes to answering these questions, we can turn to the understandings our forefathers had of these things, which they passed down to us orally, or we can make something up. Short of a mutually accepted pipeline to Elohim, those are our only choices.
Another form of Oral Law are the decrees from the Elders. The Elders are said to have ha the “halachic authority”. Halachic authority is the authority to make halachic determinations interpreting the Torah forbidding and permitting activities based on these interpretations (for example if a matter came up which was not settled by the written Torah), and resolving matters between fellow believers. The word "halacha" means "the way to walk." Torah observance requires halachic authority for three reasons. First there are matters about which the written Torah is ambiguous and must be clarified. Secondly is the matter of conflicting Torah commands. For example the Torah requires the priests to circumcise on the eight day after a birth, but also requires rest from work on the Sabbath. Which commandment holds priority? Finally the Torah requires us to establish courts (Deut. 16:18).
In the Torah the Halachic authority was originally held by Moses himself (Ex. 18:13) but later a council of Elders were appointed (Ex. 18:13-26; Dt. 1:9-18) These Elders showed men "the way wherein they must walk" (i.e. Halacha) (Ex. 18:20) Their judgments were regarded as the judgment of Elohim himself (Dt. 1:17) and were even called "Torah" (Dt. 17:11) At first these men had authority only in small matters (Ex. 18:22, 26; Dt. 1:17) but later their authority was expanded (Dt. 17:8). This council was later defined as seventy Elders whom Elohim placed his Spirit upon (Num. 11:16-17; 24-25).
The decrees of these elders added to the body of what was known as the “Oral Law” in much the same was as “legal precedence” does in secular law today.
One classic example of a matter settled by a Decree of the Elders was the issue of circumcision on the Sabbath. Circumcision is commanded to be done on the eighth day (Gen. 17:11) yet on every seventh day no work is allowed (Ex. 20:10). The Elders decreed that the commandment to circumcise on the eighth day held priority over the commandment to rest on the Sabbath (as recorded in the Mishna m.Shabbat 18:3-19:2 and in the Talmud b.Shabbat 128a). Yeshua alluded to and agreed with this Decree of the Elders when he said:
If a man is circumcised on the day of the Sabbath
that the Torah of Moshe be not loosed,
do you murmur against me because
I have healed a whole man on the Sabbath day?
(Jn. 7:23)
Similarly we read in the Talmud:
Rabbi Eleazar answered and said: If circumcision
which attaches to one only of the two hundred and
forty eight members of the human body, suspends
the Sabbath, how much more shall [the saving of]
the whole body suspend the Sabbath!
b.Yoma 85b
Yeshua clearly advocated and recognized the authority of these Elders when he said such things as “…whoever shall say to his brother, RAKA, shall be liable to the Sanhedrin…” (Mt. 5:22) and “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat…” (Mt. 23:1).
At the same time Yeshua also took issue with the Decrees of the Elders when they conflicted with Scripture (Mt. 15; Mt. 23)
The Torah also allowed for the Halachic authority to be held by a King (Dt. 17:8-12; 14-20). Eventually the Elders decided to establish such a monarchy (1Sam. 8:1-7). The throne of these Kings was sees as being "the throne of Elohim" (1Chron. 29:23) Their Halachic authority became termed "the key of the House of David" (Is. 22:21-22).
The Pharisees once held the Keys of the House of David. Mt. 23:13 is key to understanding Yeshua's attitude to the Halachic authority of the Pharisees. Here Yeshua says:
But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men;
for you neither go in,
nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
A parallel passage appears in Lk. 11:52:
Woe to you scribes!
For you have taken away the key of knowledge.
you did not enter in yourselves,
and those who were entering in you hindered.
Now when we look at these two passages together it becomes clear that
the "key" in Luke 11:52 had the potential to open up or shut up the
Kingdom of Heaven. This "key" is clearly then "the key of the house of
David" in Is. 22:22:
The key of the House of David I will lay on his shoulder;
so he shall open, and no one shall shut;
and he shall shut and no one shall open.
The Pharisees took away the key (authority) thus shutting up the
Kingdom. They lost the authority, it was taken from them and given to
Yeshua's Talmidim:
In Mt. 16:18-19 Yeshua says he would give "the keys of the Kingdom" to
Kefa and his other talmidim:
And I also say to you that you are Kefa,
And upon this rock I will build my assembly,
and the gates of Sheol shall not prevail against it.
And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,
and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven
and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
The Pharisees lost this authority because of hypocrisy. Yeshua describes their hypocrisy in Mt. 23 as follows:
On Moshe's seat sit the scribes and P'rushim.
And all that he (Moshe) says to you observe and do.
But not according to their works,
for they say, but do not.
(Mt. 23:2-3)
Yeshua repeatedly charges the Pharisees with Hypocrisy (Mt. 6; 15:7
and Matt. 23 for examples). Yeshua often charged Pharisees with
"hypocrisy" even the Talmud itself makes the same association:
King Jannai said to his wife', `Fear not the Pharisees and the
non-Pharisees but the hypocrites who are the Pharisees; because their
deeds are the deeds of Zimri but they expect a reward like Phineas'
(b.Sotah 22b)
Job 13:16 says "a hypocrite shall not come before him."
Based on this verse the Talmud itself correctly lists Hypocrites as one of
four classes who will not receive the presence of the Shekhinah:
R. Hisda also said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba: Four classes
will not receive presence of the Shechinah, — the class of scoffers,
the class of liars, the class of hypocrites, and the class of
slanderers. `The class of scoffers' — as it is written, He withdrew
His hand from the scoffers.(Hosea 7:5) `The class of liars' — as it is
written, He that telleth lies, shall not tarry in my sight.(Ps. 101:7)
`The class of hypocrites' — as it is written, For a hypocrite shall
not come before him.(Job 13:16) `The class of slanderers — as it is
written, For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness:
neither shall evil dwell with thee,'(Ps. 5:5) [which means] Thou art
righteous, and hence there will not be evil in thy abode.
(b.San. 103a)
We know from Numbers 11:16-17 that the Elders must have the Spirit of Elohim upon them, but since hypocrites cannot receive the presence of the Shekhinah, they cannot serve as valid Elders.
Job says: "the congregation of the hypocrites shall be desolate" (Job. 15:34)
Thus Yeshua took the Keys from the Pharisees and gave these keys to Kefa and his Talmidim:
This key is the halachic authority. Yeshua recognized that the Pharisees held that halachic authority but he also tells us that they had squandered it by rejecting the Kingdom offer (see article "The Kingdom Offer") and refusing to use the key to help Messiah open up the Messianic Kingdom.
The Messiah himself also had the Key of David (Rev. 3:7). In Mt. 16:18-19 Yeshua says he would give "the keys of the Kingdom" to Kefa and his students:
And I also say to you that you are Kefa,
And upon this rock I will build my assembly,
and the gates of Sheol shall not prevail against it.
And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,
and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven
and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
This passage is best understood when compared to Mt. 18:15-20 This passage deals with the law of witnesses (Mt. 18:16 = Dt. 19:15) and refers to an "assembly" (Mt. 18:17) which has the power to "bind" and "loose" (Mt. 18:18) just as does Mt. 16:18-19. Since Mt. 18:16 quotes Dt. 19:15 it is clear that the "assembly" in Mt. 18:17 (and also Mt. 16:18) is the "priests and judges who serve in those days" in Dt. 19:17. This is also clear because this "assembly" has the power to "bind" and "loose." These are two Semitic idioms used in Rabbinic literature as technical terms referring to Halachic authority. To "bind" means to "forbid" an activity and to "loose" means to permit an activity (as in j.Ber. 5b; 6c; j.San. 28a; b.Ab. Zar. 37a; b.Ned. 62a; b.Yeb. 106a; b.Bets. 2b; 22a; b.Ber. 35a; b.Hag. 3b). Thus in Mt. 16:18-19 & 18:18 Yeshua gave his students the Halachic authority which we see them using in Acts 15.
Today we as restored Nazarenes must also have our own unique halachic authority apart from that of Rabbinic Judaism. As "sons of light" we cannot be halachicly yoked with unbelievers. While we cannot be halachicly yoked with unbelievers (Rabbinic Judaism) we must "come out from among them and be separate" (2Cor. 6:14-18 & Is. 52:11) for we must ourselves establish courts (Dt. 16:18).
We cannot turn to the "wisdom" of the "Pharisaic Rabbinical" Rabbis and sages of the last two thousand years and simply "accept all the Rabbinical Halakhah, except where Mashiach and His Talmidim clearly and definitely offer another position of Halakhah" for the Tenach warns us:
How can you say, "We are wise, and the Torah of YHWH is with us"?
Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood.
The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken.
Behold they have rejected the Word of YHWH;
So what wisdom do they have?
(Jer. 8:8-9)
The unbelieving sages and Rabbis of "Pharisaic Rabbinical" Judaism claim they "are wise" and that "the Torah of the LORD is with us." But they have "rejected the Word of YHWH" (i.e. Yeshua the Messiah; see Jn. 1:1, 14; Rev. 19:13) "So what wisdom do they have?"
There are preserved for us five fragments from an ancient Nazarene Commentary on Isaiah in which the fourth century Nazarene writer makes it clear that Nazarenes of the fourth century were not "following Pharisaic Rabbinical Halakhah." The following is taken from the Nazarene commentary on Isaiah 8:14:
"And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel¦"
The Nazarenes explain the two houses as the two houses of Shammai and Hillel, from whom originated the Scribes and Pharisees… [they Pharisees] scattered and defiled the precepts of the Torah by traditions and mishna. And these two houses
did not accept the Savior
The Nazarene commentary on Isaiah 8:20-21 has:
The Scribes and the Pharisees tell you to listen to them
answer them like this:
"It is not strange if you follow your traditions since every tribe
consults its own idols. We must not, therefore, consult your
dead [sages] about the living one."
So it is clear that the original Nazarenes were not "following Pharisaic Rabbinical Halakhah."
Let us return to the subject of the Oral Law in general. Now in Acts 23:6 Paul states “I am a Pharisee”. The Pharisees maintained a belief in the traditions handed down by their forefathers. As Josephus writes:
…the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great
many observances by succession from their fathers,
which are not written in the law of Moses; …
(Josephus; Ant. 13:10:6)
Concerning his Pharisee background Paul says:
And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my
contemporaries in my own nation, being more
exceedingly zealous for the tradition of my fathers.
(Gal. 1:14)
Notice that in Acts 28:17 Paul insists:
I have done nothing against our people
or the customs of our fathers.
(Acts 28:17)
Paul writes to the Thessalonians concerning these “traditions”:
“Therefore, brothers stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught…
withdraw yourselves from every brother that walks disorderly and not after
the traditions which he received from us.”
(2Thes. 2:15; 3:6)
Paul even made use of these oral “traditions” in his writings. Paul says "...they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them: and that rock was Messiah." (1Cor. 10:4). The Torah records more than one occasion when Moshe (Moses) brought forth water from
a rock (Ex. 16:4-35; 17:1-9; Num. 20:1-13; 16-20). According to Rabbinic tradition the rock did in fact follow them. The Talmud says that it was "a moveable well" (b.Shabbat 35a) and calls it "the Well of Miriam" (b.Ta'anit 9a). Rashi comments on b.Ta'anit 9a saying that the rock "rolled and went along with Israel, and it was the rock Moshe struck." The tradition of the moving rock known as the "Well of Miriam" is also found in B'midbar Parshat Chukkat. Paul's statement that the rock "followed them" testifies to the
fact that he accepted this oral tradition as being factual.
The second century Nazarene writer Gish’fa (Heggissipus) made use in his writings of these oral traditions. Eusebius writes of him:
And he quotes some passages from The Gospel according to
the Hebrews and from ‘The Syriac’, and some particulars from
the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was … from the Hebrews,
and he mentions other matters as taken from the oral tradition
of the Jews.”
(Eccl. Hist. 4:22)
Yeshua himself seems to have also accepted the “traditions of our fathers” which had been passed down orally.
In John 7:37-38 we read:
“And on the great day, which is the last of the feast, Yeshua stood and cried out and said, If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scriptures have said, rivers of water of life will flow from his belly.”
The occasion is the last great day of Sukkot (Jn. 7:2) and the setting appears to be the water libation ceremony at the Temple as prescribed by the Oral Law. A priest had a flask of gold filled with water and another has a flask of gold filled with wine. There were two silver bowls perforated with holes like a narrow snout. One was wide for the water the other is narrow for the wine. The priests poured the wine and water into each of their bowls. The wine and water mixed together. The wine flowing slowly through the narrow snout and the water flowing quickly through the wider snout. (m.Sukkot 4:9) Yeshua said that this ritual from the Oral Law was actually prophetic and symbolic of himself!
In all four Gospels Yeshua participates in the Passover Sader. The elements of the sader, such as the “cup of redemption”; dipping in bitter herbs; and the afikomen (the last piece of unleavened bread passed around and eaten at the end) all come from the Oral Law as recorded in the Mishna (m.Pes. 10). Yeshua not only accepted and kept these Oral Law rituals, but also spoke of them being prophetic of himself.
There is an interesting story in the Talmud which makes a profound point about the Oral Law:
Our Rabbis taught: A certain heathen once came before Shammai and asked him, ‘How many Torahs have you?’ ‘Two,’ he replied: ‘the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.’ ‘I believe you with respect to the Written, but not with respect to the Oral Torah; make me a proselyte on condition that you teach me the Written Torah [only]. [But] he scolded and repulsed him in anger. When he went before Hillel, he accepted him as a proselyte. On the first day, he taught him, Alef, beth, gimmel, daleth; the following day he reversed [them ] to him. ‘But yesterday you did not teach them to me thus,’ he protested. ‘Must you then not rely upon me? Then rely upon me with respect to the Oral [Torah] too.’
(b.Shabbat 31a)
The point of the story is that the same forefathers that passed the written Torah down to us, also passed the Oral Torah down to us with it. What logic is there in accepting the written Torah that they delivered to us as truth, while rejecting the Oral Law passed down by the very same forefathers?
Now we as Nazarenes do not believe that the Rabbis or Pharisaic/Rabbinic
Judaism held the power to bind and loose after the first century, perhaps
not even before the first century. Thus we should not simply accept these
rulings, on the other hand we should not simply reject them out of hand.
In may cases the Talmud or the related halachic Midrashim present the line
of logic which led to the decisions being made. We should look at these
lines of logic to determine if the decisions were valid and sound.
For example I heard one Messianic Rabbi bashing the Talmud and claiming
that the Rabbis had added thirty-nine rules to the simple commandment not
to work on the Sabbath. In fact the thirty-nine categories (given in
m.Shabbat 7:2) are drawn from the text of the Torah. In the Torah the
instructions concerning the building of the Tabernacle are interrupted by a
restatement of the commandment not to work on the Sabbath (Ex. 31:12-17).
The connection this section of Exodus has with the surrounding material
seems to be the word “work” (Ex. 31:14) and “workmanship” (Ex. 31:3) (same
word in the Hebrew). Thus the commandment not to “work” on the Sabbath
(Ex. 31:14) is restated as a reminder to abstain from the “workmanship” of
the Tabernacle mentioned in Ex. 31:3. Thus the term “work” in the
commandment not to work on the Sabbath may be elaborated and defined by the
thirty-nine categories of “workmanship” involved in building the
Tabernacle.
We as Nazarenes should not reject the material in the Talmud out of hand,
we should seek to understand it. Then we should “eat the date and spit
out the seeds”. The same approach should be taken to the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Nazarenes should not be modern day Sadducees.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by James Trimm on
-
Even Titus that was with me, who was an Aramean,
was not compelled to be circumcised.
(Gal. 2:3 HRV)
“compelled” = The Aramaic word here is IT'ENAS literally “to be forced” from a root meaning “to act violently”.
The text is telling us not that Titus was not circumcised, but that he had done so voluntarily and not been circumcised by force as the Maccabeans had done:
Then Mattathias and his friends went round about, and pulled down the altars:
And what children soever they found within the coast of Israel uncircumcised,
those they circumcised by force.
1Macc. 2:45-46
In fact a comparison with Acts 15-16 will show that at this same time Timothy was also circumcised voluntarily and not by force.
Paul advocated the Pharisaic teaching of Antigones of Soko (who lived in the Maccabean era):
Antigones of Soko received [Torah] from Simeon the Righteous.
He used to say, “Be not like servants who serve their master
for the sake of wages, but be like servants who serve their
master with no thought of a wage – and let the fear
of Heaven be upon you.”
(m.Avot 1:3)
Paul did not want people to be circumcised by compulsion, either by the offer of a reward or the threat of a punishment, but from their own heart, out of the fear (respect) of YHWH, not trying to earn anything. This was at odds with hie Essene opponent who was compelling circumcisions as a method of earning salvation.
-
-
SHOULD AN UNCIRCUMCISED MAN REMAIN UNCIRCUMCISED?
Paul also writes:
18 If a man was called while circumcised, he should not return to un-circumcision: and if
he was called in un-circumcision, he should not be circumcised.
19 For circumcision is not anything, neither un-circumcision: but the observances of the
commandments of Eloah.
(1Cor. 7:18-19 HRV)
Many have isolated this passage out of context in an effor to prove that anyone who is uncircumcised should not become circumcised.
In order to understand what Paul is saying here, we must understand the context of his statement. 1Cor. Chapter 7 is a very confusing section of scripture. To begin with this section unusually delineated Paul’s opinions from YHWH’s commands.
7:6 But this I say as to the weak (or sickly) not by commandment.
7:10 It is not from me but from the Master.
7:12 I say--I, not the Master.
7:17 The rule *I* lay down.
7:25 I do not have a command from the Master, but I offer an opinion.
7:40 In my opinion
Among the personal opinions Paul lays out in this chapter are a controversial call to remain unmarried (7:8) and uncircumcised (7:18-19).
In order to understand this passage we must understand some things about the Torah. During the forty years in the wilderness none of the newborn were being circumcised, as we read in the Book of Joshua:
2 At that time YHWH said unto Yahushua: Make you knives of flint, and circumcise
again the children of Yisra’el, the second time.
3 And Yahushua made him knives of flint, and circumcised the children of Yisra’el at
Giv’at-ha-araloth.
4 And this is the cause, why Yahushua did circumcise all the people that came forth out
of Egypt that were males: even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way,
after they came forth out of Egypt.
5 For all the people that came out were circumcised, but all the people that were born in
the wilderness by the way, as they came forth out of Egypt, had not been circumcised.
6 For the children of Yisra’el walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the nation--
even the men of war that came forth out of Egypt--were consumed: because they
hearkened not unto the voice of YHWH, unto whom YHWH swore that He would not let
them see the land, which YHWH swore unto their fathers that He would give us--a land
flowing with milk and honey.
7 And He raised up their children in their stead; them did Yahushua circumcise, for they
were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised by the way.
8 And it came to pass, when all the nation were circumcised, every one of them, that
they abode in their places in the camp, till they were whole.
(Joshua 5:2-8 HRV)
Now you might ask whe were these circumcisions not taking place during the forty days in wilderness. The Talmud poses this same question and records the following tradition:
Why were they not circumcised in the wilderness? If you wish I might
say: Because of the fatigue of the journey; and if you prefer I might
say: Because the North wind1 did not blow upon them. For it was
taught: In all the forty years during which Israel was in the
wilderness the North wind did not blow upon them. What was the reason?
If you wish I might say: Because they were under divine displeasure.
And if you prefer I might say: In order that the clouds of glory might
not be scattered.
Rabbi Papa said: Hence, no circumcision may be performed on a cloudy day
or on a day when the South wind blows; nor may one be bled on such a
day. At the present time, however, since many people are in the habit
of disregarding these precautions, The Lord preserves the simple.
The Pharisaic Rabbis taught: In all the forty years during which Israel was in
the wilderness there was not a day on which the North wind did not
blow at the midnight hour; for it is said, And it came to pass at
midnight, that the Lord smote all the firstborn etc. How is the
deduction arrived at?” By this we were taught that an acceptable time
is an essential.
(b.Yeb. 71b-72a)
Earlier in this chapter of 1Corinthians Paul also gives the opinion:
But I speak to those who do not have wives and to widows,
that it is profitable for them to remain like me…
(1Cor. 7:8)
Now we read in the Book of Jasher:
And Noah... refrained from taking a wife in those days,
to beget children, for he said, Surely now Elohim will destroy the earth,
wherefore then shall I beget children.
(Jasher 5:12)
So what was the basis of Paul's opinion in 1Corinthians 7?
Paul wites:
If a man was called while circumcised, he should not return to uncircumcision. And if he was called in un-circumcision, he should not be circumcised.
...because of the urgency of the time...
...[because] the time is now shortened...
...[and because] the fashion of this world passes away.
(1Cor. 7:18-19, 26, 29, 31)
And likewise Paul said:
But I speak to those who do not have wives and to widows,
that it is profitable for them to remain like me.
(1Cor. 7:8)
Likewise Paul says this was
...because of the urgency of the time...
...[because] the time is now shortened...
...[and because] the fashion of this world passes away.
(1Cor. 7:26, 29, 31)
Paul's opinion here is not against physical circumcision, but that because of dangers they were living in at that particular time and place, conditions were no more suitable for circumcsion than they had been in the wilderness, nor
for marriage in the days before the flood. However the people in the wilderness did eventually get circumcised before
entering the promised land, and Noah eventually received instruction to get married and had children inspite the danger
of the times. Regardless of whether or not we agree with Paul's opinion in this passage, it was no more anti-Torah than the abstinence form circumcision during the forty years in the wilderness. Moreover we do not live in the same time and place as the situation Paul was addressing in Corinth at that time. Anyone who argues that believers should not get circumcised based on Paul's "opinion" in 1Cor. 7:18-19 must also argue that believers should not get married based on Paul's Parallel opinion in 1Cor. 7:8. Likewise if believers should still get married in spite od 1Cor. 7:8 then they should also get circumcised in spite of 1Cor. 7:18-19.
-
Permalink Reply by Ann Wilson on -
Solomon:
I forgot to include the circumcision of the Sons of Israel just before entering the Promised Land in Joshua 5. I have a question for you, was this circumsision LIMITED to only the babies who were 8 days old? If they were you have a point, ALL THOSE WHO WERE UNCIRCUMCISED, who had been born in the wilderness were to be circumcised REGARDLESS OF THEIR AGE, you may need to reconsider your position against circumcision of adults:
Circumcision of the Sons of Israel
Josh 5:
2 At that time the LORD said to Joshua, "Make flint knives for yourself, and circumcise the sons of Israel again the second time."
3 So Joshua made flint knives for himself, and circumcised the sons of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.
4 And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: All the people who came out of Egypt who were males, all the men of war, had died in the wilderness on the way, after they had come out of Egypt.
5 For all the people who came out had been circumcised, but all the people born in the wilderness, on the way as they came out of Egypt, had not been circumcised
-
-
Circumcision... only on the eight day?
9 And Elohim said unto Avraham: And as for you, you shall keep My covenant you,
and your seed after you throughout their generations.
10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your seed after
you: every male among you shall be circumcised.
11 And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of a
covenant between Me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old, shall be circumcised among you--every male
throughout your generations--he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any
foreigner, that is not of your seed.
13 He that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, must needs be
circumcised. And My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that
soul shall be cut off from his people: he has broken My covenant.
(Gen. 17:9-14 HRV)
Later in the Torah we read:
And YHWH said unto Moshe and Aharon: 'This is the ordinance of the Pesach: there shall no alien eat thereof;
but every man's servant that is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof.
In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry forth aught of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall you
break a bone thereof.
All the assembly of Yisra’el shall keep it.
And when a stranger shall sojourn with you, and will keep the Pesach to YHWH, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land; but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
One Torah shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourns among you.'
(Ex. 12:43-49 HRV)And in Joshua:
2 At that time YHWH said unto Yahushua: Make you knives of flint, and circumcise
again the children of Yisra’el, the second time.
3 And Yahushua made him knives of flint, and circumcised the children of Yisra’el at
Giv’at-ha-araloth.
4 And this is the cause, why Yahushua did circumcise all the people that came forth out
of Egypt that were males: even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way,
after they came forth out of Egypt.
5 For all the people that came out were circumcised, but all the people that were born in
the wilderness by the way, as they came forth out of Egypt, had not been circumcised.
6 For the children of Yisra’el walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the nation--
even the men of war that came forth out of Egypt--were consumed: because they
hearkened not unto the voice of YHWH, unto whom YHWH swore that He would not let
them see the land, which YHWH swore unto their fathers that He would give us--a land
flowing with milk and honey.
7 And He raised up their children in their stead; them did Yahushua circumcise, for they
were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised by the way.
8 And it came to pass, when all the nation were circumcised, every one of them, that
they abode in their places in the camp, till they were whole.
(Joshua 5:2-8 HRV)
-
-
OK Internet is back up for now, but we are told it may not last because the real problem is out on the main line and may not get fixed until tomorrow.
I have to got run an important errand and will be back in an hour or two, hopefully the service will still me up and I can finish answering questions and post some things I need to post.
-
Permalink Reply by Chandler Fulton on
-
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but keeping the commandments of Elohim is what matters.
If any of you become circumcised, he is a debtor to keep the whole Torah.
-
Permalink Reply by 命 on
-
Interesting that all these examples you listed were of special revelations.
It's as if the Bible assumes you can trust God when he says only the 8-day old should be circumcised, and need a SPECIAL REVELATION in cases where any other than an 8-day old is to be subject to the procedure, as in your examples.
Just read what you yourself quoted:
"And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: All the people who came out of Egypt who were males, all the men of war, had died in the wilderness on the way, after they had come out of Egypt."
The REASON they were circumcised, DESPITE not being 8 day old, is as outlined: because the Lord spoke to Joshua in a special revelation that was not at all a normative thing. Man can try to make void God's commandment, but he's just gonna fail. God set a specific time limit, and one can try to find excuses to avoid keeping that, but it's just gonna come over one's own head.
God told Joshua and the patriarchs a lot of things that applied only to them: like the commands to exterminate the Canaanites or war against the Amalekites. If you're bound to the same directives as Joshua, why don't you go out and lay siege to Ashdod or something ?
Ann Wilson said:Solomon:
I forgot to include the circumcision of the Sons of Israel just before entering the Promised Land in Joshua 5. I have a question for you, was this circumsision LIMITED to only the babies who were 8 days old? If they were you have a point, ALL THOSE WHO WERE UNCIRCUMCISED, who had been born in the wilderness were to be circumcised REGARDLESS OF THEIR AGE, you may need to reconsider your position against circumcision of adults:
Circumcision of the Sons of Israel
Josh 5:
2 At that time the LORD said to Joshua, "Make flint knives for yourself, and circumcise the sons of Israel again the second time."
3 So Joshua made flint knives for himself, and circumcised the sons of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.
4 And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: All the people who came out of Egypt who were males, all the men of war, had died in the wilderness on the way, after they had come out of Egypt.
5 For all the people who came out had been circumcised, but all the people born in the wilderness, on the way as they came out of Egypt, had not been circumcised
-
Permalink Reply by 命 on
-
Paul did not want people to be circumcised by compulsion, either by the offer of a reward or the threat of a punishment, but from their own heart, out of the fear (respect) of YHWH, not trying to earn anything. This was at odds with hie Essene opponent who was compelling circumcisions as a method of earning salvation.
Then the book of revelation shouldn't have been written, nor should your Catholic God have created the eternal hell you believe in.
James Trimm said:Even Titus that was with me, who was an Aramean,
was not compelled to be circumcised.
(Gal. 2:3 HRV)
“compelled” = The Aramaic word here is IT'ENAS literally “to be forced” from a root meaning “to act violently”.
The text is telling us not that Titus was not circumcised, but that he had done so voluntarily and not been circumcised by force as the Maccabeans had done:
Then Mattathias and his friends went round about, and pulled down the altars:
And what children soever they found within the coast of Israel uncircumcised,
those they circumcised by force.
1Macc. 2:45-46
In fact a comparison with Acts 15-16 will show that at this same time Timothy was also circumcised voluntarily and not by force.
Paul advocated the Pharisaic teaching of Antigones of Soko (who lived in the Maccabean era):
Antigones of Soko received [Torah] from Simeon the Righteous.
He used to say, “Be not like servants who serve their master
for the sake of wages, but be like servants who serve their
master with no thought of a wage – and let the fear
of Heaven be upon you.”
(m.Avot 1:3)
Paul did not want people to be circumcised by compulsion, either by the offer of a reward or the threat of a punishment, but from their own heart, out of the fear (respect) of YHWH, not trying to earn anything. This was at odds with hie Essene opponent who was compelling circumcisions as a method of earning salvation.
-
Permalink Reply by ImAHebrew on -
Shalom Everyone, I thought I would add to this discussion. It's really not as difficult as some imagine it to be in explaining about circumcision. The Council of Acts 15 occurred approximately 48-49 AD, and the decision was to allow Gentiles into fellowship with the Jewish believers by following the four necessary requirements, which excluded the command of circumcision. Then some 8 to 9 years later, Paul returns to Jerusalem amid rumors that he is teaching JEWS who were living amongst the Gentiles to forsake Moses, not to circumcise their children, or follow the customs (Oral Law). Now, there is a very KEY verse in Acts 21 that is very revealing, and it shows that the Jewish Believers were following the Oral and Written Torah, but the Gentiles were not under that demand, only the four necessary commands:
Act 21:25
(25) "But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication."
IF, and I say a big IF, the Gentiles were to be following the Oral or Written Torah as the Jewish Believers were, why 9 years after the Council of Acts 15 are the four necessary commands for the Gentiles reiterated? There are many that think the Gentiles would fall right in line and start to keep everything the Jewish Believers were keeping, but this verse proves that not to be the case. The Council of Acts 15 had the authority to loosen and remit those requirements for the Gentiles, and they did bind and retain them on the Jewish Believers. It's as simple as that. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.
-
-
Many have wrongly cited Acts 15 as proof that circumcision has been abolished:
1. And men came down from Y'hudah and were teaching the brothers,
Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of the Torah, you are not able to have life [eternal].
Comments:
In Acts 15 we have a halachic issue being settled by the Rosh Beit Din. In order to understand the proceedings of that meeting and its ruling we must know what the issue was that was before it. In this case Paul's position is not clearly spelled out in the pashat only his opponents' position is clearly spelled out in the pashat.
Pauls opponents' position is:
"Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of the Torah,
you are not able to have life [eternal]."
Now we must ask ourselves: "What are the implications or ramifications of this position?"
We have a good model to work from. A similar position is held today by a group called the "Church of Christ" also known as "Campbelites". These teach that a person must be baptized in order to be saved. This has resulted in a debate between them and other protestants (especially Baptists). The Baptists often pose the situation of a man who becomes a believer while across the street from a Church of Christ Church. He immediately runs across the street to get baptized and is hit by a truck and killed. the baptists point out that this man according to the Church of Christ position would not be saved. Many Church of Christ evangelists run around with keys to their church so that at any time they can go get that baptism immediately, perchance the person dies before an more opportune time comes.
This would also be the mindset of Paul's opponents of Acts 15:1. They would believe that that person should become circumcised immediately upon becoming a believer perchance they die before doing so.
The more traditional view in Judaism differs. The more traditional view is that since circumcision and immersion mark the point at which a person becomes a Jew, that they must learn the Torah first. This is because if they are circumcised and become a Jew before learning the 613 commandments of the Torah then they will immediately be violating commandments that they do not know, bringing judgement down upon our whole people (Deut. 28-29 & Lev. 26) . The traditional Jewish approach is therefore to teach the new believer the Torah first.
Now we can see from the remez what Paul's position is. The opponents are teaching that a person must be circumcised immediately to be saved and then taught the Torah. Paul was teaching that they should first learn the Torah.
2. And Paul and Bar Nabba had much strife and dispute with them. And it happened that they sent up Paul and Bar Nabba, and others with them, to the emissaries and elders who were in Yerushalayim, because of this dispute.
COMMENTS:
So they took the matter to the beit din.
3. And the assembly escorted [and] all of Phenicia and also among the
Samaritans while recounting concerning the conversion of the Gentiles, and causing great joy to all the brothers.
COMMENTS: Notice that Paul has been converting Gentiles !?!?!?!
4. And when they came to Yerushalayim, they were received by the
assembly and by the emissaries and by the elders, and they recounted to them all that Eloah had done with them.
5. And men stood up, those from the teaching of the Parushim who had believed, and were saying, It is necessary for you to circumcise them and you should command them to observe the Torah of Moshe.
COMMENTS:
Here the opponents argument is only abbreviated. Here it is stated as:
"It is necessary for you to circumcise them
and you should command them to observe the Torah of Moshe."
Why does it say this? This on the surface does not even look like the same argument they were making in Acst 15:1. However if we recall our remez it makes perfect sense. This is a statement of chronology:
[first] It is necessary for you to circumcise them
and [second] you should command them to observe the Torah of Moshe.
Now we can see that they are still making the same argument as in 15:1.
6. And the emissaries and elders were gathered to look into this matter.
7. And when there had been much debate, Shimon stood up and said to
them, Men, our brothers, you know that from the first days from my mouth, Eloah chose that the Gentiles should hear the word of the b'sorah and trust.
8. And Eloah, who knows what is in hearts, gave testimony concerning
them and gave to them the Ruach HaKodesh as [he did] to us.
9. And he made no distinction between us and them, because he
purified their hearts by trust.
COMMENTS: Kefa addresses the opponent's position as fully stated in Acts 15:1. He points to evidence (from Acts 10-11) that salvation precedes circumcision.
10. And now, why do you tempt Eloah so that you place a yoke upon the necks of the talmidim which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11. But by the favor of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah we believe to have life, like them.
COMMENTS: The "yoke" her in context is NOT the Torah (although often the Torah is likened to a yoke). The context here is clear. Kefa is calling the argument of Paul' opponents a "yoke". Thus the "Yoke" in this passage involves earning salvation by works such as circumcision.
Kefa appeals to the patriarchs as an example. Abraham for example was saved by trust first in Gen. 15:6 and was circumcised LATER in Gen. 17.
Now Kefa has given two case examples:
1. Cornelius and his house (Acts 10-11)
2. The patriarch (especially Abraham) (Gen. 15:6 & Gen. 17)
In both cases Kefa points out that salvation preceded circumcision. (although in at least one of them circumcision still came later).
12. And all the assembly was silent and listened to Paul and Bar Nabba
who were recounting everything Eloah had done by their hands: signs and mighty deeds among the Gentiles.
COMMENTS: This parallels verse 3 where Paul is recounting conversions. Paul is likening these cases to the two case examples that Kefa has presented.
13. And after they were quiet, Ya'akov stood up and said, Men, our
brothers, hear me.
14. Shimon recounted to you how Eloah began to choose from the Gentiles
a people for his name.
15. And to this the words of the prophets agree, like that which is
written,
16. After these [things] I will return and set up the tabernacle of
David which has fallen, and I will rebuild that which has fallen of it
and I will raise it up,
17. So that the remnant of men might seek YHWH, and all the Gentiles,
on whom my name is called, says YHWH who made all these [things].
18. The works of Eloah are known from old.
19. Because of this I say, They should not trouble those who from the
Gentiles have turned toward Eloah.
20. But let it be sent to them that they should separate [themselves]
from the uncleanness of that which is sacrificed [to idols] and from sexual immorality and from that which is strangled and from blood.
21. For Moshe, from the first generations, had proclaimers in every
city in the synagogues, who read him on every shabbat.
COMMENTS: A fuller version of the ruling is given below where verse 20 is expanded so I will comment upon it there.
However it is significant that Ya'akov presumes that these gentiles will be hearing [the Torah] of Moshe proclaimed in the synagogues on Shabbat.
Ya'akov seems to say here that the gentiles would need to maintain a minimum standard of purity and learn the Torah BEFORE becoming circumcised. Remember the issue being heard involves chronology of three things:
1. Becoming circumcised
2. Obtaining salvation/eternal life
3. Instruction in the Torah of Moshe
The above chronology is that of Paul's opponents. The beit din is determining if this is true or if another chronology should be followed, namely:
1. Obtaining salvation/eternal life
2. Instruction in the Torah of Moshe
3. Becoming circumcised
Paul's opponents placed circumcision first in the chronology, while Paul placed it last.
The beit-din agrees with Paul.
22. Then the Emissaries and elders, with all the assembly, chose men
from them and sent to Antioch, with Paul and Bar Nabba, Y'hudah who was called Bar Sabba, and Sila, men who were chiefs among the brothers.
23. And they wrote a letter by their hands [saying] thus: The
emissaries and elders and brothers, to those who are in Antioch and in
Syria and in Cilicia, brothers who are from the Gentiles, shalom.
24. It has been heard by us that men from us have gone out and
disturbed you with words and have upset your nefeshim while saying that you must be circumcised and observe the Torah, which we did not command them.
COMMENT: Again note the chronology of Paul's opponents:
[1] you must be circumcised
[2] and observe the Torah
Each of the three times their position is stated it is abbreviated more (15:1, 5 & 24)
If we put them altogether to get the fullest form of their argument we get:
"Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of the Torah,
you are not able to have life [eternal]."
[therefore] It is necessary for you to circumcise them [first]
and [second] you should command them to observe the Torah of Moshe.
25. Because of this, all of us, while gathered together, purposed and
chose men and sent to you, with our beloved Paul and Bar Nabba,
26. Men who have committed themselves on behalf of the name of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah.
27. And we have sent with them Y'hudah and Sila who will tell you these same [things] by speech.
28. For it was the will of the Ruach HaKodesh and also of us that a
greater burden should not be placed on you, outside of those [things] that are necessary,
29. That you should abstain from that which is sacrificed [to idols]
and from blood and from[that which] is strangled and from sexual
immorality, that as you keep your nefeshim from these, you will do well. Be steadfast in our Lord.
COMMENTS: Note the phrase "a greater burden" this is not an exhaustive list but the furthest parameters. The questionable areas made clear. There was no doubt as to whether gentiles could murder or steal so these are not listed. Thus the furthest limits of idolatry would extend to include eating meat offered to idols etc. With this in mind these closely parallel the seven laws of Noach. Also thse would set purity rules which would allow these gentiles to interact with the Torah observant community while learning the Torah.
-
Permalink Reply by ImAHebrew on
-
Shalom James, most of what you argue is mute because of Acts 21. The whole issue of Acts 21 with Paul returning to Jerusalem 9 years after the Council of Acts 15, is the false rumors that Paul is teaching Jews living amongst the Gentiles that they should forsake Moses, the circumcising of their children, and the customs. James tells him how many thousands of BELIEVING Jews were ZEALOUS for the Torah, and this false rumor would trouble these Jews at hearing Paul had arrived. James has Paul purify himself and pay all the expenses for four others under a vow so as to PROVE the rumors were false and that Paul walks orderly and keeps the Torah. But then James ADDS verse 25 in speaking about the GENTILES, and this is very telling. The Gentile believers were NOT obligated to be included with the binding of the Torah as the Jewish Believers were under. Please explain Acts 21:18-27:
Act 21:17-27 (KJV)
(17) And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
(18) And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
(19) And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
(20) And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
(21) And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
(22) What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
(23) Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
(24) Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
(25) As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
(26) Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
(27) And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew
-
-
Acts 21 is addressing the same issue as Acts 15, in fact it is repeating it. This is a minimum standard for Gentiles who are still learning the Torah before entering the covenant. Acts 21 is just re-affirming that Gentiles who are studying Torah and have not made the commitment of entering the Mosaic Covenant (thus becoming part of Am-Yisrael) need to keep these minimum standards.
© 2013 Created by James Trimm.
