In relation to the issue of physical circumcision then, this is expressed below by David Thaxton: “My understanding of the Jerusalem Council may be different than yours. I see James telling all believers that circumcision is not required for initial salvation, as Moses is taught in the Synagogue and new converts will understand and comply later..”
I would recommend a re-reading of Acts 15 while keeping this question in mind to see if this seems most likely. I see a number of reasons to argue that it does not.
Firstly, note in v9-11, “He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you tempt God, that you should put a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they are.”, that Peter states that his brethren have not been able to bear the yoke, NOT that they haven’t been able to be it early in their walk but only over time as they learned and grew in their knowledge of Torah.
What about the reference to Moses in v19-21? “Therefore my judgment is that we don’t trouble those from among the Gentiles who turn to God, but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollution of idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. For Moses from generations of old has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” It would appear to me that the reference to Moses being preached in every city, is not stating that after being obedient to these Noahide Laws, they will then learn the rest of the words of Moses over time, as the evidence is clear that most Gentile ‘God-fearers’ were already attending the synagogues at this time.
In fact, in this context, it appears that James is arguing that these gentiles would be familiar with these Noahide Laws and nothing more. More revealing perhaps, is the content of the letter sent to the Gentile brothers in Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. There is no mention here of Moses being preached and in fact of anything in terms of instructions and teaching beyond the four Noahide Laws mentioned.
As I have explained in other articles, I see good evidence that the four Noahide Laws were understood to be in addition to the Ten Commandments, which were extremely foundational to Israel’s daily life and also very well articulated by both Yeshua and the Apostle Paul.
It is also illuminating to consider our great Jewish scholars who have spend some time studying the influence of Christianity on Judaism view the events of Acts 15. One good example is Yehezkel Kaufmann, an orthodox Jew who believes the resurrection of Yeshua was a myth, and who was a highly respected Professor at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. He writes:
“The origin of gentile Christianity was a religious and historic event, not a new religious concept. Religious Judaism longed for the return of the gentiles but, because of its historic experience and the continued dominance of idolatry among the gentiles, did not think that the gentiles would repent. Christianity, as a messianic movement, held at first to this historic messianic judgment of the nation Israel and refrained altogether from preaching the gospel to gentiles. But the gentiles were, so to speak, "evangelized" of themselves. They were deeply moved by the Christian mystery and received the glad tidings which had not been announced for them. It was this messianic acceptance among the "gentiles," that is, the judaizing gentiles — those "God-fearers" who had not yet become fully Jews — which turned Christianity from its original course.
To the early Nazarenes, this Christian movement was a sign that God had not destined all the uncircumcised to perdition; thus their exclamation: "Then God has given even the heathen repentance and the hope of life!" (Acts 11:18). The idea that God desired the turn of the non-Jews to the faith of Israel had long been established in Israel But that God had addressed the gospel of the kingdom of heaven also to the gentiles, that he might baptize them with the "holy Spirit" and work "wonders" among them — these things were altogether new.
And in them, something else was implied: God has baptized these "God-fearers" who do not observe the commandments, these uncircumcised gentiles, with "the holy Spirit"; in this, he has given a sign that the "kingdom of heaven," which was vouchsafed only to the righteous few of this generation, is given also to those gentiles who believe in Jesus even though they do not observe the commandments. Therewith, Christianity began to function as the revelation of a new covenant, a new, divinely revealed distinct testament whereby, without dependence on the old, the proselytes could be received of the God of Israel. The triumphant future of Christianity is foreshadowed in the baptism of Cornelius and his company.” p 158 ‘Christianity And Judaism: Two Covenants’ By Yehezkel Kaufmann
Clearly Kaufmann saw the ‘baptism of Cornelius’ event as one example that something had changed and that the physically uncircumcised could become citizens of the Kingdom. Note his reference to Acts 11:18, which at least to Kaufmann seems to confirm this.
Another perspective:
Firstly, I don’t believe the Pharisees that ask about circumcision for the Gentiles were outsiders at all. It appears from both the full context and the fact that so many Pharisees became follower of Yeshua, that those asking the questions here were not trying to make things difficult at all, but asking a bigger question than what is literally recorded.
I believe that the question was really just a metonym or short-hand for becoming Jewish.
To illustrate, in Australia (such metaphors are normally cultural), if my wife and I were going out to some big event and she were to ask me what I was going to wear and my answer was ‘Black Tie’, it would not mean that that was all I was planning on wearing. ‘Black Tie’ as part of a man’s formal attire is a shorthand or metonym to describe that I would plan to wear a suit (tux) and probably even a bow tie, etc.
I believe that same metonymic approach is used in Acts 15. The Pharisees aren’t just asking should the male gentiles be physically circumcised but really should they become fully Jewish (of which circumcision is a very significant part of course).
Now if we read Acts 15 and the Pharisees question as really in effect ‘Should the Gentiles become proselytized Jews?’, the complete response is to this very question. This is why circumcision is not directly mentioned in the reply – because the apostles understood the metonym, that is, what the real question was. Now, if you re-read the reply, the response fits the ‘complete’ question much better.
If this metonymic approach was being used then the conclusion is clearly that Acts 15 not some halfway point at all, but the complete answer.
The Proof is in the Pudding:
More importantly though, let us consider for a moment though the impact over time of the Jerusalem Council’s edict.
More importantly though, let us consider for a moment though the impact over time of the Jerusalem Council’s edict.
If it was indeed just a starting point for relationship and membership of the Commonwealth of Israel, we would expect to see historical evidence (if attainable), of the Gentile followers of Yeshua embracing circumcision and all 613 mitzvot.
Alternatively, if this edict was not just a starting point then there should be evidence that the Gentile followers did not overtime get circumcised, but essentially remained obedient to the 10 Words and the 4 Noahide Laws and other ‘relational’ Torah commands, including the Feast Days, but did not take up all the ceremonial and situational commandments.
1. The real paucity of original documentation from 61 CE to around 100 CE, and the significant shift in the Gentile Churches doctrinal position which began during this time as was well entrenched as early as 120-160 CE.
To support point one above, see the quote below by Adolf von Harnack:
“The greatest gap in our knowledge consists in the fact, that we know so little about the course of things from about the year 61 to the beginning of the reign of Trajan [98]. The consolidating and remodeling process must, for the most part, have taken place in this period. We possess probably not a few writings which belong to that period; but how are we to prove this? How are they to be arranged? Here lies the cause of most of the differences, combinations and uncertainties; many scholars, therefore, actually leave these 40 years out of account, and seek to place everything in the first three decennia of the second century.” Adolf von Harnack, History Of Dogma, p.144
The change or doctrinal shift highlighted in point two is seen in this astounding quote from Clement, the Bishop of Rome (88-98 CE): "If Christ the Lord who saved us, being first spirit, then became flesh, and so called us, in like manner also shall we in this flesh receive our reward." (2nd Clement 9.5).
These two factors then, make it difficult to establish with any great certainly the full facts on this challenging issue[1]. Despite this, I believe the evidence highlighted below is still reasonably strong.
It might also be helpful to understand what were the accepted conditions for Gentiles to become proselytized Jews in the middle of the first century of the Common Era?
“It would appear, according to the Talmud, that on the occasion of admitting proselytes strictly so called into the Jewish communion three things were necessary:
(1) circumcision;
(2) baptism, i.e. a bath with a view to Levitical purification; and
(3) a sacrifice (literally, a gracious acceptance of blood).
In the case of women only the last two were required. After the destruction of the temple, as a matter of course the sacrifice was discontinued also.” - Emil Schurer “A History Of The Jewish People In The Time Of Jesus Christ”
It is interesting to note then that after 70 CE, Gentile women need only submit to baptism (mikvah) to be accepted into the Jewish commonwealth.
Until around 45 CE with the move of the Spirit at Cornelius’s house, almost all believers had been Jewish or Jewish proselytes (called ‘Nazarenes’[2] by Kaufmann above). Now they faced the challenge of accepting Gentiles. This lead to the Jerusalem Council of 49 CE.
What follows is some of the relevant evidence from this time on.
The fourth book of the Sibylline oracles, composed around 80 CE, and considered by most to be of Jewish origin, and paraphrasing Schurer (“A History Of The Jewish People In The Time Of Jesus Christ”) “contains an address to the Gentiles, in which prominence is given only to the worship of the true God and the belief in a future judgment, and most significantly instead of requiring the converted Gentile to be circumcised, states that only a mikvah (bath of purification or baptism) is necessary.”
Emil Schurer also suggests that some minimal observance of the ceremonial laws was common among Gentile ‘God-fearers’: “The result of this was that to almost every one of the Jewish communities of the dispersion there was attached a following of “God--‐fearing” Gentiles who adopted the Jewish (i.e...... the monotheistic and imageless) mode of worship, attended the Jewish synagogues, but who, in the observance of the ceremonial law. restricted themselves to certain leading points, and so were regarded as outside the fellowship of the Jewish communities. … Now if we ask ourselves what those points of the ceremonial law were which these Gentiles observed, we will find them plainly enough indicated in the passages already quoted from Josephus, Juvenal, and Tertullian. All three agree in this, that it was the Jewish observance of the Sabbath and the prescriptions with regard to meats that were in most general favour within the circles in question.” P314 Schurer “The Jewish People in the Times of Jesus”
What does this tell us? It tells us that Gentiles such as at Colosse were obeying the edict9 of the Jerusalem Council and were also observing the Sabbath. That is, it does indeed appear that they were effectively obeying the 10 Words and the 4 Noahide Laws, at least as a minimum and yet were not obeying all ceremonial laws. Note also no mention of physical circumcision.
Thus, given the time since the Jerusalem Council to the writings of Josephus, Juvenal, and Tertullian (160-220 CE), it would appear that the Jerusalem Council edict had not been just a starting point towards total Torah and Jewish observance.
Kaufmann also saw Christianity as removing physical circumcision and yet retaining a ‘baptism’[3] as a ‘rite of conversion’:
Christianity's innovation was baptism as the specific rite of conversion. The perplexity of the Nazarene community resembles in some respect that of the time of Ezra and Nehemiah and the succeeding generation, when the concept of religious conversion was in process of formulation. The Christian solution to the question of conversion derives from the change in Judaism. It was both formally and in substance the Jewish principle that without the faith of Israel there is no salvation. To this concept the Christian church now attached new rites centered in the life and person of Jesus. – ‘Christianity And Judaism: Two Covenants’ Kaufman p150
It would appear that up until the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the followers of Yeshua had been considered just another sect of the ‘proto-Judaism’ of the time.
There is a significant amount of evidence that the followers of Yeshua were in many ways
indistinguishable from other faithful Jews. In ”Judaism A Very Short Introduction” (p 20) Norman
Soloman states: “... up to 50-60 AD there was no dividing line between Judaism and Christianity, Jesus
indeed never thought of himself as preaching a religion other than Judaism or Torah ... if you asked
Jesus or his disciples what religion they were, they would have replied Jewish”.
Even the Jewish historian Josephus, after travelling through Israel in 50-60 AD saw Israel as composed of 4 groups, namely the Pharisees, the Saducees, the Essenes and the Zealots. He did not mention the ‘Christians’ or ‘Nazarenes’ as a separate group.
Many scholars argue that it was the destruction of the Temple coupled with the flight of Christians to Pella, and the establishment of the new ‘Sanhedrin’ council[4] at Yavneh that led to the split of the Church from it’s Jewish roots.
Pritz argues that these Christians who fled the impending destruction of Jerusalem prior to its fall in 70 CE were Nazarenes: “One event which would seem to provide the first link between that Jerusalem congregation and the Jewish Christianity of patristic writings is the reported flight to Pella of the Decapolis.3 This move to Pella was undertaken, according to Epiphanius, by the sect known as the Nazoraioi (Nazarenes). Or, as Epiphanius would rather express it, the Nazarenes were the descendants of those Jerusalem believers who fled to Pella.” - ‘Nazarene Jewish Christianity’ by Ray A. Pritz
If Pritz and Kaufmann are correct and the Nazarenes were the most faithful sect of the growing Christian community then this may muddy the waters a little and bring contra evidence to my contention regarding circumcision as Pritz states:“In addition to this second-hand information, that the Nazarenes still existed in his day, Augustine supplies us with the following information about the sect:
1) they profess to be Christians and confess that Christ is the Son of God;
2) they practice baptism;
3) they keep the old law, specifically including
a. circumcision,
b. Sabbath observance, and
c. food restrictions such as abstinence from swine; and
4) they are few in number.” P 78
Given that the followers of Yeshua had grown to at least 10’s of thousands in the early years, the information that they were few in number seems questionable. Also, as Pritz goes on to state, Augustine’s ‘facts’ also seem questionable:
“However: The statement that they are few in number, coming as it does after Augustine's uncertainty as to whether they still exist, gives the impression that it is not so much a statement of known fact as it is a reasonable assumption based on their obscurity. He himself has not encountered them and knows very few who have, therefore they cannot be (or ever have been) a very populous group. Likewise the assertion that they abstain from eating swine's flesh could well be a conclusion Augustine has drawn on his own. He knows that they keep the Law and are "Jews and nothing else," as Epiphanius says. He may logically infer that these Jewish Christians will not eat swine. It should be remembered that neither Epiphanius nor Jerome nor indeed any other writer brings this charge against the sect.
We can also see here that if they were only Jewish believers then of course we would expect them to still practice circumcision. So essentially, we gain little from this information and there appears little else in Pritz’s book that further elucidates the gentile circumcision question.
Ignatius of Antioch, was apparently a student of John the Apostle third Bishop of Antioch. Writing to the Philadelphians sometime between 98 and 117 CE he states:
“His disciples said to him, "is circumcision useful or not?" He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect." - Chapter 6, ‘Ignatius to the Philadelphians’
Whether his statement here was factual or not and whether it was in full agreement with the apostles is rather difficult to ascertain. Ignatius for example was apparently one of the first to push for a change of the Sabbath to the first day of the week.
More conclusive information appears to be presented by Origen (around 203-216 CE) and Eusebius (around 300 CE) and Emperor Julian (around 350+ CE). Below are some revealing quotes from ‘Jews, Pagans And Christians In Conflict’ By David Rokeah:
“… Origen exhibited great restraint and curtailed his exchange of words with the Jew by saying: "It is not now on the agenda to explain the rationale of circumcision, which was begun by Abraham and forbidden by Jesus, who did not wish that his disciples should practice the same….”
Reading the Historia Ecclesiastica (by Eusebius) reveals that the central conflict and polemic between Jews and Christians were those of the period that preceded the revolt of 66-70 C.E. Afterwards, the Historia Ecclesiastica included almost no comments on the Jews, whereas citations from the addresses of Christian apologists to the Roman emperors and also quotations taken from the Acts of the martyrs abounded….
From the Jews' point of view, the limits of a debate were not exceeded, and the Jews therefore saw no need to compile polemical treatises against the Christians.”
Circumcision, and unleavened bread during Passover:
On these matters, Julian notes: Now I must consider this other question and ask them, for what reason do you not circumcise yourselves? They reply that Paul declared that circumcision of the heart but not of the flesh was bestowed upon Abraham because he believed. He said nothing more about the circumcision of the flesh, and we should accept the not impious words proclaimed by him and Peter.
Julian also disputed the right of the Christians to abolish circumcision on the basis of an allegorical interpretation and showed that, according to the Torah, the foreskin of the flesh must be circumcised (Contra Galilaeos, 351 A-B).”
While all Origen, Eusebius and Julian were all Hellenists, this information does still appear reasonable, and thus these men do give some support for the argument that physical circumcision had not been a rite of conversion for Gentiles coming into the church.
Certainly physical circumcision no longer part of ‘Christianity’ by 130 CE. The evidence is fairly strong that followers of Yeshua did not take part in the Bar Kochba revolt of 132 CE. A significant part of the rationale behind this revolt was the Roman order to ban circumcision. Also by reason of the Messianic character of the movement it was quite impossible for Christians to take part in it.
They could not deny their own Messiah by recognising the leader of the political revolution as also a Messiah.
It was only under Emperor Antoninus Pius (Roman Emperor from 138 – 161 CE) that the Jews were again allowed to circumcise their children. Jewish writings which refer to the circumcision prohibition, affirm also that even the observance of the Sabbath and the study of Torah had been forbidden.
Interestingly when Emperor Antoninus Pius removed the circumcision prohibition, he only removed in for native Jews. It still remained in place for Gentiles.
It would therefore appear reasonable that if male Gentile converts to Christianity had been getting circumcised as a matter of faith and obedience, then this prohibition would have caused significant problems as it did for the Jewish population and would have been recorded. No such recordings of Christian revolts or protests are currently known.
Tertullian (160 -220 CE) noted that the Christians do not abstain from forbidden foods, celebrate the Jewish festivals, or practice circumcision.
Tertuliian’s comments appear to be in some conflict with the earlier quote made by Emil S.churer in “The Jewish People in the Times of Jesus”, where Schurer indicates that the Gentile believers outside of Israel were in fact partaking in the Jewish Feast Days and restricting themselves regarding meats (as per the Jerusalem Council). Of course, Schurer is referring to the few decades after the crucifixion and Tertullian is making his comments on the situation some 100 years later when we know that the Hellenistic influence had become very strong and pervasive.
To summarise then, the evidence presented here is limited and requires some conjecture, and therefore it is not conclusive. Overall though, it would appear to support the contention that male Gentile converts were not expected to get physically circumcised.
I think it good though to leave the last word to Yeshua himself. I believe that he addressed the issue of Gentile entrance into the Kingdom and indicated that this was possible without full Jewish proselytisation.
Let us look at a couple of passages where Yeshua speaks on this topic.
Firstly consider in this context, Luke 16:21-25 and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.
“Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, living in luxury every day. A certain beggar, named Lazarus, was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table. Yes, even the dogs came and licked his sores. It happened that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. In Hades, he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his bosom. He cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue! For I am in anguish in this flame.’ “But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that you, in your lifetime, received your good things, and Lazarus, in the same way, bad things. But now here he is comforted and you are in anguish.
It was generally accepted in Yeshua’s day that the uncircumcised will go down to Gehenna and not be resurrected into the Kingdom. A number of scholars, such as the great Talmudic scholar, Saul Lieberman argue that this parable is a polemic against this common view of the Pharisees.
The rich man in purple and fine linen represents the Israelite. Note, that he is called a ‘son’ by Abraham. Note also in v29 that Abraham tells the rich man that his brothers have Moses and the Prophets (i.e. the Tanakh).
The poor man, Lazarus represents the uncircumcised Gentile who has not had the great blessings of being in the family of Israel. The reference to Lazarus desiring the ‘crumbs’ may also indicate his repentant heart and desire to know the Almighty.
If this is a valid interpretation of this parable of Yeshua, then he was indeed arguing that the uncircumcised could find salvation. It also indicates Yeshua’s position that it was the attitude of the heart that mattered, which was evidenced in the righteous works of the believer, not the outward marks of membership.
Yeshua makes this clear in John 8:39: ‘They answered him, "Our father is Abraham." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham.’
Another quote from Yeshua, which is even clearer is in Luke 4.
Luke 4:24 -29
And he said, Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown.
But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land,
and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow.
And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.
When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath.
It is well worth reading from the beginning of Luke 4 to set the context properly here and to appreciate that, only moments before, his fellow brethren and members of his home town had been impressed and amazed at him. Why were they now so fill of wrath when he was only referring to events that were recorded in their Hebrew Bible?
Certainly they would probably have taken some offence at his comment that he (a prophet) was not accepted by them, but I believe the more significant issue was that the two examples he refers to are examples where Gentiles, namely the widow Zarephath and the Syrian commander and leper, Naaman, were ‘saved’ by God through his great prophets Elijah and Elisha.
Again, Yeshua here is indicating that the Almighty can choose to save even the ‘uncircumcised’, that is, those who are not members of the Commonwealth of Israel. Yeshua is again teaching that the outward markings or tokens are not the vital issue, but that what is required is repentance and a circumcised heart.
I suggest a careful reading of the story of Naaman in 2 Kings 5 to ascertain that this man was cleansed and saved through his faith in the God of Israel and His prophet and consequently worshiped only the Almighty. Again, he was at no time required to be physically circumcised.
[1] Alex Hall has written a fascinating short summary of von Harnack’s ‘History of Dogma’. It is well worth a read – see http://www.christianmonotheism.com/media/text/Alex%20Hall%202007.pdf for a pdf version.
[2] Ray A Pritz in ‘Nazerene Jewish Christianity’ argues that the Nazerenes were the Christian sect that most faithfully maintained the doctrines of the first disciples and apostles.
[3] It is important to recognize that mikvahs (purification baths or ‘baptisms’) were a very important aspect of religious life, of ‘halacha’ in Israel.
[4] Many biblical scholars believe that the "Birkat ha-Minim” benediction introduced by the Yavneh council, was aimed at removing Christian participation in the synagogues, and this coupled with the increasing Hellenistic influence within the church, led to the church separating from its roots and losing its Way.
No comments:
Post a Comment