Should Christians Keep the Law of Moses?

The “traditional” view of Acts 15 is that the Apostles and elders gathered in Jerusalem to debate whether or not the Gentiles needed to observe the Law of Moses. The conclusion of the council was that the Gentiles did not need to observe circumcision or the Law of Moses. Peter and the others present concluded that the “yoke” of the Law of Moses was not to be placed on the Gentiles. Some have challenged this interpretation, suggesting that the debate wasn’t over whether Gentiles should observe the Law, that was already agreed upon, but whether the Law should be kept as a means of salvation by works. They suggest the two debated positions were as follows:

1. Gentiles should observe the Law of Moses to obtain salvation through the works of the Law (15:1).

2. Gentiles should observe the Law, but not to obtain salvation through works, rather salvation comes through faith in Christ, and the Gentile’s obedience to the Law stems from their faith in Jesus (15:5).

Why is this “new” interpretation important to consider? Because it suggests that the early believers were already agreed that Gentiles needed to observe the the Law of Moses. How is this interpretation supported?

The “new” interpretation (as we’ll call it), hinges largely around 2 verses, Acts 15:1 and Acts 15:5. Acts 15:1 – But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. Acts 15:5 – But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”

In these two verses, those who support the “new” interpretation see two groups of people:

1. In verse 1, they see non-believers who were demanding that the Gentiles keep the Law

of Moses to obtain salvation by works.

2. In verse 5, they see believers who were suggesting the Gentiles needed to keep the Law

of Moses, but not for the purpose of obtaining salvation by works.

The supporters of the “new” interpretation suggest the debate in Acts 15 was a debate over these two issues.

Problems with the “New” Interpretation of verse Acts 15:1 and 15:5

I see several problems with interpreting the text this way:

1. In verse 1 and verse 5 there is nothing stated about salvation by works vs. salvation by faith. Those who distinguish these verses along those lines are reading the distinction into the text. Verse 1 and verse 5 state the same thing with only slightly differing words, that the Gentiles must be circumcised and observe the Law. Acts 15:1 says the Gentiles “cannot be saved” without keeping the Law, while Acts 15:5 says it is “necessary” for them to keep the Law. These verses present the position of one party (those opposed to Paul), not two separate parties.

2. The suggestion that those in Acts 15:1 were unbelievers while those in Acts 15:5 were

believers is unsupportable by the text. In fact, the text seems to contradict it, which is key, because the “new” interpretation lives-and-dies on this point. Acts 15:1 simply states that the men were “men… from Judea.” A key detail which seems to contradict the “new” interpretation is found in Acts 15:24, where James writes that those of Acts 15:1, “have gone out from us and troubled you.” The men of Acts 15:1 were once in Judea and were once associated with the Apostles, which strongly suggests they were believers from Jerusalem (matching the description of those in Acts 15:5). The natural reading of the text is that those in Acts 15:1 and Acts 15:5 are the same, representing only one side of the debate, not both. Acts 15:1 and Acts 15:5 articulate the position of believers who were mixed up about how the Law applied to Gentiles.

3. The natural reading of the text is that Paul and Barnabas were in opposition to those in Acts 15:5. This is seen by the word “but” in the opening of verse Paul and Barnabas werepresenting their good work amongst the Gentiles BUT those of the Pharisee party weren’t in agreement with them. This once again shows that those in Acts 15:1 and Acts 15:5 were the same group, the group that opposed Paul, the Apostles, and the final decision of James when they concluded the Gentiles did not need to observe the Law. Acts 15:4-5 – When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the Law of Moses.”

The Decision of the Council and Acts 15:21

In the “traditional” view, the council ultimately decided “not to trouble” (15:19) the Gentiles with the “yoke” (15:10) of observing the Law of Moses. They wrote a letter to Gentile believers explaining their conclusion and instructing them to avoid certain behaviors which would have been immediately repelling to their Jewish neighbors. Gentiles were to abstain from “things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.” (15:20). Abstaining from these things was important, in some cases, for personal purity, and in other cases, not to cause offense. The Laws of Moses had been preached to the Jews all around the world in their synagogues, so the Gentiles needed to be careful because they were bound to interact with Jewish Christians that had been raised with sensitivities tuned to the Law of Moses (this is the reason for the inclusion of the statement in Acts 15:21). TheGentiles didn’t need to observe the Law themselves, but they needed to be mindful of those who had been raised to keep the Law. Those who espouse the “new” interpretation are fond of saying the traditionalists have no interpretation for verse 21, which I hope I’ve just demonstrated is false. They suggest that in Acts 15:20, James was prescribing the Gentile believers to start keeping the Law of Moses by eliminating 4 “big sins.” They then suggest verse 21 is James’ recommendation for the Gentiles to learn the rest of the Laws of Moses progressively.

This interpretation is weak for several reasons:

1. The four prohibitions mentioned by James were not pieces of the Law of Moses that were being bound on Gentiles. We know this with certainty, because Paul later clarifies in 1 Corinthians that it wasn’t always a sin for believers to buy and eat things that had been offered to idols. Therefore, it is unsupportable to suggest that these 4 prohibitions were unchangeable laws that Gentile believers were required to observe. These 4 prohibitions were not James’ primer to the Gentiles on how to keep the Law of Moses.

2. The suggestion that verse 21 is James’ instruction for the new Gentile believers to attend synagogue to learn about the Law of Moses is strange at best. Many, almost certainly the majority, of the synagogues around the world were controlled by Jews who still rejected the Messiah. We know this from Paul’s preaching and the general rejection of Jesus by the Jews. Nowhere in the Scriptures, to my knowledge, do we ever see new Gentile believers attending synagogue to learn the Laws of Moses.

3. The 4 prohibitions are mentioned a second time in Acts 21:25, but that passage makes no mention of the Gentiles continuing on to learn the Laws of Moses. The absence of the instruction suggested the “traditional” interpretation of Acts 15:1, 5, and 21 is the correct one.

If you would like to learn more about the Bible, check out our Youtube channel!