Did the apostles release Gentile Christians from the Law of Moses while requiring Jewish Christians to remain under it? In Acts 15, the apostles refused to require circumcision and Mosaic observance for salvation. Only a few chapters later, however, Paul entered the Jerusalem Temple, participated in purification rites, and allowed others to say that he “walk[ed] orderly and ke[pt] the law” (Acts 21:24). This tension has led some to conclude that the early Church recognized two continuing obligations: Gentile Christians lived apart from Torah, while Jewish Christians remained bound to it.1
Paul’s letters make that conclusion awkward. Paul identified himself as a Jew who had “died to the law” through Christ (Galatians 2:19). He taught those who knew the law that they had “become dead to the law through the body of Christ” (Romans 7:4). The apostles recognized one means of salvation, one new covenant, and one people governed by Christ. The New Testament therefore teaches that the Mosaic covenant ceased to bind Jewish and Gentile believers alike. Jewish Christians could continue certain ancestral customs as matters of culture, conscience, or accommodation, but they could not treat those customs as covenantal obligations.
A Matter of Salvation
The controversy in Acts 15 concerned nothing less than salvation. Teachers came from Judea and declared, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). Others insisted that Gentile converts must be circumcised and commanded “to keep the law of Moses” (15:5). Peter answered by recalling the conversion of Cornelius. God gave the Holy Spirit to uncircumcised Gentiles and “made no distinction” between them and Jewish believers, “purifying their hearts by faith” (15:8-9). To impose the law afterward would challenge God’s own verdict and place a yoke upon the disciples that Israel had never successfully borne (15:10). Peter’s conclusion reaches beyond Gentile liberty. He said, “[W]e believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they” (15:11). Jewish believers are the “we,” and Gentile believers are the “they.” Peter does not say that Gentiles may be saved like Torah-observant Jews. He says that Jews must be saved in the same way as Gentiles, through the grace of Jesus Christ. Both stand on the same ground before God.
Paul’s argument in Galatians confirms this reading of the text. When he was forced to address Peter’s Judaizing, Paul emphasized that they were both “Jews by nature” (Galatians 2:15). He then declared that a person, whether Jew or Gentile, is justified through faith in Christ rather than by works of the law (2:16). Paul himself had “died to the law” so that he might “live to God” (2:19). His covenantal identity was now determined by union with Christ.
Galatians 3 places this change within the history of redemption. The law “was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come” (3:19). The law of Moses served as a guardian “to bring us to Christ,” but “after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (3:24-25). The Mosaic law possessed divinely appointed purposes which culminated in Christ and were fulfilled in Him.
Romans 7 makes the same point. Paul writes to people who “know the law” and tells them that they “have become dead to the law through the body of Christ” to belong to the risen Lord (7:1,4). The Jewish Christians were separated from the law of Moses just as a spouse is separated from a deceased spouse and free to marry another. Christians now serve “in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter” (7:6). Hebrews states the law of Moses was set aside because of its “weakness and unprofitableness” (Hebrews 7:18), and the establishment of the new covenant made the first covenant obsolete (8:13).
Why Did Paul Observe Jewish Customs?
Acts 21 records genuine Jewish observance, but it does not prove continuing Mosaic obligation. The Jerusalem elders hoped to answer reports that Paul despised Jewish customs. They asked him to join four men in purification and to pay their expenses (Acts 21:20-24). Paul agreed for the sake of peace and his mission to the Jews.2 His conduct follows a pattern visible elsewhere. Paul circumcised Timothy because of the Jews among whom they would work (Acts 16:3), yet he refused to circumcise Titus when false teachers demanded the act as a Gospel requirement (Galatians 2:3-5). Circumcision could be tolerated as cultural accommodation. It could never be accepted as necessary for justification or covenant membership.3
First Corinthians 7 supplies a controlling distinction for this discussion. Paul does not require Jewish believers to erase the marks of their Jewish identity, nor does he permit Gentile believers to seek circumcision as though it granted fuller covenantal standing (7:18-20). Circumcision and uncircumcision belong to the sphere of historical and ethnic identity; neither determines justification, membership in Christ, or rank within the Church (Romans 3:28-30; Galatians 3:26-29; 5:6; 6:15).
Romans 14 applies the same principle to days and foods. Believers may retain inherited practices as matters of conscience, provided those practices remain voluntary and are never imposed as measures of faithfulness (14:1-6,13-17,22-23). Jewish Christians could therefore continue certain ancestral customs as members of the new covenant, but they were no longer obligated to the Mosaic covenant as a governing redemptive order (Acts 15:1-29; Romans 7:4-6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-11; Hebrews 8:6-13). The decisive boundary is theological: a custom may be preserved as cultural practice, but once it is made necessary for salvation, binding upon the Church, or a ground of spiritual superiority, it becomes a denial of the sufficiency of Christ and the freedom of the Gospel (Acts 15:1,5,10-11; Galatians 2:3-5,15-16; 5:1-4; Colossians 2:16-23).
The Law Fulfilled and Still Instructive
I think Herman Bavinck captured the biblical balance when he said, “For, even though the Mosaic law, especially in its principles, continues significant even now, we know that God Himself intended it as a temporary code, and that in the fulness of time, when it had reached its fulfillment, it was abandoned because of its weakness and uselessness.”4 “Temporary” does not mean mistaken or worthless. The law was holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12). It revealed sin, preserved Israel, anticipated Christ, and supplied the categories by which the apostles explained His sacrifice and priesthood.
Christians still receive the Law of Moses as inspired Scripture. It warns the Church (1 Corinthians 10:6-11), instructs believers (Romans 15:4), and bears witness to Christ (Luke 24:27,44). Yet Christians read Moses from within the new covenant and under the authority of Christ. Neither Gentile nor Jewish Christians remain under the Mosaic covenant. Through Christ, Jews and Gentiles receive the same blessings and obligations.
Endnotes
1 This interpretation continues to be defended by some contemporary Messianic Jewish and post-supersessionist theologians. David J. Rudolph argues that Paul envisioned a “Torah-defined ecclesiological variegation” in which Jewish believers continued to observe the Mosaic law as an expression of their enduring Jewish covenantal calling, while Gentile believers remained uncircumcised and were not obligated to adopt a Jewish pattern of life. Mark S. Kinzer similarly proposes a “bilateral ecclesiology” in which Jewish and Gentile believers are united in the Messiah while retaining distinct ecclesial and covenantal vocations. See David J. Rudolph (2010), “Paul’s ‘Rule in All the Churches’ (1 Cor 7:17–24) and Torah-Defined Ecclesiological Variegation,” Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations, 5:1-24; idem (2016), A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock); and Mark S. Kinzer (2005), Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People (Grand Rapids: Brazos), esp. pp. 264-265,299-300. Related arguments appear among interpreters associated with the “Paul within Judaism” perspective, although these scholars differ over whether continued Torah observance should be understood descriptively as Paul’s historical practice or normatively as an enduring obligation for all Jewish believers in Jesus.
2 The narrative establishes Paul’s voluntary participation in Jewish observance, rather than the continuing covenantal necessity of that observance. The elders’ proposal was designed to refute the report that Paul taught Jewish believers to abandon Moses, circumcision, and ancestral customs. By undergoing purification and sponsoring the four men, Paul demonstrated his willingness to accommodate Jewish practice where the Gospel was not compromised, consistently with his stated missionary principle of becoming “as a Jew” to win Jews (1 Corinthians 9:19-23; cf. Acts 16:3; 18:18). See F. F. Bruce (1988), The Book of the Acts, rev. ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), pp. 404-408; I. Howard Marshall (1980), The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 5 (Leicester: InterVarsity Press), pp. 344-347; and David G. Peterson (2009), The Acts of the Apostles, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), pp. 600-605.
3 Acts 15:1-29; 16:1-3; Romans 2:25-29; 3:28-30; 4:9-12; 1 Corinthians 7:18-20; Galatians 2:3-5,15-16; 5:2-6; 6:12-15; Philippians 3:2-9. Paul’s circumcision of Timothy “because of the Jews” in the region demonstrates that circumcision could be practiced as a voluntary cultural and missionary accommodation when no saving significance was attached to it (Acts 16:3; cf. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23). His refusal to circumcise Titus, however, shows that the same act became impermissible when demanded as a condition of Christian freedom, justification, or inclusion among God’s covenant people (Galatians 2:3-5). In Galatians 5:2-6, receiving circumcision under such terms amounted to seeking justification through the law and therefore to abandoning the sufficiency of Christ. Circumcision itself was neither spiritually advantageous nor inherently sinful; its theological meaning depended upon whether it was treated as an ethnic custom or as a necessary boundary marker of salvation and covenant membership. See Douglas J. Moo (2013), Galatians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), pp. 19-31,138-146,323-332; Thomas R. Schreiner (2010), Galatians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 9:120-128,309-318; and Eckhard J. Schnabel (2012), Acts, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 5:661-666.
4 Herman Bavinck (2016), Our Reasonable Faith, trans. Henry Zylstra (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), pp. 68-69
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
