Acts 21 - Problems with the Conciliatory Theory - Part 1: “Unclean Gentile Territory”
To all who are beloved of God, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Having already made the case for why Paul and James speak to the upholding of the Mosaic covenant in my previous posts: Acts 21 - The Hermeneutical Key, Acts 21 and Acts 15 - The Jewish-Gentile Divide, and Acts 21 - Apostasy, I want to move on to show why the two main theories brought forth by mainstream Christian theologians fail.
In an attempt to account for Paul and James’ actions in Acts 21, two theories have been introduced by theologians to explain why Paul and James apparently uphold the Law while also getting rid of the Law.
1) The Conciliatory Theory - “All things to all men.” (conservative evangelical)
2) The Transitory Theory - Christian theology is still evolving. (liberal)
These theories need to be addressed individually. This post is the first of two parts about the Conciliatory Theory. Look for a breakdown of the Transitory Theory, soon.
The Conciliatory Theory
In order to explain the actions of Paul and James, the most common evangelical response is that Paul and James are simply making a conciliatory action toward the Jews who are “zealous for the Law.”
Here is a quote from the NET Bible notes, that illustrates this theory. Regarding the word “purify” in Acts 21:24, the translators comment:
That is, undergo ritual cleansing. Paul’s cleansing would be necessary because of his travels in “unclean” Gentile territory. This act would represent a conciliatory gesture. Paul would have supported a “law-free” mission to the Gentiles as an option, but this gesture would represent an attempt to be sensitive to the Jews (1 Cor. 9: 15-22).
Note Acts 21:24, “ae,” NET Bible, 2nd ed. (Biblical Studies Press, 2017), page 2109.
The theory briefly presented above has at least 1 major problem, two major assumptions, and a few misinterpretations that need to be addressed. Upon these the so-called "Conciliatory Theory” utterly fails.
(Note: I actually really like the NET Bible, as they are up-front and honest with textual variants and how and why they translated the text the way they did. I highly recommend it, but it does not mean that they are always correct!)
1) “Unclean Gentile Territory” - The Major Problem, Misinterpretations and Assumptions
To begin, we need to understand how the Apostles viewed the Gentiles. Were they unclean? Let’s find out.
Acts 10-11 and Peter’s Vision
Acts 10 and 11 are often cited by Christians to show that all “foods” are now clean to eat. They cite Peter’s vision with all the animals, clean and unclean. The Lord says to Peter, “kill and eat.”
Peter replies, “Not so Lord, I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
The voice replies, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.”
Most Christian’s say that this is a slam dunk excuse to eat bacon and shrimp, but they simply do not read the rest of the text.
First of all, Peter is greatly perplexed. (10:17). If Christ, declared all foods clean in Mk. 7:19, why would Peter be confused? It’s because Christ did not give permission to eat a ham sandwich. (This will have to wait for another post).
Furthermore, Peter gives us the interpretation of the vision when the gentiles visit him!
THE TEXT LITERALLY SAYS,
GOD HAS SHOWN ME THAT I SHOULD NOT CALL ANY MAN UNHOLY OR UNCLEAN (10:28)
THE CONTEXT OF THE VISION IS ABOUT MEN, NOT FOOD!
Let me repeat that.
THE CONTEXT OF THE VISION IS ABOUT MEN, NOT FOOD!
(On a side note, this test is actually very similar to that of Ezekiel 4:12, where the Lord says, “You shall eat it as a barley cake having baked it in their sight over human dung” Then v. 14 says, “But I said, ‘Ah, Lord GOD! Behold I have never been defiled; for from my youth until now I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has any unclean meat ever entered my mouth.”)
Let’s see that side by side.
Peter: “Not so Lord, I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
Ezekiel: “For from my youth until now I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has any unclean meat ever entered my mouth.”
Looks awfully similar doesn’t it?
Here is the point. The vision that Peter had has an interpretation. Since the command to eat unclean meats is UNLAWFUL, Peter is searching for an alternative meaning to his vision. The interpretation comes when he is visited by the Gentiles who were sent by God. Peter says, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.”
Unlawful to Eat with Gentiles?
Most people assume that the Law which Peter is referring to is found in the Law of Moses. I invite you to look in the Torah. You will look in vain to find a command or law telling any Jew not to associate with a Gentile. In fact you will find the opposite (“There is one Law for you and the alien among you.” -Num 15:16).
The Law of which Peter is speaking is that of the Oral Law and traditions that were put in place by the sages and rabbis. Nowhere is it written in the Law of God that Gentiles are unclean, in and of themselves. In fact, the Israelites were supposed to be a “light to the nations” (Isaiah 42:6; 49:6). You cannot be a light if you cannot associate!
This was an unlawful “yoke” that the Jewish leadership placed on the people, as a fence around the actual Law. Christ calls these “doctrines and traditions of men.”
Mark 7:8 says, “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
Mark 7:10-13 says,
For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother;’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death;’ but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God), you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many such as that.”
PLEASE NOTE: Christ, right here, equates the Law of Moses to the Word of God. They are synonyms! This should put to bed any notion that Moses wrote anything other than the very word of God (which is immutable and perfect).
This “law” not to associate with Gentiles is one of the many other traditions and doctrines handed down. Today, many of these doctrines and traditions are found in the Talmud and Mishna.
Peter’s Backsliding
Remember, the chronological order goes:
Peter’s vision recorded in Acts 10-11,
the writing of Galatians by Paul, and then
the actions of James and Paul recorded in Acts 21.
Peter, having already had the vision in Acts 10, begins acting hypocritically by refusing to eat with Gentiles, so Paul rebukes him in Galatians 2.
What this means is that James and Paul affirm that Gentiles are “clean,” according to Peter’s vision, and are to be given equal access.
The Failure of the Idea of “Unclean Gentile Territory” in the Conciliatory Theory
In Acts 21, we are presented with Paul and James, after Peter’s vision in Acts 10 and Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians, clearly praising God for the work being done in the diaspora!
If, as the Conciliatory Theory contends, Paul was required to purify himself after his travels in “unclean Gentile territory” simply in order to appease the Jews that were “zealous for the Law,” then Paul and James would be as utterly guilty of hypocrisy as was Peter in Galatians.
Given James’ and Paul’s understanding that Gentiles are declared clean by God (they were never unclean, rather, God is correcting misunderstanding), and that there is no Law in the written Torah that they are unclean, there is no way that they could have been affirming the need for Paul to perform a cleansing ceremony simply because he was in Gentile territory. It would make James and Paul guilty of succumbing to the Party of the Circumcision and hypocrites in the eyes of the myriads of Jewish believers in Jerusalem (Acts 21:20).
This notion of unclean Gentiles in the Conciliatory Theory is not only untenable for doctrine, making Paul, James, and Peter all hypocrites, but utterly unbiblical, based on the interpretation of both the Abrahamic Covenant (all nations being blessed) and with Peter’s vision!
Lastly and most importantly, the purification Paul undergoes is simply a requirement to perform the Nazarite Vow. We know this is true because the text says, “purify yourself ALONG WITH THEM” (Acts 21:24), which means the purification is required of the other four people taking the vow, also! They were in Jerusalem and not traveling with Paul among the Gentiles (which, as we already have seen, does not impart uncleanness, according to God and the ruling of the Apostles). With these two points alone, the Conciliatory theory fails miserably, and burns up like the Hindenburg.
The only logical conclusion, then, is that Paul undertakes this purification ritual in order to perform the Nazarite Vow (and thus prove that he has not forsaken the Law) and not to cleanse himself after traveling amongst Gentiles (who do not impart uncleanness to Jews).
2) The “Law-Free Option” - The Death of “It is Written”
See my post about Acts 21 and Acts 15 - The Entry requirements vs. Sanctification
Having dealt with this already it will not be rehashed here. I’ll just say this, there would be no reason for the Gentiles to hear the Law of Moses preached every Sabbath (Acts 15:20-21), if there was a so called “Law-free option.”
The idea that the Gentiles have no written standard by which to organize their orthodoxy (right belief and thinking) and orthopraxy (right action) seems to be a theological supposition that is tainted by post-modern experiential theology. Since the Law of Moses, the prophets, and writings were the Word of God and continued to be the word of God according the Apostles, to say that they Gentiles have a “Law-free option” is simply untenable and ultimately shows how Christian theologians assume some subjective, experience-based religion guided by the words of the Apostles only, rather than one governed by the Word of God – as if the Holy Spirit could say something different now other than what he inspired the writers of the “Old Testament” to say. If that were the case, this would make the Holy Spirit contradict and deny himself.
Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35),
He cannot deny himself (2 Tim 2:13), and
He does not change (Mal. 3:6).
Furthermore, to assume that these Gentiles would have had all of Paul’s letters is also historically incorrect, because the Pauline corpus was not widely distributed until much later! Some of the earliest Bible manuscripts like “P46” only has 7 (or possibly 8) of the Pauline epistles. The Marcion canon of the mid-second century only has 10 of the Pauline letters. Which means that the Church really did not use Paul’s letters widely and universally until the 3rd or 4th century! Thus, there is no “Law-free” option, as the only scriptures they had to use were the Law and the Prophets.
The conciliatory theory not only destroys biblical reliability for Gentile orthopraxy, it destroys any right thinking about inspiration of the Scripures and consistency in the God-head because, in this line of reasoning, the Holy Spirit contradicts himself.
Remember Christ’s only appeal to any argument is “it is written.” Where is it written? In the Torah, in the Prophets, and the Writings. Should there be a “Law-Free” option, the Gentile believers not only destroy the very foundations of their Faith, as the Abrahamic covenant is found in the Law and their orthopraxy would be completely out of sync with that of the Apostles and Messiah (who were Jews).
So where did this Law-free idea come from? It comes from only one text. “Being all things to all men” and its associated idea of “under law” (1 Cor. 9:19-23), which, considering the length of this post thus far, needs to be addressed in the next post.
Adonai bless you and keep you.
Adonai make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you.
Adonai lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.
-Scott McKenzie