Acts 15

A reader sent an email with a few questions, including this one:

How do you address the word of Yaakov in Acts 15:19-21? To me, the implication is that these are the very basics…but as they learn about Moses (the Mosaic covenant), they would fall progressively into line with it.

Acts 15 is a formative chapter in our understanding of Jews, Gentiles, and the congregation of Messiah.

For a long time, the consensus of readers of Acts was that chapter 15 meant freedom from certain Torah observances for non-Jews in Messiah. Then a new reading developed, one which allowed 15:21 to become a reversal, a verse which turns the entire chapter on its head, subverting the logic of the whole chapter and giving a new reading: Gentiles in Yeshua need not keep the whole Torah until they have had time to learn it in synagogue!

Some well-meaning lovers of Torah have become so used to this reading, I contend that they have lost objectivity in reading the chapter. Let me suggest that having become so used to reading Acts 15 through the lens of this set of One Law spectacles, these readers have managed to undermine the scriptural basis and logic of the apostles.

In order to present what I consider to be a consistent reading of Acts 15, let me outline and expound on some highlights of the chapter. I will conclude with a few observations about the unity of its argument which I think are the death-knell of the “verse 21 reversal” maneuver.

Acts 15 in Outline

Vs.1 – In Antioch, some men (Pharisees) from Judea came with a teaching about how Gentiles are to be received: they must be circumcised (as proselytes, converted) or they cannot be saved.

Vss.2-4 – Paul and Barnabas debated and opposed this group, determined that the matter should be heard by Yaakov (James) and the Jerusalem community. At this point, the disagreement is framed by one issue: whether Gentiles need Jewish conversion to be saved.

Vss. 5-6 – Yeshua-followers from the Pharisees make their case that Gentiles must be circumcised (converted to Jewish status) and to observe the Torah of Moses. Now the issue has expanded to two concerns: (1) that Gentile need Jewish conversion to be saved and (2) that Gentiles need to keep the whole Torah. Issue (2) is preceded by a certain understanding, a Jewish interpretation of Torah which certainly arose in later rabbinic literature, but which may also have been extant at that time: that the righteous of the nations were not called to keep the whole Torah. The classic example became Noah, who had permission to eat all foods except blood, and upon whom there was no expectation of circumcision, a Temple for sacrifices, or of a Sabbath or calendar of holy days.

Vss. 7-11 – Peter’s testimony: God revealed to him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, God gave the Spirit to these Gentiles and thus affirmed them, God made no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, why put the yoke of Torah on Gentiles when Israel has failed to follow Torah, we believe salvation is by God’s favor and not our worthiness. We should note for the issue we are considering that: (1) Peter said Torah was a yoke Israel could not keep and (2) Peter denied the idea of covenantal nomism, that Israel was saved because it was elected to receive Torah. What did Peter mean by (1)? He did not mean that it is impossible for a person to be diligent about dietary law and Sabbath. He meant that Torah’s demands go to the core of a person and no one but Yeshua could fully keep it. He meant that as a nation, Israel could not keep the outer demands, much less the core demands such as love and justice. The argument is essentially: it is the doers of Torah who are saved, not merely those who receive it.

EXCURSUS 1: How could Peter say God made no distinction between Jews and Gentiles when the chapter as a whole does make a distinction? This is not really a difficulty. Words mean what they mean in context and contexts usually have limits. Peter does not mean that God makes no distinction at all between Israel and the nations. This would be counter to the Torah and also to the rest of the ruling in Acts 15, in which it will be decided that Jews in Messiah have a different relationship to Torah than Gentiles. He means that in the most important terms (love, blessing, redemption, salvation, etc.), God makes no distinction. He never did. God was saving people before Israel existed (consider Noah). God always had in mind saving the nations and says so in Torah (especially Deut 32).

Vs. 12 – Paul and Barnabas’ testimony: Gentiles were receiving the gospel and God was doing signs among them. It is implied that Paul and Barnabas had not been converting Gentiles via circumcision and neither had they been teaching Gentiles to keep the whole Torah.

Vss. 13-18 – Yaakov (James) speaks and his word is taken as the judgment of the Jerusalem apostles. In vs. 14, his wording is carefully chosen. God has taken for himself from the Gentiles a people for his name. This language Yaakov will find in a scriptural precedent, Amos 9:11-12. Yaakov quotes from a version which is closer to the Septuagint. The citation as Yaakov uses it has the following connections to the situation being debated: (1) the tabernacle of David will be rebuilt, a promise Yaakov saw being fulfilled in the rise of the Yeshua movement in Israel, (2) that the rest of mankind would seek God, which Yaakov saw fulfilled in the preaching of Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, and (3) that there would be Gentiles called by God’s name. Point (3) is the crux of Yaakov’s use of Amos 9. God calls Gentiles without making them become Jews.

Vss.19-21 – Yaakov makes a ruling (“it is my judgment”): (1) that we not trouble the Gentiles and (2) that we ask for careful observance of four issues. Yaakov gives a further reason for his ruling, in addition to the argument from Amos 9. The additional reason is that Moses has been and is being read since ancient times in the diaspora synagogues. The emphasis is on past and current reading of Moses, not future.

EXCURSUS 2: What is mean by “not trouble the Gentiles”? The issue being discussed concerns two things: (1) requiring conversion to Judaism and (2) requiring Gentiles in Messiah to keep the whole Torah. That Yaakov is ruling against (1) is clear. That he is ruling against (2) is also clear in the larger context because: (a) the understanding of Gentiles in general at the time is of people not bound to the whole Torah, (b) Yaakov must be seen to address both issues that have been raised and not only conversion, (c) the rest of the ruling does not include Torah observance for Gentiles, and (d) the rest of the ruling concerns universal ordinances and not Torah laws which distinguish Israel.

EXCURSUS 3: Why these four issues (idol meat, sexual immorality, strangled meat, consuming blood)? It should be agreed that the Noahide laws are not in evidence, that their formulation is later than the first century, so it is very unlikely that Yaakov is referring to this concept. It is likely that Yaakov has in mind Leviticus 17-19, which are about holiness in the camp and the land of Israel. These chapters emphasize the sanctity of blood, refraining from idolatry, and refraining from various forms of sexual immorality including incestuous relationships. In Leviticus, these are seen as Gentile evils which would contaminate Israelites by association. Gentiles in Messiah must not live like Canaanites and contaminate the movement. It should not be inferred that Yaakov saw only these issues as applying from Torah to Gentiles, but that these were the most urgent issues.

EXCURSUS 4: What was Yaakov’s point about Moses being preached from ancient times until now in diaspora synagogues? Here we are at a key issue in the debate about whether Gentiles in Messiah are required to keep all of Torah (including commandments of special holiness for Israelites such as circumcision, dietary restriction, Sabbath, fringes, and holy days). One theory is that Yaakov meant Gentiles can start with the four basic Torah laws and will learn the rest in the future by attending synagogue, at which point they will be liable for all of them. There are many deficiencies in this view, of which I will name a few: (a) Yaakov’s point concerns not the future, but the past and present, (b) even if Gentile ignorance was allowed for, this would not explain why Paul and Barnabas had not been teaching Torah to their congregations, (c) if the Gentiles eventually get circumcised and bound to Torah, then why argue with the Pharisees at all since they apparently were right about everything except requiring Torah for salvation, (d) why quote Amos 9:11-12 from the Septuagint if, in fact, God only accepts Gentiles as de-facto Jews, (e) evidence from the epistles is that diaspora Yeshua congregations did not meet in synagogues but separately, and (f) Acts 15 should be interpreted in harmony with Paul’s letters which speak repeatedly of a freedom from some aspects of Torah for Gentiles. So, what is Yaakov’s point, then? Yaakov likely means that the preaching of Moses from the past till now has not caused a mass movement of Gentiles to come to God. But the preaching of a gospel for Gentiles, one in which conversion is not expected, has started a mass movement. It is apparent that God’s hand is on the preaching of Paul and Barnabas which has neither required conversion or full Torah observance of Gentiles.

Vss. 22-35 – The Jerusalem council writes a letter to Antioch and the other congregations. It does not include Yaakov’s point about Moses in the synagogues. It would seem therefore that Acts 15:21 could not be considered the crux of the Jerusalem council since it is not even mentioned in the letter. The preaching of Paul and Barnabas is affirmed. Their freedom-from-Torah message is approved for Gentiles. The Pharisees who wanted to require conversion and Torah-observance is rejected. The letter causes rejoicing and the Gentile mission is further organized.

Summary and Implications

–Acts 15 assumes that Jewish people in Messiah are yoked to Torah, but not for salvation.

–Acts 15 rules that non-Jews in Messiah are not bound to the whole Torah.

–This does not mean that non-Jews in Messiah are free to ignore all of Torah — Torah must be interpreted to determine what is universal and what concerns the special holiness of Israel as a people.

–This interpretation assumes a certain way of reading the Torah and the Bible, and not assuming that the Bible covers every case specifically; the Torah is case law, not regulation of every instance (which would require a law code a thousand times as long as Torah).

–Acts 15 is the cornerstone of bilateral ecclesiology — that the congregation of Messiah is made up of two branches (the congregation of Israel and the multinational congregation of Messiah). You can read a layperson’s version of bilateral ecclesiology in my book Paul Didn’t Eat Pork (see it here) or an academic version in Mark Kinzer’s Postmissionary Messianic Judaism (see it here).

12 Responses to Acts 15

  1. sheepra says:

    I gotta say it seems quite odd that Adonai would have one law for Jews that would not apply to His other followers. It is my understanding that the laws were given to bless and guide and instruct in the best possible way of life. Why would that be withheld from the new believers? Isn’t Yahshua the living Word/Torah? When we follow Him, aren’t we supposed to walk as He walked as best we can with the aid of the Set-Apart Spirit? I recognize that in Acts there was a singular change made to accommodate new believers, but I agree with the conclusions drawn here:

    http://www.gentiles-and-circumcision.info/

    that, essentially, there would have been far more bruhaha if other laws besides circumcision were also tossed aside for the new believers on an ongoing basis. Further, The Greek noun zetematos, translated “issue” in Acts 15:2, is SINGULAR. This is important to recognize because it tells us that there was only ONE issue here – the necessity of circumcision for a Gentile to be saved and receive the covenant promises of Israel. There were no other topics being debated. As to Acts 15:5 some translations seem to indicate that the Pharisees were not only advocating circumcision, but also the keeping of the entire Law of Moses. However, this impression is due to an inaccurate rendering of their statement from Greek into English. Translating the Greek literally, the Pharisees said, “dei [It is necessary] peritemnein [to circumcise] autous [them], paraggellein [to instruct] te [and] terein [to keep] ton [the] nomon [Law] Mouseos [of Moses].” Therefore, the meaning of the Pharisees’ statement is that it was necessary to circumcise the Gentiles in order to instruct AND keep the Law of Moses. The Pharisees believed that the act of circumcising the Gentiles would serve a dual purpose; it would educate them on the Law of Moses at the same time they were obeying that Law. In Acts 15:10 Since the ONE issue being discussed here was circumcision (NOT the entire Law of Moses), it was circumcision that Peter referred to as a “yoke.” The word zugon (“yoke”) literally referred to a piece of wood that fastened on the neck of a beast of burden. But here Peter uses it figuratively to refer to circumcision as something that was burdensome or difficult for the adult Gentile men to endure. We know from many other places in Scripture, both old & renewed Covenants, that the law is not a burden, but do-able and a blessing. Also, Since the entire Law of Moses was never the focus of this dispute, James’ judgment could not have abolished the Mosaic Law in favor of the four requirements he put forth for Gentiles. If substitution had been his intention, he certainly left a lot of holes in his “replacement” law code. He failed to cover murder, theft, and many other uncivilized actions prohibited by the Law of Moses and condemned in the New Testament.
    Also, the Festivals and Shabbat were actually established in Bereshit 1, so they really aren’t only part of the law, but are for all men it would seem.
    I’d also like to see what you mean by not ascribing to the ‘grafted in’ concept as it is stated by Paul that those new believers had become ‘partakers …of the rich root…’. How would you interpret that?
    I look forward to your reply to help me to better understand your perspective on these matters.
    Blessings with love,
    Shalom

  2. Sheepra:

    I edited your comment to remove the name of God. We do not spell out God’s name. I hope this does not offend you, but I must insist that this rule be followed in blog comments. I thought it better to edit than delete you.

    Instead of considering the points I made in this article, you make a lot of counterclaims.

    I am too busy right now to start this debate all over again and answer forty objections. If you want to learn my position on Acts 15, instead of claiming things like “the festivals are established in Genesis 1,” you should consider my interpretation and evaluate whether I have made worthy arguments. Otherwise you are not trying to learn my POV but to argue for your own.

    One cogent argument you brought up is the fact that the word for “issue” in 15:2 is singular. You deduce from this that the singular issue was circumcision and not obedience of gentiles to the whole Torah. I will respond. Your argument looks like this:

    (1) Acts 15 raises several issues including circumcision and gentile obedience of Torah.
    (2) The apostles debated a single issue as indicated by the singular form of the word “issue.”
    (3) Therefore, the only issue being addressed is circumcision and not Torah obedience for gentiles.

    This logic is false because it is based on a very specific and unrealistic assumption about the meaning of the singular form. Singular nouns can easily refer to an idea which is capable of being subdivided into subordinate ideas.

    Thus, the issue may just as well be “gentiles must convert to be acceptable to God.”

    To test whether the apostles were debating the idea that “gentiles must be converted to be acceptable to God” or “gentiles must be circumcised” is simply a matter of considering which of the two ideas best fits the discussion.

    Acts 15 repeatedly brings up not only circumcision, but also Torah obedience. While Torah obedience is assumed as a Jewish requirement throughout, it is decided that gentiles are not bound by the whole Torah. Circumcision of a gentile was the key ritual for conversion at the time (and currently as well). The idea of conversion captures the entire essence of Acts 15, while limiting the discussion to circumcision alone does not.

    It has been suggested that the only thing forbidden in Acts 15 is requiring adult conversion of gentiles, but that it was understood they would circumcise their children on the eighth day thereafter. This interpretation ignores the fact that the focus of the debate is on the larger issue of conversion and all it entails (circumcision and Torah obedience). Acts 15 denies that gentiles need to circumcise their children or obey the whole Torah.

    This issue is confusing to people because much of the Torah applies to gentiles anyway. The difference between gentile relationship to Torah and Jewish relationship to Torah concerns the identity markers of Israel that are in the Torah (circumcision, Sabbath, dietary law, fringes, etc.). No one was debating whether gentiles should honor parents or be chaste. These provisions of Torah are universal in nature, while the holiness regulations for the Chosen People are limited in application to Israel.

    Derek Leman

    • orthodoxmessianic says:

      Shalom, brother. Please take the following as a sign of respect for you–I only argue with people I respect.

      I had to study issue analysis in law school and in regard to Acts 15 I’m sure we can agree that getting the issue correct is crucial since this determines what type of rule we can extract from the decision. We have to be careful that we don’t extract a completely unintended rule. And when the purported rule would affect one’s systematic approach to Torah then we have to be especially careful.

      You’re proposing a dual primary-issue approach that leads inevitably to the extraction of a rule that effectively discourages ethnic gentiles from following the Torah. The stakes are very high here because if you are wrong then you could potentially be guilty of turning people away from following HaShem’s will for their lives (and if you are wrong then thankfully we serve a merciful Creator). And if you’re right then that’s that. But here’s why the dual issue is most definitely wrong.

      You are proposing that primary issue A was along the lines of “Is it necessary to be circumcised in order to be saved?”. Next, you are proposing that primary issue B was “Should gentiles be obligated to follow the full Torah?”

      Now it’s not enough to point to evidence that the Pharisees had two concerns so therefore these concerns were the issues before the court. What you MUST do is show that an issue did in fact make it before the court–that the court in fact decided to hear a certain issue–and this is something you can do by showing that one of the parties argued on this issue. So, specifically, to back up your proposition regarding issue B, you would need to offer evidence that Peter or Paul argued BEFORE THE COURT against gentiles becoming Torah observant. The evidence available for this view is very poor indeed.

      I propose that there was one primary issue (“Do gentiles need to be circumcised according to Mosaic custom in order to be saved?) and one corollary issue (demanded by logic) which was in fact argued BEFORE THE COURT. Before looking at the evidence for this view, consider the legal context of the aforementioned primary issue: under Torat Moshe, salvation was only offered to those who had the physical sign of the covenant and who could therefore participate in Passover like any citizen of Israel (Exodus 12). However, under the New Covenant, Yeshua became the Passover Lamb and was suddenly available to even the uncircumcised thus allowing them to enjoy a benefit (i.e. Passover) that only the circumcised had enjoyed previously. And so a corollary issue arises: what is the sign for membership/citizenship under this New Covenant?

      Knowing this legal context, we can then look at the evidence that the only primary issue before the court was “Do gentiles need to be circumcised according to Mosaic custom in order to be saved?” In verses 10 and 11 Peter argues that the gentiles are saved by grace and not by a “yoke.” What is the one antithetical concept to salvation by grace? It’s salvation by works. And what better than a “yoke” to serve as a metaphor for work. And so this argument of Peter’s supports the Antioch congregation’s contention that they already had received grace and therefore the work of circumcision could do nothing to save them. Salvation was by grace, they contended, not by works.

      Next, we see Barnabas and Paul arguing regarding a corollary issue which is necessarily inferred from the one primary issue. This corollary issue deals with what type of sign might be offered to signify New Covenant membership (in lieu of physical circumcision). Barnabas and Paul do not put forth a proposition that there is an exclusive sign or set of signs given to signify membership in the New Covenant but they did report the signs that they had seen.

      As it turned out, the holding of the court settled the primary and corollary issue simultaneously. The holding that the ethnic gentile Believers should abstain from four particularly egregious pagan practices was the answer to the primary question of grace versus works. No works were required for salvation (abstinence from paganism is not a work; rather, it is pure neutrality). Further, abstinence from paganism neatly served as a sign that one was a member of the New Covenant. It was a handy set of table manners that allowed the ethnic gentile Believers to get into Messianic Synagogues on Shabbat in order to learn the Torah of Moses.

      I have very much enjoyed your post as it challenged me to think about this subject in more depth. Blessings to you, brother. And feel free to email me at jp.vest@gmail.com if you reply to this comment so that I can see your response and be blessed by it.

      -Peter

      • orthodoxmessianic says:

        To clarify the paragraph beginning with “Now it’s not enough…” My point was that to prove there’s two primary issues from Acts 15:5, it’s not enough to show that Issues A and B were concerns to the Pharisees and should therefore be recognized as the issues that the court was considering. We have to go farther and ask whether both of these supposed issues were being met with arguments from the opposing side (i.e. Peter, Paul, Barnabas). And so my point was that specifically you would have to show where Peter and Paul/Barnabas made some sort of argument to the effect that gentiles shouldn’t have to follow Torah.

      • orthodoxmessianic says:

        The idea that the Torah is a “yoke” is wrong for several reasons:
        (1) Torah specifically says that Torah is easy and not a burden. It’s the exact opposite of a burden–it is, in fact, HaShem’s Will.
        (2) if Peter meant Torah was a “yoke” then his argument would’ve been as follows: our ancestors were not able to bear the yoke of Torah so therefore Torah is futile for gentiles but not for Jews. This argument is preposterous.
        (3) the fact that the Law is an impossible standard to achieve is no reason to advocate Lawlessness (i.e. the argument “I can’t do it perfectly so I shouldn’t try to do it at all”). This would be like if my father gave me 10 tasks to do and I couldn’t do task #3 and so I just go play video games and my father then says “why didn’t you do the ten tasks?” and I reply “well, I couldn’t do task #3 so I figured you didn’t want me to do any of the tasks.”

  3. mjdykstra says:

    Derek, the issue about “blood” no doubt is mentioned several times in Torah, but within the Genesis 9 passage the injunction about blood is more than just the ingesting of it, it also includes the shedding of innocent blood, “murder”. Could this “blood” injunction be a synecdoche that represents a moral law. For example, the Western Text stresses moral living here, Leviticus 19 is heavy on universal morals, and finally the Gen. 9 injunction against murder could at least be a way in which God had called all men to be their brother’s keeper in the smallest moral rule to the largest like murder? What do you think of interpreting the law of “blood” as a synecdoche for a call to biblical morality? Mark.

  4. mjdykstra says:

    David’s fallen tent being rebuilt when he returns.
    First- Jesus resurrected body, “knock it down and I will rebuild it in 3 days”
    Two- Rom. 6:4 and Col. 2:12 if we are baptized into Messiah’s death and resurrection then we too become part of the David’s rebuilt Temple, I Pet. 2, I Cor. 3, 6, Eph. 2
    My question is, what is the theological point of a 3rd Temple being rebuilt? Is there Scripture that is pointing to a lesser temple that needs to be rebuilt? Obviously Herod out did Ezekiel’s hopes for a physical structure, but rebuilding Ezekiel’s temple today would seem to rival the living temple made by God’s own hand that is covering the whole world today.
    Obviously I am fighting against a Premill eschatology here, but help me see why a 3rd physical structure is needed when Jesus’ resurrected body with living stones around the entire globe are meeting the prophecies of a restored David’s tent? Why a 3rd building?
    Peace Brother.

  5. mjdykstra:

    You might read my “Both-And vs. Either-Or” post from October 18. You are making it either-or.

    I try, in my theology, to harmonize all the scriptural information. Is your allegorization faithful to all the data? I don’t think it is.

    Derek Leman

    • mjdykstra says:

      So in the same way that the Shekinah was in Yeshua and in Herod’s Temple, then in the same way in the future?
      I must admit there has always been lingering questions in my mind why the earliest church continued to use the Temple for worship (perhaps as late as 62AD at the death of James or their fleeing to Pella). Also I have struggled to understand the meaning of the sacrifices that Paul would have purchased for those keeping the (Nazarite) vow that gets unjustly arrested in Acts 21. Are these examples of both/and? How about after some of Jesus healings- some times coming to Jesus is enough, they are healed and sent home, other times Jesus instructs they go to the Temple and keep the requirement listed in Leviticus?
      Are these the kind of both/and examples you are thinking of?
      Mark

  6. mjdykstra:

    Great analogy. The Shekhinah can be in more than one place.

    Have you read my book A New Look at the Old Testament? I explain the consistency of sacrifices with Yeshua’s offering (the theology of sacrifice in Leviticus is not what most people think and Yeshua’s sacrifice is different than the Levitical–so says Hebrews also). Or search “sacrifices” here on the MJM blog and you should find plenty I’ve written about it.

    Derek Leman

  7. mjdykstra says:

    The both/and does seem to help in SEVERAL cases, but I find the both/and scenario unhelpful when I began to use the word Torah in a historical redemptive map. A few examples: (For arguments sake I will use Torah in one of its most simple definitions, “God’s instruction”. In this simplistic definition look at the historical progression.)
    Torah was a bit more complicated for Noah than it was for Adam, for Abraham than for Noah, for David than for Moses, yet when I get to Jesus this historical progressive aspect of Torah is exponentially magnified. I feel as though Torah and its demands seem rather “plastic/wooden” when we speak of Jesus keeping Torah; meaning I don’t feel the historical aspects of Jesus day in the blog ideas. A few examples, Deut. 20 doesn’t seem to be something Abraham is interested in, (obviously the commandment came after him) yet even Moses won’t even have a chance to keep it because he never enters the land, even Jesus doesn’t even mention Deut. 20 (unless you see exorcisms as a fulfillment of it). This Deut. 20 issue: only necessary for Joshua to Zedekiah and no longer required of Zerubbabel or Jesus or Paul or Benjamin Netanyahu,? is this part of Torah a historically bound mitzvot? If so, could others be like the physical temple and sacrificial system be? Could Jesus be the historical lynch pin upon which much of this progressive aspect of Torah turn upon? I am not replacing Israel here, but surely the prophet are looking forward to changes in their relationship to God and not Torah in a plastic Platonic Torah.
    Is there something historically progressive about parts of Torah that came in only in certain parts of Jewish history but not for others. The Both/and is not enough when talking about historical progression. So here is my intended question. What is new about the new covenant and what is old about the old. Jeremiah says that the new will not be like the old (ch. 31). Jeremiah says that (3:16) the ark will not enter their minds. John says there will be no need for a Temple, there certainly has to be some progressive redemptive aspects here that again my amill vs. your premill are getting stuck on. What is the author of Hebrews taking such great pains in doing when he quotes Jeremiah and then concludes with: (8:13)

    By using the term, “new,” he has made the first covenant “old”; and something being made old, something in the process of aging, is on its way to vanishing altogether.

    Paul in Gal. 4 is certainly pointing not a both/and but a progression in the relationship of the old and new covenants, yes?

    New Sabbath Rest, new priest hood, new covenant etc. Both/and??? There seems strongly something historically progressive going on here beyond a both/and issue. Agree or disagree? Perhaps I have just committed the false dilemma of either/or again, but set that aside for a second- doesn’t this progressive redemption say something about priests, temples, and sacrifices?
    Mark

  8. Pingback: Out of Context -Acts 15 - Page 3 - Christian Forums

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s