Who Translates What
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.” Acts 21:25 NASB
Abstain from – Recently a reader questioned my contention that the Acts 15 Jerusalem counsel did not establish a separate behavioral code for Gentiles. He provided the following translation of Acts 21:25 as proof. “But we are telling the Gentiles to do no such thing but rather sent them a letter that they should…observe our four requirements.” I have determined that this translation is based on the Textus Receptus, the Greek text used as the basis of the original King James version and now found to contain several errors among which is the addition of the phrase translated “no such thing.”[1] But I want to call your attention to the final phrase, “observe our four requirements.” The Greek text contains no such language. In Greek, the message is to abstain from four practices, not to observe four requirements. If we already believe that abstaining from the four practices mentioned is the equivalent of observing all that is required, then it is possible to translate the verse this way, but it requires a prior theological commitment to a two-Torah view. Nothing in the text itself suggests that the counsel required observance of only these four.
Once again we find that our perception of what was actually transpiring in the accounts of Acts depends not so much on what the text says as it depends on what we already believe about the earliest Messianic community. And for most of us, what we believe about the earliest Messianic community is not a reflection of what actually happened but rather the importation of what we have experienced in our churches. We are convinced, and we have been taught, that the earliest community that followed the Messiah was Christian. That means the community looked like what we experience in the church. Therefore, we read into the text what we believe to be true of the church and the result is a complete misunderstanding of the record of Acts.
The communities in Jerusalem and all the other places Paul visited in the book of Acts were not Christian! They were Jewish communities made up of followers of YHWH. They were orthodox, proselytes, believers in Yeshua as the Messiah and recent Gentile additions. All four groups were in fellowship in the synagogue communities. All members of the fellowship followed Torah in some form or another. There was never any question about leaving the Jewish way of life. The only question was, “Is Yeshua the Messiah?” Virtually nothing that we experience in the practice of the church was part of the communities of Acts. Every time we read our Christian heritage into the text, we violate the context and culture of the original. If we want to understand Acts (or Paul), we must think like first century Jews, not Christians.
I realize that this claim stands in opposition to most Christians’ conceptions of Acts. I acknowledge that most Christians think of Acts as stories about the “church.” But that’s just not possible. The text is Jewish through and through. The context, practices, teachings and circumstances are Jewish. It’s time to recognize that what happened in the first century happened in Jewish circles. Christianity came later—about 150 years later, and when it came, it threw out as many Jewish things as it could. But James and John and Paul didn’t.
Topical Index: abstain, observe, Christian, Torah, Acts 21:25
[1] Today’s translations are based on the NA 27th edition Greek text. That’s why you will not find this phrase in most English versions of the Bible since 1954. The Textus Receptus has been significantly revised based on new discoveries over the centuries since King James.
The very heart of the Torah, don’t defile yourselves. Leviticus chapters 17-19, why take everything out of context? I think it’s because we’re lazy and don’t want to understand or study what the entire chapter is even discussing which is about a discussion among some leaders and not a discussion of doctrine in the first place. Interestingly enough that everyone who wants to argue with me and show me I’m wrong want to use this verse pulled out of context.
The whole problem with people is they want everything without working or studying for the answers.
We want everything served to us on a bun at the drive through. Can I have fries with that?
You’re right about taking things out of context, but I think it’s a bit more than that. As Bob Gorelik says, “The biggest roadblock to learning something is what you think you already know.” And most of us grew up in churches that taught us to read the text according to doctrine so we never really examined what the text actually says. We just let the words mean what we were taught. The issue about the place of Torah in the lives of believers today is governed more by what we have been taught than by understanding the culture and the intent of the authors of the text. We read according to Luther, not Paul (see John Gage on this one).
In a few days we will start looking at another doctrinal interpretation of the text–the Trinity. Bob and I lectured on this in Israel. It is a BIG “sacred cow” for Christians. But the doctrine was not formulated for nearly 300 years after the resurrection. Something had to happen to push the clergy to construct this doctrine. Everyone admits that there are NO explicit texts that specifically require Trinitarian theology, so where did this idea come from and how does it affect what we read. I am sure you will find the study (as brief as it will have to be) quite interesting. Paradigms, paradigms, paradigms. The real arguments are always about paradigms, not the words of Scripture but rather HOW the words of Scripture fit into our paradigms.
Hi Skip, we(Ryan) continue to appreciate your teaching and conviction for the text in context. Your influence is felt by us and is a continual source of encouragement to grow in our understanding. Today’s devotional was another step. Thank you!
Thanks. When are we going to do some in-person dialogue, my friend?
I look forward to the Trinity discussions. I’m still trying to digest this issue from a new paradigm. I started listening to your audio of the Q & A from Israel on this most recent trip. I put in my earphones as I got in to bed last night, but fell asleep half way through. (Still recovering for hip surgery!)
It was interesting how Bob Gorelick approached answering the topic in question: “Do you want me to continue? Shall I go on?” 🙂
None of us are capable of the enormous gratitude we owe our Father for bringing us out of the deep deceptions of the last 2000 years.
He has some purpose for doing it that has little do with how much we deserve such special treatment. Selah
It has to be His will. He did this to me because I asked Him to, (granted I didn’t know what I was asking for).
He leads me in paths of righteousness,
For His Names Sake
Hallelu YAH!!!
Oh good! Just read this and so disregard my questions on the Day 13 post — I’ll wait for your posts. 🙂
is this working now. my previous post didn’t aprear
Ah, I like this entry. Thank you, Skip. =)
Hi Michael,
Did you have a hip replacement?
My husband had that done last year and I know it’s a little overwhelming for the first few weeks. If so, I hope you have someone taking good care of you and giving you lots of TLC.
Praying for a speedy recovery.
Judi
@Judi,
Yes, a total right hip replacement! It’s great not to have the excruciating pain anymore. Thanks for the prayers. I need to get back to work – $$$!
Skip, I totally agree that it is so easy to insert our “church” experience into how we view the early messianic movement, and I realize that translations can mess up the wording and cloud our interpretations, but I still don’t clearly understand the Acts 15 conversation and would like to. One overall thought is that the question addressed is about salvation (Acts 15:1), but we are not only concerned about salvation but about living rightly for God, so this issue seems bigger than merely, “What are current (Gentile) Christians’ minimal requirements for salvation?”
But here’s what seems, to me, to be happening in Acts 15: Paul specifically goes to the leaders in Jerusalem (Peter, James and those other in the Jerusalem Council) to ask what the Gentiles must follow to be saved (The Pharisees claimed: “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” Acts 15:5). The question looms: Must the Gentiles follow ALL of Moses’ teachings, or not? The leaders discuss the issue, and then James responds: The Gentiles should NOT be burdened with all the requirements (“Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?” Acts 15:10).
James says: “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (Acts 15:19), then he lists the four restrictions you mention in Acts 15. I’ve read a lot on these four things and have heard teachings from Ray Vander Laan how these are cultural things that the Gentile converts would struggle with in regard to idol worship. So I understand that these four restrictions may not be the ONLY things the Gentile converts would be required to follow, but Acts 15 certainly seems as if those first Gentile converts were given some leeway to ease into their new faith (so to speak).
And what follows in Acts 15 is that the Gentiles would continue going to synagogue to receive instruction on Moses’ teachings (“For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath” Acts 15:21). The Gentiles will get further teachings on the law of Moses, but the Jerusalem Council seems to give allowance to the new Gentile converts–to allow them to grow in their understanding of living righteously for God.
So I guess my question is if this passage applies to new Gentile converts of today, maybe more so than Gentiles, in general? Would love your thoughts, Skip.