S
The assertion of many Torah observers is that the "Law of Moses" referred to in Acts 15 is the oral law of the Jews, and not the Mosaic (Old) Covenant.
However, this assertion can be easily disproved by doing a phrase search.
Go to blueletterbible.org and do a search on "Law of Moses" with the phrase in quotation marks. I have done this for you and here are the results:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria="Law+of+Moses"&t=ESV#s=s_primary_0_1
Note that Acts 28:23 the phrase is referring directly to the Torah. The Scripture was traditionally divided into three groups: the Law (Torah), Prophets (all the minor and major prophets), and the Writings or Psalms(Psalm, Ecclesiastes, Job, etc).
More noticeably, see I Cor 9:9.
I Cor 9:9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned?
This is a quote from the Torah:
Deut 25:4 “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.
So, the claim that the Oral Law is what is being addressed here is bogus. It is talking about the Mosaic Covenant. Read the rest of the references using "Law of Moses" on the phrase search that I provided and come to your own conclusions. The elements mentioned in many of these references apply to the Mosaic Covenant.
I think the reason that the four items are mentioned is that they were particularly strong issues amongst the Gentile believers as they tended to be associated with idolatry and its accompanying sexual practices.
This claim that Acts 15 is about the oral law is one of many rescue devices that Torah observers have created in order to support their beliefs. When I was a member of the Armstrongite organization that taught similar theology, we called them "difficult scriptures" instead of "rescue devices" but it's the same concept. If something clashes with your worldview, you find some way to explain around it because you are deeply entrenched in your position.
For a while I thought that if Christians were presented with the proper explanations concerning the problems with their views, they would change from them, but I now think Christians are almost as deeply entrenched in their worldviews as atheists and skeptics. In fact I think atheists and skeptics are often more reachable than certain groups within Christianity.
I would suggest reading "Sabbath in Christ" by Dale Ratzlaff, along with the accompanying Scriptures that he refers to, in order to clear up the related issues regarding the Old (Mosaic) Covenant and the New Covenant. I would also suggest reading Romans 7:1-7, II Corinthians 3, Galatians 3, Hebrews 8 and 9, and Acts 15. All of these indicate that the Mosaic Covenant is not applicable to New Covenant believers. Jews in the early church continued to observe many of these practices because it was part of their culture, and not out of compulsion. See Acts 21 for an example of this, which included even physical circumcision.
Before someone accuses me of quoting things out of context, I strongly suggest reading the whole chapters or books or the whole Bible in context. Those who quote out of context often accuse others of quoting out of context
Those who accuse others of using bad hermeneutics often emply bad hermeneutics They do whatever is necessary to maintain their world view.
Also, when dealing with such individuals, look for inconsistencies....do they claim the Mosaic Law is applicable to New Covenant believers, yet fail to observe the clean/unclean laws regarding women and their monthly cycle? In the Old Covenant, these women were required to live outside of the home during that period...and anything they touched became unclean. Do they throw away a couch if a woman who is having her period sits on it? Do they publish a list of the cycles of women so that they can avoid shaking her hand at services and becoming unclean? When it comes down to it, most of these individuals are simply inconsistent in their observance of the Mosaic Covenant despite their claims.
Before I get accused of being a lawbreaker, I am submitted to Christ and the commandments which apply to me, not the Old Covenant, which applied to ancient Israel. There are underlying spiritual and moral principles within the Old Covenant which can be discerned by spiritual eyes and which have value to the Christian life, but the specific applications to the nation of Israel don't apply. There are tons of deeper teachings in the Gospels and epistles which do apply to me.
The way I view it, the Old Covenant was like kindergarten level spirituality whereas the New Covenant is like college level. Those who proclaim it as the standard are like someone who wants to stay in kindergarten for the rest of their lives. In kindergarten, the teacher put us in a single straight line and walked us down to the cafeteria, carefully making sure that we didn't get lost on the way. In high school, we are able to walk to the cafeteria ourselves without a teacher to keep is in line. The analogy is very similar to the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The difference is the Holy Spirit which empowers the spirit-filled believer to obey the intent without necessarily doing all the specifics required of the carnal nation of Israel.
In the end, though, I have no issue if someone wants to meet on Saturday, or any holy day, or eat only "clean" meats according to the Mosaic Covenant...the observances may have meaning for them. It's when they claim that they are a requirement or a condition or necessary fruit of salvation that it becomes problematic. To a lesser degree, the insinuation that non-observers are living in sin is also annoying. One particular individual on this site keeps insinuating I might suffer eternal punishment if I don't go back to observing these things and that is extremely annoying to me regardless of his intentions.
By the way, someone else asked me about this question so I decided to create the response for the forum members to see so they are aware of the issues related with this assertion. I likely won't be monitoring the responses because I know that the individuals who hold these views are pretty much impenetrable and the conversation stirs up more heat than light. Feel free to mail me on cc if you have additional questions.
However, this assertion can be easily disproved by doing a phrase search.
Go to blueletterbible.org and do a search on "Law of Moses" with the phrase in quotation marks. I have done this for you and here are the results:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria="Law+of+Moses"&t=ESV#s=s_primary_0_1
Note that Acts 28:23 the phrase is referring directly to the Torah. The Scripture was traditionally divided into three groups: the Law (Torah), Prophets (all the minor and major prophets), and the Writings or Psalms(Psalm, Ecclesiastes, Job, etc).
More noticeably, see I Cor 9:9.
I Cor 9:9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned?
This is a quote from the Torah:
Deut 25:4 “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.
So, the claim that the Oral Law is what is being addressed here is bogus. It is talking about the Mosaic Covenant. Read the rest of the references using "Law of Moses" on the phrase search that I provided and come to your own conclusions. The elements mentioned in many of these references apply to the Mosaic Covenant.
I think the reason that the four items are mentioned is that they were particularly strong issues amongst the Gentile believers as they tended to be associated with idolatry and its accompanying sexual practices.
This claim that Acts 15 is about the oral law is one of many rescue devices that Torah observers have created in order to support their beliefs. When I was a member of the Armstrongite organization that taught similar theology, we called them "difficult scriptures" instead of "rescue devices" but it's the same concept. If something clashes with your worldview, you find some way to explain around it because you are deeply entrenched in your position.
For a while I thought that if Christians were presented with the proper explanations concerning the problems with their views, they would change from them, but I now think Christians are almost as deeply entrenched in their worldviews as atheists and skeptics. In fact I think atheists and skeptics are often more reachable than certain groups within Christianity.
I would suggest reading "Sabbath in Christ" by Dale Ratzlaff, along with the accompanying Scriptures that he refers to, in order to clear up the related issues regarding the Old (Mosaic) Covenant and the New Covenant. I would also suggest reading Romans 7:1-7, II Corinthians 3, Galatians 3, Hebrews 8 and 9, and Acts 15. All of these indicate that the Mosaic Covenant is not applicable to New Covenant believers. Jews in the early church continued to observe many of these practices because it was part of their culture, and not out of compulsion. See Acts 21 for an example of this, which included even physical circumcision.
Before someone accuses me of quoting things out of context, I strongly suggest reading the whole chapters or books or the whole Bible in context. Those who quote out of context often accuse others of quoting out of context
Those who accuse others of using bad hermeneutics often emply bad hermeneutics They do whatever is necessary to maintain their world view.Also, when dealing with such individuals, look for inconsistencies....do they claim the Mosaic Law is applicable to New Covenant believers, yet fail to observe the clean/unclean laws regarding women and their monthly cycle? In the Old Covenant, these women were required to live outside of the home during that period...and anything they touched became unclean. Do they throw away a couch if a woman who is having her period sits on it? Do they publish a list of the cycles of women so that they can avoid shaking her hand at services and becoming unclean? When it comes down to it, most of these individuals are simply inconsistent in their observance of the Mosaic Covenant despite their claims.
Before I get accused of being a lawbreaker, I am submitted to Christ and the commandments which apply to me, not the Old Covenant, which applied to ancient Israel. There are underlying spiritual and moral principles within the Old Covenant which can be discerned by spiritual eyes and which have value to the Christian life, but the specific applications to the nation of Israel don't apply. There are tons of deeper teachings in the Gospels and epistles which do apply to me.
The way I view it, the Old Covenant was like kindergarten level spirituality whereas the New Covenant is like college level. Those who proclaim it as the standard are like someone who wants to stay in kindergarten for the rest of their lives. In kindergarten, the teacher put us in a single straight line and walked us down to the cafeteria, carefully making sure that we didn't get lost on the way. In high school, we are able to walk to the cafeteria ourselves without a teacher to keep is in line. The analogy is very similar to the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The difference is the Holy Spirit which empowers the spirit-filled believer to obey the intent without necessarily doing all the specifics required of the carnal nation of Israel.
In the end, though, I have no issue if someone wants to meet on Saturday, or any holy day, or eat only "clean" meats according to the Mosaic Covenant...the observances may have meaning for them. It's when they claim that they are a requirement or a condition or necessary fruit of salvation that it becomes problematic. To a lesser degree, the insinuation that non-observers are living in sin is also annoying. One particular individual on this site keeps insinuating I might suffer eternal punishment if I don't go back to observing these things and that is extremely annoying to me regardless of his intentions.
By the way, someone else asked me about this question so I decided to create the response for the forum members to see so they are aware of the issues related with this assertion. I likely won't be monitoring the responses because I know that the individuals who hold these views are pretty much impenetrable and the conversation stirs up more heat than light. Feel free to mail me on cc if you have additional questions.
