Topics In Acts 15 #1

Hebrew Roots Pastor Ariel Ehrmantrout [http://www.torah4christians.com/Judaizers.html writes:

Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."

"The Key to understanding what the “Judaizers” were doing is found in this one verse. They were Patrician Pharisee’s from Jerusalem; and they were constantly worrying about “Ritual Purity” as defined within the Levitical System during the 2nd Temple period. They were saying to former Gentiles—that without the “sign of the covenant in your flesh” YOU CANNOT BE SAVED.

"They were teaching a traditional Jewish thought that unless you have both B’rit Millah (Circumcision in the foreskin) then your conversion is not complete. And undoubtedly, Rabbi Sha’uls converts were getting very upset about this. But why would it matter? Because without this sign in your flesh—you could not ENTER THE H-LY TEMPLE and SACRIFICE TO OBTAIN RITUAL PURITY. They were telling them that they would not be allowed into the Temple and thus they were not “fully converted to Judaism!” Rabbi Sha’ul knows that ritual purity is not found in the blood of bulls and Sheep—but in the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Rabbi Yeshua. Ritual Purity is only found in Messiah! So in review—a Judaizer is someone who tells you that the sign of the Mosaic covenant MUST BE in your FLESH for you to be considered “pure” before God." [End quote.]

We might better begin by asking if this term, "Judaizer," is a useful term in the first place. It certainly sounds like a term harboring the kind of "closet antisemitism" that Ariel Ehrmantrout condemns on his website. Perhaps neither Paul nor Luke were so much against Gentiles, who so desired, continuing to convert to Judaism - so long as they understood fully what they were doing, as they were against confusion of the two phases of Messiah's coming. For until the Kingdom is "handed back" to the Father by the Messiah a certain distinction in the world of Adam between Jew and Gentile must be sustained for the sake of witness to the one true God . Rather than demonizing anyone as a "Judaizer" we might better begin by asking why this dispute about circumcision was even taking place in the first place.

Ariel Ehrmantrout points out that without the sign of circumcision in the flesh a possible proselyte could not enter the Temple to offer a sacrifice. A problem would also arise when it came time to partake of the Passover. Problems with marriage would arise. In short, without circumcision in the flesh, a proselyte could not be considered by the Jewish people to be a full convert to Judaism or member of the nation of Israel. Now if James and the apostles had the very same idea of Christians and Christianity as is held by most Church leaders today why would of this even been an issue? Clearly they had no thoughts of a different religion that would be called Christianity and would make the possible circumcision of Gentile followers of Yehoshua a non-issue. Does it not seem clear that, to the contrary, the open question for the apostles was how the Gentiles were to be included in the blessings of the nation of Israel?

Only if this is the question under consideration does it make any sense that there were some voices that were saying that Gentiles who were drawn to the faith and religion of the Jews because they believed that Yehoshua was the Messiah should all take the final step of being circumcised - just like converts always had. Not only will facing this completely change the context in which we must carry out any discussion of the concept of "Judaizers," it will also place upon us the necessity of clarifying our understanding what the apostles would have understood the blessing of the nation of Israel to be - that Christian Gentiles were to partake of either without being circumcised or through being circumcised. For clearly, they would have understood this blessing of Israel to be that blessing that was to come to Israel through the promised Messiah.

So then, we should not talk about "Judaizers" or the conversion of Christian Gentiles to Judaism, or circumcision for Gentiles, or Torah for Gentiles, or any such thing, unless we are first completely clear on that very thing which the apostles had to become clear on - Peter, James, Paul and all the apostles. What was the relationship of Messiah to the nations? And therefore what was the relationship of the Gentiles to Messiah? It is time that this question were completely reconsidered in a context that is completely free of replacement theology, a theology that entirely obscures any truth concerning this question.