Did the Jerusalem Council Change God’s Law?

Who are the groups involved in Acts 15? We have the Jerusalem Council (v. 4), the Circumcision Party (v.1), the sect of believing Pharisees (v.5), and the new Gentile converts (V. 17-20). What is the debate about?

There are two positions: The Judaizers say: The Law of Moses should be kept as part of salvation, beginning with Circumcision (Acts 15:1). The believing Pharisees who were trusting in Jesus as Messiah argued: “Gentiles should keep the Law out of obedience.”

Is there anywhere in this passage that teaches the Law of Moses has been abolished, in whole or in part? I do not believe this is the point of the Jerusalem Council. 

How do we know this? Peter says the law coming from the Circumcision party, the oral tradition with all of its additional precepts, is bearing the yoke on the new believers.

We know that God Himself declares His Law to be easy and light (Deut. 30:11-16; 1 Jn. 4:23). Therefore, if we say that God’s Law is what the Jerusalem Council is arguing about, then we can’t have Peter calling it an unreasonable yoke.

The yoke that is unreasonable is a doctrine that teaches we are saved through circumcision and God’s law. First, circumcision was a sign of the old covenant. This is embedded in the sacrificial system and has been fulfilled in Christ.

As Scripture teaches in Hebrews 9, the blood of the new covenant is found when Christ entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.

It’s vitally important, hermeneutically, to keep the “covenants” separate from the “Law of God” since covenants (Abrahamic, Noahic, Davidic, Mosaic, etc) are often temporary while God’s Law is eternal.

More importantly, Hebrews 11 teaches that salvation has always been by faith from the very beginning. People were never saved by the Law, and God’s Word never teaches that.

Abraham was justified by faith when he offered his son Isaac. Noah was saved by faith when he built the ark. Therefore, in this passage, the Judaizers have the wrong theology: The Law of God is not kept for salvation.

The Law of God is kept out of obedience to God. As Jesus said, “If you love me, you will obey my commands.”

Acts 15:20 demonstrates this since abstaining from the pollution of idols, from fornication, things strangled, and from blood is a directive straight out of the Law of Moses in Leviticus 17:12-16 and Deuteronomy 32:17. I think this makes a strong case that the moral law of God is still binding today.

If one says the Sabbath is not mentioned, well, neither is covetousness, murder, or stealing. The point here is that the council was dealing with the sins of the Gentiles at that very moment.

Coming out of paganism, many of them were polluted by idols through temple prostitution and so idolatry was a good place to start: not to have any other gods other than Yahweh.

I do find it interesting that the apostles decided to keep God’s command concerning how to eat, such as prohibiting food that has blood or been strangled—which would categorize this (and I believe dietary laws) in the moral system rather than in the ceremonial or sacrificial system. Therefore, what you eat is still morally binding, but that’s for another discussion.

Finally, and this is really the key in this chapter on how to interpret this passage through exegesis and not through eisegesis. Acts 15:21 states: “For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

The Greek word translated “for” means that it is relating to what has already been stated. In other words, James is saying not only are the previous four commandments to be kept, but the Gentiles are to continually learn every Sabbath just like it was from ancient generations.

James is expanding on Acts 15:20 and he is using the present tense to indicate that the Law of Moses is still read every Sabbath in the synagogues. The Jerusalem Council occurred around 50 AD, approximately 20 years after Christ rose again from the dead.

This strongly supports the view that the Law has been taught and kept during the early church. I am not referring to the well-known early Church Fathers such as Ignatius and Clement of Rome, etc since they were anti-Semitic Greek philosophers who converted to Christianity and carried over their platonic ideas into the Hebrew faith.

Finally, Jeremiah 3:8-10 states the House of Israel that was divorced and scattered into the nations is now fulfilled in the coming of the Gentiles. God’s plan was to graft in the divorced, the House of Israel, back together with the house of Judah to save all of Israel (Ezekiel 37, Ephesians 2, Jeremiah 31, Zechariah 8:13).

Therefore, God did not create a new nation. He already has a chosen nation, and we as Gentiles have been grafted in by the blood of Christ (Romans 11:17-19).

For these reasons, I do not believe God’s Law was changed at the Council in Jerusalem. Jesus famously said, “I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” I believe Jesus meant what he said. It is my prayer God opens your eyes to this truth.

Article written by Chad A. Damitz (M.Div)

5 thoughts on “Did the Jerusalem Council Change God’s Law?

Add yours

  1. Great article! Great blog! Glad I found it. I have a couple points of contention with this article, but generally I heartily agree with your reading, and find that your position is far more biblical than most interpretations. Bravo! My main contention is your understanding of “circumcision”. The current trend in Pauline studies generally contends or at least admits that Paul uses the term “circumcision” as a form of shorthand, similar to his use of “under the Law”, for formal, legal conversion to Judaism. The Council basically endorses the gospel that Paul is preaching to the Gentiles based upon the experience of Peter in Acts 10 along with the proof texts cited by James, which are a conglomeration of texts from Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, et al. Elsewhere in the piece, you show your understanding of this, when you accurately say that it is the Oral Traditions that Peter refers to as the “yoke we have been unable to bear”, and not the Mosaic Law itself, since it is clear throughout the apostolic testimony that the Law itself is to be obeyed by all who claim faith towards God. Luke wrote both Acts and his own gospel, and was a traveling companion of Paul, so this chapter also serves the purpose of giving apostolic authority to Paul as the “apostle to the Gentiles”. Good stuff! You have a fan!


    1. David, thank you for the encouraging response. I will do some more extensive research on the understanding of “circumcision.” Your contention is justified. I am glad to see there are others who are like-minded with Scripture. I used to be a Southern Baptist Pastor, but left evangelicalism around a year ago. I currently worship at Beth Yeshua Messianic Congregation in Fort Myers, Florida. Thanks again for your comments. Shalom!


      1. awesome! Yes, I was an assistant pastor in a Calvary Chapel for a number of years. I am part of the teaching team at Tikvat David Messianic Synagogue in Atlanta. A couple of great resources for Pauline studies are Mark Nanos, Paula Fredricksen, and Daniel Lancaster of First Fruits of Zion. Also, other scholars worth checking out are David Rudolph and Craig Keener. N.T. Wright is also very good, although he seems to argue against his own logic at times.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑