Rabbinic Tradition and Torah Law
We know that the group called The Circumcision believed in Yeshua, because they were present when Kefa shared his experiences regarding Cornelius:
2 And when Kefa came up to Jerusalem, those of The Circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, "You went in to uncircumcised men, and ate with them!" [Ma’aseh (Acts) 11:1-3]
Kefa also feared this Circumcision when he visited Shaul and Bar Nabba in Antioch, because these ‘believing Pharisees’ had been sent from Ya’akov (or James, who was the head of the Jerusalem Assembly at that time). We will talk more about this a little later:
11 Now when Kefa had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
12 for before certain men came from Ya’akov he would eat with the [Ephraimites]; but when they came, he withdrew and set himself apart, fearing those who were of The Circumcision.
[Galatians 2:11-12]
We might also infer that this Circumcision is the same group of ‘certain men’ we read of in Acts Chapter Fifteen, because the issue at hand is still the very same one (of physical circumcision):
1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the Custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
2 Therefore, when Shaul and Bar Nabba had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Shaul and Bar Nabba and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the Apostles and elders, about this question. [Acts 15:1-2]
The Church teaches that the reason Shaul and Bar Nabba disputed with The Circumcision is because Shaul and Bar Nabba knew that physical circumcision was no longer required. While this may sound good at first, we will see it does not hold up under scrutiny.
We already know (both from the last chapter and from the writings of the Church Father Epiphanius) that the Nazarenes continued to practice physical circumcision right up until the Fourth Century, when the Roman Christians finally stamped them out:
“Therefore they differ …from the true Christians because they fulfill till now [such] Jewish rites as the circumcision, Sabbath, and others.”
[The Church Father Epiphanius in his doctrinal book “Against Heresies,” Panarion 29, 7, Page 42, 402]
Shaul also told us in Galatians Two that The Circumcision had been sent by Ya’akov (or James), the head of the Jerusalem Assembly:
12 For before certain men came from Ya’akov, he [Kefa] would eat with the [Ephraimites]; but when they came he withdrew and set himself apart, fearing those who were of The Circumcision.
[Galatians 2:12]
The Church tells us that Acts Fifteen is just one more piece of evidence that physical circumcision was done away with at the Cross. However, if the Church dogma is correct (and physical circumcision was done away with) then the head of the Jerusalem Assembly sent out emissaries to teach a doctrine that Shaul no longer believed, and Shaul successfully rebuked them. This, however, is impossible, because we have already seen that both Shaul and the Nazarenes (in general) continued to teach physical circumcision.
However, that the Nazarenes continued to practice circumcision also leaves us with a dilemma. There was obviously some kind of a heartfelt dispute between Shaul and The Circumcision; so if the issue was not physical circumcision per se, then what was it?
Christians are taught to believe that the New Covenant developed in a vacuum, but this was not the case. The New Covenant was written primarily by first century religious Jews; and for this reason, the New Covenant is filled with slang terms that most Christians misunderstand. With that in mind, we must interpret the New Covenant from a first century Jewish angle.
Is it possible that the argument between Shaul and Ya’akov’s emissaries was not about whether physical circumcision was still valid; but that instead it was about some technical point-of-doctrine regarding just exactly how physical circumcision had to be carried out, in order to be considered valid?
The Jews are well known for arguing endlessly over the finer details of their rabbinical rulings and procedures. According to Orthodox Judaism (and also its forerunner, Phariseeism), unless one performs the Commandments precisely in accordance with the rabbinic ordinances, one has not properly performed the Commandments (and by extension, one has not performed them; and therefore one is not ‘saved’).
Could it be, then, that The Circumcision argued not that the Gentiles had to be physically circumcised (for Shaul would have agreed with that); but that the Gentiles had to be circumcised exactly in accordance with the rabbinical ordinances and decrees governing Gentile conversion to Israelite worship (and that Shaul disagreed)? As we will see in the chapters that follow, this is exactly what the dispute was about.
Contrary to popular Christian myth, the term Circumcision actually refers to a now-extinct sub-sect within the first century Body of Yeshua. These Circumcised continued to believe as they had been previously taught by the Pharisees: That even though Yeshua was the Messiah (and was regathering the Lost Ten Tribes), Salvation still derived from one’s own performance of the Commandments.
It may seem incomprehensible to a modern-day believer that any follower of Yeshua would ever have believed that Salvation derives from the works of one’s hands. However, when we consider how the Pharisees taught their people, it is not difficult to see how The Circumcision arrived at this misconception.
Today’s Orthodox Jews are the direct spiritual descendants of the Pharisees of the New Covenant. The name has changed, but the lineage is direct. Therefore, it is often possible to get a feel for what the Pharisees believed back in the first century by learning what their descendants (the Orthodox) believe now.
Today’s Orthodox, then, believe that Salvation derives because one is genetically Jewish (or Israeli), and because one has properly performed the works of the Torah Law. However, in Orthodox Jewish (and hence Pharisaic) thought, the emphasis is on the proper performance of the Torah Law.
To the Orthodox rabbis, in order for a Commandment to have been performed properly, it must have been performed exactly according to all of the rules and regulations stipulated by rabbinic decree. If the Commandment was not performed exactly in accordance with these rabbinical ordinances, then the rabbis consider the performance to be invalid.
As we will show in a later chapter, it may be that Yeshua taught His disciples to keep those rabbinical ordinances which did not conflict with the Torah. However, whenever (and wherever) the rabbinical laws did conflict with the Torah, Yeshua taught that these man-made additions were wrong. One example is found in Matthew Chapter Fifteen:
1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Yeshua, saying,
2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders (the rulings of the rabbis)? For they do not wash their hands (according to the rabbinic procedure) when they eat bread.”
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the Commandments of Elohim because of your (rabbinic) tradition?
4 “For Elohim commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’
5 “But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to Elohim,” 6 Then he need not honor his father or mother.’
Thus you have made the commandment of Elohim of no effect by your tradition!”
[Mattithyahu (Matthew) 15:1-9]
Most Christians believe that by rejecting the rules of the rabbis, Yeshua was rejecting His Father’s Torah; but the converse is actually true. What Yeshua rebuked were those rabbinical rulings that contradicted the Torah, thereby making it of no effect:
6 “Thus you have made the commandment of Elohim of no effect by your tradition!” [Matthew 15:1-9]
The Torah teaches cleanliness; but the rabbinic hand-washing ritual has little to do with actual physical hygiene. As is still practiced in Jewish synagogues and homes everywhere, the rabbinic tradition is that one must wash one’s hands with a certain special ritual cup, following a certain special ritual sequence, and saying a certain special ritual prayer, or else one is not ritually clean (to eat).
This commandment of ritual hand-washing is not found anywhere in the Old Covenant, but is a later rabbinic addition. The Son of Elohim believed that His hands were clean enough to eat without going through the rabbinical procedure, and when the rabbis asked Him why He did not keep it, he asked them why they made rules that go against the Torah:
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the Commandments of Elohim because of your (rabbinic) tradition? [Matthew 15]
The Church teaches that Yeshua was rebuking the Pharisees for keeping the Torah, but the converse is actually true. Yeshua rebuked the Pharisees for pretending to keep the Torah, while they were actually doing something other than His Father’s Torah. This is a thought that many Christian pastors would do well to consider, as most Christian pastors also teach something other than the Torah.
The Christian wants to walk at total liberty, and feels that the performance of the Commandments is bondage (or worse). King David, however, wrote that he actually walked at liberty precisely because he kept YHWH’s precepts:
45 And I will walk at liberty,
For I seek Your precepts.
46 I will speak of Your testimonies also before kings, and will not be ashamed.
47 And I will delight myself in Your Commandments, which I love.
48 My hands also I will lift up to Your Commandments, which I love,
And I will meditate on Your statutes.
[Tehillim (Psalms) 119:45-48]
More than just saying he kept the Torah, King David called His Law a delight:
92 Unless Your Law had been my delight, I would have perished in my affliction. [Tehillim (Psalms) 119:92]
However, while David found the Torah to be a delight, it is extremely unlikely that he would have found the rabbinical ordinances delightful.
It may be difficult for Westerners to understand the extent to which rabbinical decrees constrict the lives of religious Jews, but there are rulings and ordinances for everything. Just to give a feel for the degree of constriction the Jews live with, there are ordinances telling the righteous how to tie their shoes:
A person must first put on his right shoe, but not tie it. Then he must put on his left shoe, and tie it, and (then) go back and tie his right shoe.
[Shulchan Aruch, Orach Hayim 2:4]
Orthodox Jews consider these man-made additions to the Law of Moses to be inspired; and when the rabbis speak of Torah Law, they also mean these kinds of man-made rabbinic additions.
The rabbinic literature also states that once Elohim gave Israel the Torah, it was now under the jurisdiction of the rabbis, and Elohim no longer had any say in what the rabbis did with it (Talmud Tractate Baba Metzia 59b). They even teach that rabbinical authority is higher than that of Elohim:
Even if they tell you that right is left or left is right, you must listen to them. [Sifrei Deuteronomy 154 (11)]
While the Nazarenes considered the Torah of Moshe a delight (as King David did), they found the rabbinical version of Torah Law to be a yoke and a burden, and they called it just that (see Acts Fifteen, verses 10 and 28, in the next chapter, below).
The classical Israelite definition of a Messiah is a divinely appointed leader who vanquishes Israel’s enemies, regathers the lost and scattered of Israel’s children, and brings Israel’s children back to the Torah. The Apostles understood this to be the role that Yeshua was (and is) fulfilling.
In contrast, the modern Christian believes that a Messiah is a divinely appointed leader who vanquishes the Children of Israel, and sets the gentiles free from bondage to the Marital Covenant; not that true gentiles (in the sense they use the word) were ever heir to the Marital Covenant, to begin with.
However, as opposed to both of those, The Circumcision defined their Messiah as a divinely appointed leader who was regathering the lost and scattered of Israel’s children, but was teaching them to keep the exact same rabbinic Torah Law as the Pharisees had always taught. The Apostle Shaul took great exception to this.
For the reasons we will detail below, Shaul and Bar Nabba clashed fiercely with The Circumcision, and insisted that Yeshua’s followers need not keep the rabbinic additions to the Law; but that only the Law of Moses was required. And, as the record will show, Shaul and Bar Nabba won the argument.
But how did they win the argument? And on what grounds did they win it?
Let’s take a fresh look now at Acts Chapter Fifteen, and see what was really discussed at the so-called ‘Jerusalem Council’: