Acts 15

[Guest Ken Rank]

In Acts 15, we see that Paul and Barnabas has a dispute with some who came down from Judea. I am wondering what you all see as the underlying dispute. Is it as simple as "a man need not be circumcised to be saved," or is there a deeper underlying factor? I will wait to share my understanding.

I look forward to your responses!

Peace.

Ken

[Guest Ken Rank]

Well, since nobody seems interested, I will share what we have been discussing at our congregation.

Before Messiah, the two schools of Hebrew teaching, Hillel and Shamai, engaged in a great debate. The debate centered around what to expect (and what the requirements should be) concerning converts to Judaism. Hillel, who taught "the spirit of the law," declared that not much should be expected of gentile converts to Judaism at first, and stated that they should only be expected to not eat the food of idols, things strangled, refrain from fornication, and of course from idolatry. Hillel believed they could be taught deeper things as they go. Shamai, who taught the letter of the law, stated his position to be that on top of these things, converts needed to know all laws, get circumcised, and other requirements that made becoming a Jew very difficult. Ultimately, Shamai won the debate and I suspect that the wall of enmity between Jews and gentiles was created from decisions like this.

Those contending with Paul and Barnabas were taking the position of Shamai, the accepted practice of that day, while Paul and Barnabas were taking the Hillel or spirit of the law position. So we suspect that the debate in Acts 15 was the very same 40-50 year old argument. However, this time, the "spirit of the law" was the decision and a gentile follower of Yehoshua was NOT expected to be a meat eating disciple from the beginning, that they would simply do those things listed in the letter to the gentiles (the same things Hillel had argued for earlier) and those believing gentiles would learn as they grow.

Peace.

Ken

[leoxiii]

And yet the Scripture does not say: "It hath seemed good to both us and Hillel," but, rather, the Scripture says: "It hath seemed good to both us and the Holy Spirit."

Do we understand this Scripture to mean that the Apostles and Elders, guided by the Holy Spirit, made a judgment for Pharisaical Judaism?

Should we not, rather, understand this passage as the Apostles and Elders, guided by the Holy Spirit, making a judgment for the Church established by Christ, which Saint John refers to as "The New Jerusalem".

[Guest Ken Rank]

And yet the Scripture does not say: "It hath seemed good to both us and Hillel," but, rather, the Scripture says: "It hath seemed good to both us and the Holy Spirit."

Do we understand this Scripture to mean that the Apostles and Elders, guided by the Holy Spirit, made a judgment for Pharisaical Judaism?

Should we not, rather, understand this passage as the Apostles and Elders, guided by the Holy Spirit, making a judgment for the Church established by Christ, which Saint John refers to as "The New Jerusalem".

The current state of rabbinic Judaism mirrors the teachings of Shamai. However, much of what is practiced in Judaism does not align to scripture. Moses wrote "all the words of Torah," and later wrote not to add or diminish from those words. When a group takes 7 Sabbath laws and turns them into 39 categories and 4000 laws, Torah has been added to. My point is not in bashing Jews, I love them as brothers and disagree on this point. But Hillel taught the spirit of the law which mirrors the actual teachings of Torah better than Shamai's "letter of the law" approach. Yehoshua Messiah taught from a spirit of the law standpoint. NOT because Hillel did, but because scripture itself does. So my point in sharing the above was to simply point our that there were those who held to Shamai's position and expected gentile converts to the faith to get circumcised or else they cannot be a follower. The council disagreed and took Yehoshua's view, and declared only a few changes in life at the beginning of a gentle's walk in faith, knowing they would be taught the rest later. It was the same debate that Hillel and Shamai had many years earlier.

You should have been able to discern that without me having to spell it all out. I do not exalt Hillel... just pointing out it was the same arguement Judaism had dealt with before Messiah.

Peace.

Ken