Part 3
The controversial verses of Acts 15
Acts 15:20 is of great importance to Jehovah’s Witnesses, because their policy on blood was established on the basis of their interpretation of this verse:-
“Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.” NIV (Acts 15:20)
These instructions were based on the list of requirements stipulated in the Mosaic Law and were to be obeyed by the Gentile converts to Judaism…see: Leviticus 17:7-18:30. (A religious proselyte was also required to follow the rest of the Law, including circumcision).
Acts 15:20 is one of the most quoted in JW apologetics. It is used to assert that all true Christians are under obligation from God to obey the four listed requirements.
However, this verse appears to fly in the face of all of the preceding evidence that indicates the contrary position. It doesn’t fit with the fact that God had openly demonstrated His acceptance and approval of Gentiles without expecting them to be bound to the Law and that He had allowed this to continue with no objection for 13 years.
The reason for requiring Gentiles to “abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood”
Does verse 20 necessarily say what Jehovah’s Witnesses claim it does?
The verse that follows it says:-
“For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”” NIV (Acts 15:21)
Another translation puts it:-
“For the Law of Moses has been read for a very long time in the synagogues every Sabbath, and his words are preached in every town.” GNT
Yet another paraphrases it this way:-
“For these things have been preached against in Jewish synagogues in every city on every Sabbath for many generations.” TLB
The reason these requirements were given to the Gentile brothers was not because they were under obligation to observe any part of the Law. By tradition, the Law was preached in every Jewish synagogue in every town every week, reinforcing the importance of abstaining from the proscribed items in the eyes of the Jews. So if a Gentile did not observe those parts of the Law, or more importantly, was publicly seen to be ignoring them, Jewish sensibilities would be highly offended and upset.
The Gentiles were instructed to follow those aspects of the Law only to facilitate their acceptance into the Christian community, so they could avoid upsetting long held Jewish sensitivities and integrate more smoothly. It was a compromise for the sake of the Jewish Christians who were protesting at the Council of Jerusalem, and was advised in order to aid the smooth running of the congregations.
Deferring to the sensibilities of the Jews
Is there any biblical evidence to back up this rendition of Acts 15?
We have already seen how problematic it was for the Jewish brothers after the People of the Nations were incorporated into the church. But there are also several other examples that harmonise with the idea that Acts 15:28,29 was merely a concession made at the time for the sake of the Jews.
Directly after the Council of Jerusalem it says in Acts 16:1-3:-
“16 So he arrived at Derbe and also at Lystra. And, look! a certain disciple was there by the name of Timothy, the son of a believing Jewish woman but of a Greek father, 2 and he was well reported on by the brothers in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul expressed the desire for this man to go out with him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for one and all knew that his father was a Greek.”
There are parallels in these scriptures with the circumstances in Acts 15. Even though it had very recently been established that it would be perfectly acceptable for Timothy to accompany Paul despite being uncircumcised, nevertheless Paul carried out the ritual procedure on Timothy in compliance with the Law. It was entirely unnecessary but the reason was… because of the opinion of the Jews.
Ironically, the very message Timothy was about to deliver to the congregations, was the decisions made at the Council of Jerusalem about the lack of necessity for Gentiles to be circumcised.
So again we have a situation where a Gentile needlessly defers to a certain aspect of the Law, out of consideration for the Jews, despite there being no obligation to do so.
Deference to the Jews during another trip to Jerusalem
In Acts 21:18-26 we find yet another revealing example that took place in 56 C.E.
“18 But on the following [day] Paul went in with us to James; and all the older men were present. 19 And he greeted them and began giving in detail, an account of the things God did among the nations through his ministry.
20 After hearing this they began to glorify God, and they said to him: “You behold, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews; and they are all zealous for the Law. 21 But they have heard it rumoured about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them neither to circumcise their children nor to walk in the [solemn] customs.” (Acts 21:18-21)
Paul related his experiences regarding the Gentiles, which prompted the elders in Jerusalem to express their concerns over the Jewish brothers and their over-zealousness for the Law. This zeal caused them to take issue with what Paul preached in his ministry and view him in a bad light.
It is odd that the rumours about Paul which concerned the elders, although embellished, were not far from the truth. (1 Corinthians 7:18,19 ; Romans 7:6 ; 10:4 ; Galatians 5:1-3,6,11)
So why were the elders apprehensive concerning the opinions that the Jewish brothers were expressing about Paul?
Acts 21:22-24 says:-
“ 22 What, then, is to be done about it? In any case they are going to hear you have arrived. 23 Therefore do this which we tell you: We have four men with a vow upon themselves. 24 Take these men along and cleanse yourself ceremonially with them and take care of their expenses, that they may have their heads shaved. And so everybody will know that there is nothing to the rumours they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly, you yourself also keeping the Law.”
The elders in Jerusalem were worried about upsetting the sensibilities of the Jewish Christians, whose zealous passion for the Law caused them to be easily offended.
So they asked Paul and his companions to make an ostentatious display of complying with the Law as a pragmatic means to appease the Jews who were still under a misapprehension about God’s requirements. Paul complied and made a purposeful and conspicuous display of compliance so as to reassure and not stumble the Jewish brothers.
However, it was not only Paul and his companions who had been asked to follow the Law for the sake of the Jewish brothers. Acts continues:-
“25 As for the believers from among the nations, we have sent out, rendering our decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.””
…or as another translation paraphrases:-
“As for the Gentile Christians, we aren’t asking them to follow these Jewish customs at all – except for the ones we wrote to them about: not to eat food offered to idols, not to eat unbled meat from strangled animals, and not to commit fornication.” TLB
The scriptures in Acts 21:18-26 reveal the true nature behind the decisions made at the Council of Jerusalem. In context, it becomes evident that the ‘People of the Nations’ were only being asked to observe part of the Law again so as not to offend the Jews and the Jewish brothers.
This understanding is confirmed by what happens next.
“. . .“Men of Israel, help! This is the man that teaches everybody everywhere against the people and the Law and this place and, what is more, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”” (Acts 21:28)
The plot devised by the elders to appease the Jews had failed. Even though Paul, his companions and the Gentiles had all made a token gesture of following the Law, the people were still offended. Paul’s presence in Jerusalem riled the Jews.
But it is interesting to note that the accusation against Paul, among other things, was that he ‘brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled’ their place of worship.
The fact that the Jews were seeking to kill Paul shows just how volatile the situation was, and explains precisely why the Gentiles were asked to observe parts of the Law at the Council of Jerusalem. It was not because they were under obligation to follow any part of the Law. It was to ensure the Jews were not offended by their presence, as demonstrated in Acts 16 and 21.
Complying with those parts of the Law created the outward impression that the Gentile brothers were proselyte converts, when it truth they were not. (Compare Deuteronomy 14:21 against Leviticus 17:10) The decision made at the Council of Jerusalem overcame the religious objections made by the Jewish brothers, who held the false belief that the Gentile brothers could only be saved by following the Law.
The decision also meant that the ‘zealous’ Jewish brothers no longer brought the Mosaic Law into disrepute by associating with ‘unclean’ Gentiles, appeasing their fragile sensibilities.
However, all the evidence above raises the question: were the rules determined at the Council of Jerusalem considered permanent?
