The irritating things people say: the seven laws is in Acts 15

Again, I should not have to bring this up, but it gets pushed again and again. So you know what? I’m gonna be me and be the counter-voice.

“But, David, do you always have to be the contrarian?”

Apparently so.

I heard it mentioned in a video by Rod Bryant most recently on NetivOnline’s youtube channel, a video called “Clarifying Common Misconceptions about The Noahide.” Now I’m not saying he’s the source and I’m not saying it’s his fault, but the repetition of that teaching is like nails scratched on a blackboard to me. So I’m gonna write about it now.

So just to summarise the teaching … It’s said by some that in the christian bible, in the book of Acts, chapter 15, Gentiles are taught to keep the seven laws (or a portion of them) instead of getting circumcised and becoming Jews. It’s the notion that even the new testament of christianity has evidence of the seven laws, or that Gentile christians should keep the seven laws because James in Acts 15 tells them to do so.

What I’ll do now is what I normally do: share my view on this notion. So if it’s what I normally do, is it redundant for me to say I’m gonna do it?

Hmmm …

Anyway, before I start, just so you have an idea, let me do what I enjoy doing, and that is recounting what the seven divine laws for humanity are.

the implementation of Justice (a prohibition against injustice)

the prohibition against cursing God’s name using his name

the prohibition against actively worshipping idols

the prohibition against sex with certain people

the prohibition against murder

the prohibition against theft

the prohibition against eating flesh taken from an animal while it was still alive

So those are the laws. Take a look at the list. Take another look to reacquaint yourself. And then let’s proceed to Acts 15 to see what it says. You ready?

And after they had gone quiet, James answered, saying, Men, brothers, listen to me! Simeon recounted how God first did an inspection to take out of the nations a people for his name. And the words of the prophets agree to this, as it is written, After this I will return, and will rebuild the fallen tent of David; and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will erect it again: that what remains of men might seek after the Lord, and every nation, upon whom my name is called, says the Lord, who does all these things. Known to God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Consequently, I decide that we not trouble those from the nations who have turned to God with the exception of what we write to them: that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from illicit sexual intercourse, and from strangled things, and from blood . (Acts 15:13-20, emphasis mine)

So that’s what, according to the writer of Acts, James and his posse decided about what should be taught to Gentiles who accepted their teachings about God and Jesus.

The part relevant to my point is what I highlighted. Let me just bring that out. So the things James wants the Gentiles to be taught or commanded is as follows.

Prohibition against “pollution of idols”

Prohibition against illicit sexual relations

Prohibition against (eating) strangled things/animals

Prohibition against (eating) blood

Can you see my nigh-instant gripe with the number and content of these commands when compared to the laws for humanity in the Jewish tradition? Should I be patronising and spell it out or can I assume it’s that obvious? I’m in two minds.

Ok, I’ll be plain and curt.

James gives four edicts to the Gentiles. There are seven laws in Jewish tradition.

So even based on that “superficial” fact, and it is a fact, can I not say it’s true that Acts 15 does not teach the seven laws? Wait, who am I asking? Of course, it’s a fact that Acts 15 does not teach the seven laws!

But let me dig slightly deeper. What is the content of the edicts James gives?

“the pollution of idols.” What does that mean? Does it mean idolatry? Does it mean certain aspects of idolatry? Does it mean meat/food sacrificed to idols?

Well, I have help here with this term. Later on in Acts 15, in verses 28 and 29 about the same subject, it says the following.

Because it seems good to the holy spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: to abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from illicit sexual relations: from which if you keep yourselves, you will do well. Farewell.

You see what “pollution of idols” refers to. It refers to eating meat offered to idols, not idolatry itself. So, to say that again, literally, James does not prohibit idolatry itself, just meat offered to idols. This is just a food law.

“But the fact that he forbids food offered to idols implies that idolatry is forbidden.”

Maybe. Probably. But I don’t have to stress over what he meant here. He only spoke about meat offered to idols, which is not the seven laws prohibition against idolatry. People can make excuses if there want, say he really meant this or that, but I’ll just go by what he says.

The next one is “illicit sexual intercourse.” What does that mean? No idea. I’m not a person who assumes James agreed with the rabbis of that time and therefore accepted the seven laws and their details on sexual immorality. He’s part of a breakaway sect believing falsehoods about Jesus. I’m not going to assume and just say I don’t know what his details of “illicit sexual intercourse” are. It may be similar to the seven laws command on forbidden sexual partners.

But then we comes the next two decrees: prohibitions against things strangled and blood. It’s pretty simple to understand what these prohibitions mean. But the important question is whether these prohibitions are part of the seven laws. What is the closest law in the seven to these new testament prohibitions? The prohibition against eating meat taken from a still living animal. Shall I tell you the significant problem here? I’m gonna anyway. This law permits eating things strangled and blood. The Torah prohibition against eating meat taken from the living only stipulates that an animal must be dead to be eaten. So if the strangled animal is dead, then the seven laws permit eating it. There is no prohibition against blood.

To put it simply, the new testament decrees against eating things strangled and blood are not a part of the seven laws.

So what truth is there to the notion that Acts 15 teaches the seven laws? It’s possible that it teaches one of the seven, illicit sexual intercourse, and a small section of the prohibition against idolatry. But then it teaches two irrelevant laws, laws not part of the seven. It mentions nothing about the law of Justice or the prohibition against injustice, nothing about murder, theft or cursing God’s name. So most of the laws are ignored!

Here’s the question: whether in number or content, does Acts 15 teach the seven laws revealed in Jewish tradition? Hell no!

Does it at least refer to the seven? Since it mentions two decrees not part of the seven, I see no strong basis for thinking this. There’s no inkling of Acts pointing to more laws. And since the new testament has no oral tradition and James was part of a breakaway sect believing falsehoods, and using strange methods of interpretation, I’m not confident that he was just a rabbi faithfully following the oral tradition.

I’m guessing the teaching that the new testament book of Acts teaches the seven laws will continue. I can’t stop that. But at least I gave my reasons why I think such a teaching is full of crap!

Grin!