The Acts 15 Decree

By Daniel Gregg — AM 6165 Cheshwan 15 — Oct 20, AD 2026

The history here is divided into sections:

The Jerusalem Council — Chronology

The Jerusalem council was in AD 49, 14 years from the conversion of Paul in AD 36. Paul spent three years in Arabia, escaping from Damascus in AD 38. His visit with Peter "after three years" (μετὰ ἔτη τρία) was in AD 39. Thus the three years and the fourteen years are counted concurrently from the same point, his conversion (cf. Gal. 1:18; 2:1). Following Hebrew usage אַחֲרֵי, μετὰ in Greek means after the completion of the third year.

The Galatians were converted to Messiah in the space of AD 47-48. The Antioch incident with Peter occurred in the spring of AD 49. The council took place in the early summer.

Key Theological Points

When some of the Pharisees, who had converted to Messiah Yeshua, formed a faction in the Jerusalem Assembly, they proclaimed, "It is necessary to be circumcising them, as well as [or besides] to be commanding them to be keeping the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). There is a nuance in the original text that is missed by almost every translation. The phrase τε τηρεῖν τὸν νόμον Μωϋσέως means "besides to keep the law of Moses", where the Greek τε means "besides" or "as well as." In this phrase, there is a tacit concession that the non-Jewish faithful had already been commanded to keep the Torah. But they had not specifically been commanded to be circumcised.

For this reason the interpretation that the council was about exempting the nations who came to Messiah from general Torah observance is false. Ya'akov's (James's) statement that Moses was preached in the congregations every Sabbath is the approval of teaching the nations to follow the Torah (cf. Acts 15:21). In this period, this is what was taught in the Jewish congregations of the Greek-speaking Jewish world. It was expected that converts would sit in the congregations and hear the teaching of the Torah every Sabbath. And in this period the Jewish leadership of these congregations (i.e. synagogues) had not cast out non-Jews who confessed Messiah from their midst, or for that matter Jews who confessed Messiah. This was not to occur until just before the Bar-Kockhba revolt (ca. AD 130). The only place the followers of Yeshua were banned from the congregation was in Judea.

So the issue was circumcision, and not Torah. I will break down the thesis, assumed by the Jerusalem Assembly, in summary fashion first. When the circumcision commandment was given to Abraham, the only parties who were required to undergo circumcision were Abraham himself, those born into his house, (including Ishmael), and those purchased with money in his house. [*This means that Abraham's private army of 318 men were circumcised*; a rexamination of the facts shows that yeled beito could just mean adopted into the house, so this opinion is under reconsideration] Genesis 17 leaves open the possibility of a ger (sojourner) or freeman joining Abraham's house. It says those who were circumcised were from those "born or bought, every male [one] among the men of the house of Abraham." Consequently, the circumcised are framed as a specific subset 'among the men of the house of Abraham.' This leaves the circumcision of adult gerim who converted into the house of Abraham as a voluntary matter, without compulsion.

Subsequently in the Book of Exodus, the ger is allowed to choose if he wants to be circumcised, but this choice only applies to converts. However, the sojourner was included in the house of Abraham, and now had to circumcise his sons. He was only barred from eating the Passover, because circumcision was a ritual purity matter. This bifurcation of ritual status within the family of a sojourner was a strong incentive to volunteer to be circumcised, but it was still not compulsion. Other native-born families would be expected to invite the circumcised sons to their own Passover sacrificial meal (Exodus 12:4). This is because the Passover law required a family to join a family so that the sacrifice would be entirely consumed.

The inclusion of the sojourners (gerim) in the house of Abraham, which later became known as the house of Israel, is proven because they are commanded to observe the Sabbaths (Exodus 20:10), and to afflict their souls along with the native-born on the Day of Purgings (Yom Kippurim). See Leviticus 16:29. Furthermore, the Scripture makes it plain that their sacrifices and offerings could be presented even though they were uncircumcised (Leviticus 22:18, Numbers 15:14-16). Ezekiel 44:7–9 later explicitly condemns bringing those uncircumcised in heart and flesh into the sanctuary, but contextually this refers to foreigners (bnei nekhar) acting as sanctuary guards or ministers, not the righteous ger bringing a prescribed offering.

The Torah enacts several legal precedents concerning circumcision. First, the Messenger of Yahweh threatened the life of Moses because he had not circumcised his son, while he himself was circumcised (Exodus 4:24-26). Yahweh did not chastise him right away, but waited till the final moment when he was on his way back to minister to the people of Israel. The delay was because Yahweh loved Moses and knew his wife was resisting the procedure. But he could not allow Moses to stand before the elders of Israel with an uncircumcised son.

Next, the children born on the way in the wilderness, after coming out of Egypt, were not circumcised (Joshua 5:4-7). This statement applies to the majority who came out of Egypt. Normally, any Israelite would circumcise his sons. But they neglected it because they had been placed under divine judgment to perish in the wilderness. Nevertheless, their children were converted anew, even though they had not been circumcised, while those who did not participate in the rebellion had continued to circumcise their sons. The precedent is this: divine judgment does not fall on the children of rebellious parents that withdraw from the covenant of old. However, the Most High drew the line in the sand after they crossed the Jordan River and came to the plain of Jericho at Gilgal. Since they were now going to inherit the land, and a huge mistake had been made in the wilderness, they were all at one time required to be circumcised, on account of the failure of their parents.

From these precedents, it is clear that those converted from paganism among the nations, if they were adult males, did not have to be circumcised to be gerim (Sojourners), to keep the Sabbaths, to bring offerings, or to fast on the Day of Purging. The latter were required, but circumcision was not. Yet, because they now belonged to Israel, they were required to circumcise their sons also. But, if a mass of Torah-observant christians migrated to Israel, who were not circumcised, then they would be required to be circumcised under the Gilgal precedent. However, if later individuals should migrate, the matter would still be voluntary. In this way, the community protects the covenant sign and the status of the guardians of the covenant.

Genesis 17 — Dismantling the Rabbinic Interpretation

At the beginning of Genesis 17 (vss. 1—9) the Most High refers to his covenant multiple times, as "My Covenant." And in fact, the covenant is never called "your covenant" referring to Abraham or his seed, or by any other possessive pronoun suggesting that Israel owns the covenant. This is a very profound distinction. It means that the Almighty is the exclusive owner of the covenant. Furthermore, the covenant referred to in Genesis 17 is the same one as in Genesis 15. So it has a prior existence while Abraham was uncircumcised. And this is exactly Paul's argument in Romans 4.

In Genesis 17:9 is the first injunction to "keep" the covenant, "And thou My covenant, thou shall keep, thou and thy seed after thee for their generations." The reward of keeping the covenant is to inherit the land of Israel, which the Most High gives to the seed of Israel. However, Abraham did not then inherit a square inch of land that he could call his own, saving the field of Ephron the Hittite (cf. Gen 23). The Canaanite held the title. He was a stranger and sojourner permitted to use the land, but not own. But it was the land of the Canaanites. And he died having received the promise, but not yet having inherited the land. And further, he was told that the iniquity of the Canaanites was not full yet, and so Yahweh was not going to take it yet from them (Gen. 15:16). If anyone still objects: see Acts 7:5.

Israel did not inherit the land until Joshua. But Abraham was not there. The promise is also to Abraham, and not only his seed (Gen. 13:15; 17:8). Consequently, Abraham must inherit the land in the Kingdom of the Almighty, when the dead are raised, and the New Jerusalem descends out of heaven. Moreover, Yahweh's covenantal promise, in his covenant, to Abraham and his seed is to be their God. And God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Matthew 22:31-32; Luke 20:37-38; Exodus 3:6). Consequently, Abraham has to live again for God to be his God. Otherwise the covenant is voided or broken.

For this reason Yahweh's covenant with Israel is a salvation covenant. It is a covenant which promises everlasting life to the faithful (cf. Romans 2:6-7), and notice Yeshua's answer to the question, "What must I do to have everlasting life?" (Matthew 19:16-17; Luke 10:25-28) We are now set up to transition to vs. 10.

"This [is] My Covenant, which ye shall guard between Me and between ye, and between thy seed after thee—being circumcised belonging to ye every male child." The equivocation at the beginning of the verse, "This is My covenant" is again the Most High invoking ownership over the covenant. Why does he do this? Because while he owns the covenant, he is going to appoint Abraham and his seed as its guardians. They are going to guard a sacred trust, the divine deposit. Israel is to be appointed the role of guardianship, and so to set Israel off as set apart from the nations for this task, the sign of circumcision is given. He says, "This is My covenant, which ye shall guard." By invoking divine ownership, the Most High is underlining an awesome and fearful responsibility to be entrusted to Israel. One must not mishandle a divine deposit or misplace it (1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:14; Acts 16:3-4).

I have translated the Hebrew word in verse 10, תִּשְׁמְרוּ, as "ye shall guard"; this could also be "ye shall watch over." This is a frequent meaning of the Hebrew verb לִשְׁמוֹר (Lishmor): to watch over or to guard. The covenant is guarded through circumcision, because those born or bought into the house are the most intimately familiar with the precepts and the most practiced in observing them. The sign also sets Israel apart so that the nations will know that the Most High has chosen Israel to keep watch over the promise of divine redemption. In verse 9, we met with the sense "to keep," which is accomplished by general covenant fidelity. In verse 10 we transition to a guardianship of the covenant itself. The reason is obvious. Circumcision itself is not the covenant; it is the sign of covenant guardianship. Circumcision does not keep the covenant because it is a physical sign. Keeping the covenant is only accomplished by circumcision of the heart. Abraham was faithful before being circumcised. That is, his heart was circumcised before he became a guardian of the covenant (cf. Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4; Deut. 30:6; Jer. 31:31-32).

"This [is] My Covenant, which ye shall guard between Me and between ye, and between thy seed after thee—being circumcised belonging to ye every male child." The final clause, "being circumcised belonging to ye every male child," qualifies "guard" so as to define the manner of how the guardianship is carried out out. Those watching over the covenant will be marked with circumcision. The guardians will be exemplary models of covenant faithfulness; the status is indicated by circumcision.

Circumcision is a role within the covenant people designating covenant guardianship. It does not include women in the house of Israel and it does not include the sojourner in the house of Israel, or the gerim who keep the Sabbath and the feasts and fast on Yom Kippurim, and whose offerings are acceptable at the altar, and who are fellow citizens of the house of Israel, who are no longer regarded as aliens (nochri), but who are fellow citizens. As the role of the priests is limited to the Levitical priests, so also the role of guardianship is limited to the circumcised men. For in Messiah Yeshua there is no Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or freeman, but all are one in the house of Israel, and in the bond of the covenant. However, only circumcised men are the guardians of the covenant.

However, the Rabbis reject this framework. Also that faction in the Jerusalem Assembly, which claimed that the nations could not be saved without circumcision, were deceived by the rabbinical theology. The Rabbis interpret vs. 10 this way, "This is My covenant which ye shall keep....being circumcised"; this is to say, they claim that the covenant is kept if one is circumcised, and not kept if one is not. Rabbinic theology elevates the efficacy of circumcision to literal salvation from the gates of Hell. In the Talmud (Eruvin 19a) and the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 48:8), it explicitly states that Abraham sits at the entrance of Gehinnom (Hell) to ensure that no circumcised Israelite descends into it. This is so much to the point that a circumcised Jew, even if uncircumcised in the heart, will still make it into heaven by virtue of the circumcision. For this reason the Talmud even has a provision to uncircumcise a wicked Jew at the last minute. And circumcision also conveys the merit of Abraham to any Jew who should need merit before God (Song of Songs Rabbah 2:9:1; The Mechilta d'Rabbi Ishmael (Pasha 5);.

I do believe that the Calvinists mention something similar. For like circumcision, they depend on predestination to be saved from the gates of Hell. However, they have the equivalent of reversing circumcision. It is called, evanescent grace. Through this doctrine, classical Calvinism explains how an individual who appears to display the fruits of election can ultimately fall away: God grants them a temporary, passing illumination that mimics true saving grace but ultimately fades. Just as the Talmud requires a supernatural stretching of the foreskin to strip a wicked Jew of his salvific sign, Calvinism utilizes evanescent grace as a theological loophole to explain the damnation of those who outwardly appeared secure in their election.

The Church and Synagogue Conspiracy

The Monks and Masoretes (the historical inheritors of the Jewish scribes in the Evangelists) conspired to produce the same mistranslations to support the rabbinic theology of circumcision, because the Church adopted the same theology for baptism. For this reason the Church tolerates Rabbinic Judaism in a junior partnership where the senior partner abuses the junior, but since the marriage was made in hell, they are stuck with each other (Luke 23:12; Acts 4:1-3). It is due to the fact that both hate another party more than each other: the true faithful who keep the faithfulness of Messiah Yeshua and obey the commandments of the Most High (Revelation 12:17; Revelation 14:12). This is why one finds the Church of Rome dialoguing with Judaism in a kind of rapprochement, but almost never with the true faithful. For example, Vatican II (1962—1965: Nostra aetate). When they do talk to the true faithful, they regret it, e.g. allowing Samuele Bacchiocchi into the Pontifical Gregorian University. When they abuse Judaism, they find it useful for deceiving Christians (For example, Anglican Priest John Lightfoot reasoning from Jewish definitions of the onah to overturn Matthew 12:40: Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae).

More specifically, I am talking about Genesis 17:14. The Rabbis wanted circumcision equated with inclusion in the Covenant, and uncircumcision equated with exclusion from it. And the Church wanted an iron clad argument for rejecting the Old Covenant. The Jewish scribes handed it right to them, and they copied it. The usual translation goes like this, "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant" (KJV); "And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant" (JPS). Even the Septuagint (LXX) doubles down, "καὶ ἀπερίτμητος ἄρσην ὃς οὐ περιτμηθήσεται τὴν σάρκα τῆς ἀκροβυστίας αὐτοῦ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ὀγδόῃ ἐξολεθρευθήσεται ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκείνη ἐκ τοῦ γένους αὐτῆς ὅτι τὴν διαθήκην μου διεσκέδασεν," "And an uncircumcised male, who shall not be circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin on the eighth day, that soul shall be utterly destroyed from its kindred, because he has scattered my covenant."

This suits Judaism to claim the old covenant and exclude the uncircumcised, which also excludes the ger toshav from the covenant. And it suits the Church to exclude Christians from the Old Covenant. It leads to the conclusion that only the circumcised Jew can be a member of the covenant, and that the nations cannot enter in to Israel. This is the exact issue that the mass of the Jews, whom Paul spoke to in the Temple, rioted over (Acts 21:27–31). But really it is the Covenant of Old, and not the Old Covenant as defined by the Church, or the covenant as defined by Judaism. The Covenant of Old (Brit Olam) as defined by the Torah Law allows the nations to approach. It allows the uncircumcised ger to keep Sabbath, Yom Kippur, and to bring offerings.

The later Rabbinic distinction between Ger Toshav and Ger Tzedek is unbiblical, i.e. not according to Torah. For example, Eliyahu the Prophet is called Eliyahu HaTishbi. However, this is really Eliyahu Ha Toshavi (1 Kings 17:1). No doubt he was circumcised, but not at first. Why exclude him when he was new in faithfulness, just as Abraham was new in faithfulness and under Yahweh's covenant while he was uncircumcised. Ok, so now we go back to Genesis 17:14 to see what it really says.

The Battle of Siddim was fought when Abraham was 85, and in this same year was the covenant of the pieces (Genesis 15) where Yahweh says he will give Canaan to Abraham. Ishmael was born in his 86th year. And then Abraham was circumcised in his 99th year. This is inclusively counted as 14 years. This is how long it took Rabbi Paul of Tarsus to learn what the Torah really said about Abraham and circumcision. Just as Abraham went 14 years uncircumcised, so Paul took 14 years to bring correction to the Jerusalem Assembly regarding the rabbinical corruption of Torah on this issue.

The Torah says, "And the uncircumcised male child, which he will not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, even that soul shall have cut itself from its people. My covenant he will have caused to break." The difference here is that the focus is on the man who does not circumcise his son, yamul (יָמוּל) vs. yimmol (יִמּוֹל). Since the man himself is circumcised, and the judgment is on him, we see that the physical circumcision was not efficacious to prevent the judgment. The uncircumcised son who has a foreskin is regarded as being the foreskin of the father, because the father is the owner of the son. And this is precisely what happened to Moses on the road back to Egypt (Exodus 4:24–26). The Messenger of Yahweh was threatening him, and not his son. Yahweh judged the circumcised in the rebellion of the ten spies, and they fell in the wilderness, but their sons, whom they had failed to circumcise on the way, he brought into the land of Canaan, over the Jordan, and there he circumcised them in the land. The circumcision problem was repaired at Gilgal. On the other hand, I note that he allowed them to cross the Jordan uncircumcised. They all crossed through the flood and were saved, before they were circumcised.

"My covenant he will have caused to break." Why is this? Because the circumcised are appointed guardians of the covenant. If there are no guardians, then the covenant is caused to break. It is not saying the uncircumcised man-child causes the covenant to break. When the father fails to carry out the commandment, he is the one who is causing the covenant to break. That is, it is a circumcised person that is causing the covenant to break. The child cannot cause anything. The body has no power to influence the choice of whether he is circumcised or not. The Hebrew verb used here is הֵפַר (hephar), which is the Hiphil (causative active) form of the root parar. It literally means "he caused to break" or "he frustrated/annulled." A newborn infant cannot cause a covenant to be annulled; only the accountable guardian assigned to maintain it can do so.

In Genesis 17:11, circumcision is for the "sign" of the covenant, Hebrew: לְא֣וֹת. A sign is not the covenant itself. It is Yahweh's covenant, and not the circumcised ones' covenant, because he calls it "My Covenant." Genesis 17:13b, "And will have come to pass My covenant through the flesh of you all as a Covenant of Old." Again, I avoid equating circumcision with the covenant through careful translation here. The preposition attached to the Hebrew, בִּבְשַׂרְכֶ֖ם, expresses agency. Because the guardians of the covenant are marked with the covenant sign, they will watch over the covenant by passing on their knowledge of it from generation to generation. And thereby, the covenant will become the covenant of old, that is the everlasting covenant. Again, it is not "My covenant in your flesh," but it is "My covenant by/through your flesh will have been a covenant of old."

The Rabbis React to Paul

§1.0 He says this is My covenant which ye shall guard...[by] being circumcised (Gen. 17:10). It is permitted to also say that circumcision is keeping the covenant so long as it is recognized that it is keeping part of it for a purpose, to guard it. It is not permitted to claim it is keeping all of it so that circumcision amounts to general faithfulness keeping one in a state of grace, i.e. divine favor, hesed, loving-kindness. So while emphasizing the role of guardianship, it is not to be said there is no keeping of a necessary commandment. But this commandment only applies to males born in the house or bought with money. The circumcision of Abraham himself is a special one-time-commandment (Mitzvah L'Sha'ah), in the same category as the commands to put blood on the door posts in Egypt, or to eat the Passover with your staff in your hand.

The role of guardianship of the estate does not mean the guard owns the estate. The role does not activate the state of grace or the inheritance. But the role is ideally entrusted to those who are already stand in a state of salvific favor. In Genesis 15, Abraham is already in a state of divine favor, having a settled salvation status. It has, "He had been holding faithful through Yahweh, and he has been intending it to be righteousness" (Gen. 15:6). The point is the reward would be righteousness. This is the double meaning of the text. The other meaning is that Yahweh did think his faithfulness was righteousness. So salvation is from faithfulness to faithfulness, divine faithfulness working with our faithfulness. It must be understood that there was a 14 year gap before Abraham was circumcised, and that he had been in the land as a sojourner ger for 24 years, minus the brief time in Egypt. Abraham, thus, is the model of the uncircumcised ger who is accorded the status of salvation. How do the Rabbis counter this? How do they refute this obvious example of a ger whose example we may follow by walking in the faithfulness he had before being circumcised? Indeed, even though we be circumcised, we walk in the same faithfulness that Abraham walking in before being circumcised, and in the same state of divine favor.

The first rabbinic strategy is to demote Abraham's faithfulness in Genesis 15:6 to a one time act of faith in the promise and not a general faithfulness. In order to pull this off, they have to move Genesis 15 backwards in time to when Abraham was 70. According to Seder Olam Abraham was seventy years old at the covenant of the pieces in Genesis 15. In order to pull off this fraud, they claim that Abraham made a special temporary business trip to Canaan to be involved in the covenant of pieces, and then returned to Haran. But Genesis 15:1 says, "After these things," i.e. that Battle of Siddim, which took place in Abraham's 85th year. So Abraham had been walking with the Most High for quite some time. He had been departed from his father's idolatrous house the whole time.

By moving the timeline back, the Rabbis hope to make Abraham's faith an initial partial belief in God, and to deny that it is a time tested, "holding faithful through Yahweh" that indicates a salvation status. They wish it to be a mere nod of intellectual assent. Furthermore, they reduce Gen. 15:6 to "he had an act of faithfulness in Yahweh," rejecting an agentive sense of "in", which in English we render "through" or "by". Why? Because to admit that Abraham is being supplied by Yahweh's faithfulness, his righteousness, is to admit to a state of grace! The text clearly speaks of the cooperative faithfulness, "And he had been holding faithful through Yahweh." It was not just "in" Yahweh in a sense where Yahweh was not helping to hold Abraham up. For he said I am your very great reward. I am your shield. What he ultimately meant was his righteousness through the purifying blood of the divine seed: Messiah. He was shielding him from spiritual darkness. But he was already giving it to him. We just find out later that it was coming through Messiah who was with the Most High from the start, and the Word was Almighty.

Next, the Rabbis take the righteousness in Genesis 15:6 and turn it into a deposit of merit. It is Abraham's deposit of merit that is put in the divine bank account, held in trust. But there is yet no activation key, i.e. PIN number by which Abraham's seed can access it. In fact, Abraham himself cannot access it. By this subterfuge the Rabbis managed to render Abraham into a state less than grace. Perhaps somewhere between damned and grace, but not in a state of grace, because to admit so would be to acknowledge that the ger in a state of uncircumcision was saved per the terms of the covenant in Genesis 15. At that point, no specific terms were stated. However, the Rabbis reveal the key that unlocks the state of grace: circumcision.

The rabbinic argument: no matter how much of the covenant one faithfully keeps before circumcision, only circumcision is regarded as the complete keeping of the covenant, so as to make one whole. Only circumcision activates the merit necessary to offset or cancel out any continuing demerits. Abraham could not unlock this for himself or his offspring until he was circumcised. Orlah (Uncircumcision), they claimed literally blocked the heart from the reception of spiritual things. But these spiritual things Abraham had before. By moving the covenant of the pieces back they undermined the very texts that acknowledge that Abraham was spiritually receptive. They invented the Ger Tzedek as a distinct category separate from a Ger Toshav, saying the former was circumcised, and the latter was not. They legally downgraded the ger toshav to the status of "unsaved," or at the very best in salvific legal limbo, without assurance concerning the validity of their faithfulness.

The Rabbis also have the ultimate escape hatch, which seems rather contradictory to the first points. They claim that Abraham kept the whole law before he was circumcised. "Abraham our father fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given... even the rabbinic ordinance of the cooking wrap (Eruv Tavshilin)." — Talmud Yoma 28b. They argued that Genesis 26:5, "Because Abraham kept my laws" is in the plural that this means all of it. They put Torah into timeless Eternity, a nod to Hellenistic thought, and this enables them to erase Abraham's non-compliance with circumcision while in the land, by a philosophic twist. But as I noted, this point is contradictory to the need to move the covenant of the pieces back to when he was age 70!

Because Abraham is circumcised in eternity keeping all the Torah, but not circumcised while a ger toshav, the rabbinic arguments mirror the legendary Schrödinger’s Cat. The cat is dead, but the cat is not dead. Abraham is spiritually dead, but not spiritually dead. Whichever state the Rabbis wish to assert is applied by their authority to whichever state is apologetically useful in any given situation.

The Circumcision Faction

"And some men came down from Yehudah and were teaching the brothers, 'If you are not circumcised according to the custom of Moshe, you cannot be rescued'" (Acts 15:1, GNM). 'Rescued' is used here in the GNM text as a synonym for saved. However, I mean it as rescued from the power of sin and moral corruption in the heart, as well as from final judgment. Getting saved from final death is just part of the meaning. This faction was teaching rabbinic doctrine born out of the Hasmonean conquests, where circumcision was forced upon the nations that lay around them. Circumcision was transformed into a salvific necessity as the literal boundary line for escaping from divine wrath. The Rabbis kept refining this in opposition to Paul. In the Torah Law, the ger toshav was not considered unsaved. But we have discussed this already. Because of this doctrine that circumcision is necessary for salvation, the faction that taught it was called 'the circumcision.' It does not mean circumcised Jews, or all Jewish teachers. 'The circumcision' means those who taught circumcision was necessary for salvation. This yoke was born out of a Hasmonean-era, hyper-nationalistic, salvific corruption of circumcision—which directly violated the Torah's open provisions for the ger toshav. Even Josephus objected to forced circumcision.

The Rabbis, however, speak like this so they can control the gates of heaven. At other times they relax the stipulation, and say that non-Jews can keep the Noahide commandments and have a place in the life to come. Even so, they keep the covenants of promise away from the non-Jews. It does not seem that the Rabbinic faction opened its mouth in the same way at the Jerusalem Council as before it. There, they, or likeminded Jewish teachers, only said, "It is necessary to be circumcising them, besides to be commanding them to be keeping the law of Moshe" (GNM, Acts 15:5). But to compel the non-Jewish ger to circumcision, who lives in the covenant, contravenes the instruction in Exodus, which says it is necessary only if he wants to eat the Passover sacrifice. Notice the passive language "to be circumcising them." The idea appears to concede that they are to obey the Torah-Law from the heart, but we must make them circumcised.

It should be understood here, that the issue is not about gerim circumcising their sons. This much is clear for anyone in the covenant. The issue is, as adult men, do they have to be circumcised? And furthermore, the question is in the context that they generally live in the exile, and not in the land of Israel. The precedent set by Joshua was that circumcision is not legally required until they come to the land en masse, as a large migration. The Torah actually gives an exemption to males who are not 'born in the house or bought into the house with money.' And the command for the circumcision of Abraham himself sets a delay precedent, during which time he was fully saved, and not pseudo-saved per rabbinic doctrine. The covenant was announced in Genesis 15, years after Abraham had departed from his father's house in obedience to Yahweh's command. And then he walks in faithfulness another 14 years before being circumcised.

Peter stood up and said, "The Almighty made a choice among you, that by my mouth the nations should hear the word of the good news also, to pledge faithfulness. And the Almighty, who knows the heart, has borne witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he also did to us, and he has made no distinction between us besides, even for them because of the pledge of faithfulness having purified their hearts" (Acts 15:7-9). And, "We hold faithful to be rescued through the loving-kindness of Adonai Yeshua, in the same way as they also are."

Peter is responding directly to the false rabbinical teaching that circumcision is a salvific necessity. But note this, he is saying that faithfulness from the heart, and purification from sin is necessary! And being faithful means keeping the commandments, just as is made plain by Yeshua's answer to the rich young ruler's question, "What must I do to have everlasting life?" And his answer? "Keep the commandments." The only way Peter gets away with this is if he knows that the Torah does not command the adult non-Jews to be circumcised. And this is just as we have demonstrated. The adult gerim do not have to be circumcised. But they must integrate into the community of Israel by circumcising their own sons, because the penalty of excision only applies to the man who does not circumcise his son.

Peter's commentary completely denies the rabbinic notion that Abraham's faith was tentative in Genesis 15. It was full-fledged salvific faithfulness. The fact that the rabbis moved Genesis 15 all the way back to when Abraham was still with Terah, at age 70, actually reinforces Peter's correctness. The non-Jew enters into the covenant in Genesis 15, and like Abraham lives uncircumcised in the land for 14 years or for longer if in the Wilderness of the Nations (Ezekiel 20:35), and yet during this time, "there is no distinction between us," and "We hold faithful to be rescued through the loving-kindness of Adonai Yeshua, in the same way as they also are."

It fully appears that Peter has been completely won over by the research of Paul during the 14 years between his conversion and the Jerusalem council.

The Decrees

Why did the Council only list four requirements? It is evident that we do not have the whole text of the decrees (Acts 16:4). What we have is the barest summary, as if Luke knew they could be looked up or were known far and wide. Scholars agree that early scribes struggle with the incompleteness of Luke's text. The four requirements are the bare minimum to get the repenting ger toshav into the Synagogue door, where they can hear the rest of the instruction from the Torah. The convert must be holding themselves back from (ἀπέχεσθαι) (1) anything polluted by an idol, (2) blood consumption, (3) anything strangled, (4) sexual immorality. The rest they will learn in the Synagogue (Acts 15:21). But obviously they cannot get there without these four things.

In the places where the nations were converted, about one in three or one in four persons was a slave. Please notice that there is no prohibition against idolatry on the list. This is because this is the one absolute that is taken for granted. Even a slave committed to Messiah was not allowed to practice idolatry. Even if a master tried to force it on them, they could not consent to any voluntary act of worship. They would be innocent if their master beat them to the floor in front of an idol (e.g. Naaman the Syrian; 2 Kings 5:17–19). But most masters were not this despotic. There was no economic value in forcing such compliance.

If a master forced his slave to break Sabbath, then the slave was innocent. If the master was selling his slave as a prostitute, then the slave was innocent, because they had no choice. For this reason the decree says the faithful should "hold themselves back" from these things, i.e. not consent to them when they had a choice. This is not just a one-sided issue. He who is faithful in a little will be given more. For the newly faithful in such situations, faithfulness not to consent to such things when there is a choice, saving only idolatry for which there is never permission, would bring death and the resurrection of the righteous or immediate divine intervention and rescue.

The wording of the decree is, in fact the secret to why the faith advanced greatly in the pagan Roman empire. The council was not giving an ideal list of precepts for a free land. They were giving the lowest level of precepts for combating paganism. By focusing on voluntary consent, the Apostles gave the lowliest Roman slave a path of pure righteousness. The slave couldn't control their master's whip or commercial assignments, but they could control their internal allegiance to YHWH. "And I, should not have compassion on Nineveh the great city, which has in it more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?” "The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here" (Matthew 12:41).

placeholder