Catholic Perspective on the Noahide Claim that the Apostle James Taught the Noahide Laws in Acts 15:13–21 and Refutation

  See Home Page
SevenColorsMinistry@gmail.com

 "The second group comprised Jewish Christians and Gentiles (led by the Apostle James) who did not insist on Mosaic Law but instead deemed the observance of the seven Noahide Laws (Genesis 9) – do not deny God; do not blaspheme God; do not murder; do not engage in illicit sexual relations; do not steal; do not eat of a live animal; and establishing a legal system to keep the law – as sufficient for acceptance as a follower of Jesus. An example of this group is found in Acts 15, during the Council in Jerusalem, which was called to resolve questions relating to whether Gentile followers of Jesus were supposed to adopt Jewish laws. The Apostle James sets down the Noahide Laws in Acts 15:13–21."

SOURCE: Tleane, L.C., 2018, ‘N.T. Wright’s New Perspective on Paul: What implications for Anglican doctrine?’, HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 74(1), a4754. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v74i1.4754. Affiliation: 1 Change Management Unit, Office of the Vice-Chancellor, University of South Africa, South Africa 

Catholic Perspective on the Noahide Claim that the Apostle James Taught the Noahide Laws in Acts 15:13–21 and Refutation

The Noahide movement, rooted in Jewish tradition, promotes the Seven Laws of Noah as a universal moral code for non-Jews, derived from Genesis 9:1–7. Some Noahides, including scholars like L.C. Tleane, argue that the Apostle James, in Acts 15:13–21, taught the Noahide Laws as sufficient for Gentile followers of Jesus, aligning early Christianity with Jewish ethical expectations for non-Jews rather than the Mosaic Law. Tleane’s claim, as articulated in his 2018 paper, reflects a broader Noahide effort to frame early Christian teachings as compatible with their framework, minimizing the distinctiveness of the New Covenant. From a Catholic perspective, this interpretation misreads the context and intent of the Council of Jerusalem, reducing James’ decree to a Jewish legal framework and overlooking its Christocentric purpose. This essay explains Tleane’s and other Noahides’ arguments, as supported by the provided quote, and offers Catholic refutations grounded in scripture, tradition, and theology to affirm that James’ decree in Acts 15 upholds the Gospel’s freedom, not the Noahide Laws.

---

Noahide Position: James Taught the Noahide Laws in Acts 15:13–21

L.C. Tleane, in his 2018 paper published in HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, argues that the Apostle James, leading a group of Jewish Christians and Gentiles, endorsed the Noahide Laws as sufficient for Gentile believers, as evidenced in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). The quote states:

"The second group comprised Jewish Christians and Gentiles (led by the Apostle James) who did not insist on Mosaic Law but instead deemed the observance of the seven Noahide Laws (Genesis 9) – do not deny God; do not blaspheme God; do not murder; do not engage in illicit sexual relations; do not steal; do not eat of a live animal; and establishing a legal system to keep the law – as sufficient for acceptance as a follower of Jesus. An example of this group is found in Acts 15, during the Council in Jerusalem, which was called to resolve questions relating to whether Gentile followers of Jesus were supposed to adopt Jewish laws. The Apostle James sets down the Noahide Laws in Acts 15:13–21." (Tleane, 2018, p. 3)

The Noahide position, as articulated by Tleane and others, includes the following points:

1. James’ Decree Mirrors the Noahide Laws
   • Noahide Claim: The four prohibitions in James’ decree—abstaining from food sacrificed to idols, blood, strangled animals, and sexual immorality (Acts 15:20)—correspond closely to the Seven Noahide Laws, particularly prohibitions against idolatry, murder (linked to blood), illicit sexual relations, and eating flesh from a living animal. Noahides argue that James adapted these laws for Gentile Christians.
   • Supporting Argument: Tleane cites Genesis 9:4–6, which includes prohibitions against eating blood and murder, as the basis for the Noahide Laws, and suggests that James’ decree reflects these universal ethical principles, as understood in Jewish tradition (Sanhedrin 56a–b).
2. Sufficiency for Gentile Believers
   • Noahide Claim: James deemed the Noahide Laws sufficient for Gentiles to be accepted as followers of Jesus, avoiding the burden of the Mosaic Law (e.g., circumcision). Noahides argue that this reflects a Jewish framework for righteous Gentiles, not a new Christian ethic.
   • Supporting Argument: Tleane references Acts 15:19–20, where James proposes not to “trouble” Gentiles with Mosaic requirements, interpreting this as an endorsement of the Noahide Laws as a minimal standard, consistent with Jewish expectations for non-Jews (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 9:1).
3. Continuity with Jewish Tradition
   • Noahide Claim: James’ leadership in Acts 15 shows continuity with Jewish tradition, applying the Noahide Laws, a pre-Mosaic covenant, to Gentiles rather than imposing the Torah. Noahides argue that early Christianity operated within a Jewish legal framework.
   • Supporting Argument: Noahides point to Acts 15:21, where James notes that “Moses has been preached in every city,” suggesting that the decree aligns with Jewish synagogue practices, where Noahide principles were taught to God-fearers (Gentiles sympathetic to Judaism).
4. No New Covenant Innovation
   • Noahide Claim: The decree does not introduce a new Christian theology but adapts existing Jewish Noahide principles, denying the need for a distinct New Covenant ethic tied to Christ’s sacrifice. Noahides reject the idea that James’ decision reflects faith in Jesus as central.
   • Supporting Argument: Tleane and Noahides argue that the absence of explicit Christological language in James’ decree (Acts 15:13–21) supports a Jewish, Noahide framework, not a Christian innovation like the New Covenant.
5. Historical Context of Jewish-Gentile Relations
   • Noahide Claim: The Council of Jerusalem addressed Jewish-Gentile tensions by applying the Noahide Laws, a familiar Jewish standard for Gentiles, to maintain harmony without requiring full Torah observance. Noahides see James as mediating a practical compromise.
   • Supporting Argument: Noahides cite the historical context of Acts 15, where Jewish Christians debated Gentile inclusion (Acts 15:5), and argue that James’ decree reflects Jewish norms for Gentiles, as seen in rabbinic texts (Avodah Zarah 8:4), rather than a Christian theological shift.

---

Catholic Refutation of Noahide Claims

From a Catholic perspective, Tleane’s and other Noahides’ claim that James taught the Noahide Laws in Acts 15:13–21 misinterprets the Council of Jerusalem’s purpose and outcome, which was to affirm the Gospel’s freedom from the Mosaic Law and establish a Christian ethic rooted in faith in Christ, not to apply a Jewish Noahide framework. The Catholic Church, guided by scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium, affirms that James’ decree in Acts 15 reflects the New Covenant’s universal mission, not a reliance on the Noahide Laws. Below, each Noahide claim is refuted, demonstrating that Acts 15 centers on Christ, not a Jewish legal code.

1. James’ Decree Is Christocentric, Not Noahide
   • Noahide Claim: The decree’s prohibitions mirror the Noahide Laws, adapting them for Gentiles.
   • Catholic Response: While the four prohibitions in Acts 15:20—idolatry, sexual immorality, blood, and strangled animals—superficially resemble some Noahide Laws, their purpose is pastoral and Christian, not a direct application of Jewish law. The Council of Jerusalem, as described in Acts 15, affirms that salvation comes through faith in Christ, not law observance (Acts 15:11: “We believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus”). The prohibitions aim to foster unity between Jewish and Gentile Christians, addressing practices offensive to Jewish sensibilities (e.g., idol worship, Leviticus 17:10–14), not to enforce Noahide principles. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1965–1974) teaches that the New Covenant fulfills and transcends prior covenants, including Noah’s. The Noahide claim ignores the decree’s Christocentric context.
   • Scriptural Evidence: Galatians 2:16, written by Paul, who attended the Council, states that “a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ,” clarifying the Council’s focus. The Noahide view misreads the decree’s purpose.
   • Conclusion: James’ decree is a Christian pastoral decision, not an endorsement of Noahide Laws.
2. Faith in Christ, Not Law, Is Sufficient
   • Noahide Claim: The Noahide Laws were deemed sufficient for Gentile believers.
   • Catholic Response: The Council of Jerusalem rejected the necessity of any legal code, including the Mosaic Law or Noahide Laws, for salvation, emphasizing faith in Christ (Acts 15:8–9: “God… made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith”). James’ decree imposes minimal behavioral guidelines to promote fellowship, not a legal standard for acceptance as Christians. The CCC (781–786) teaches that incorporation into Christ’s Body through baptism, not law observance, defines Christian identity. The Noahide claim that James set the Noahide Laws as sufficient misrepresents the Council’s emphasis on grace over law.
   • Scriptural Evidence: Acts 15:28 states that the Holy Spirit guided the Council to impose “no greater burden” than necessary, prioritizing faith over legalism. The Noahide view imposes an unwarranted legal framework.
   • Conclusion: Faith in Christ, not Noahide Laws, is sufficient for Gentile believers.
3. The Decree Breaks from Jewish Legalism, Not Continues It
   • Noahide Claim: James’ decree shows continuity with Jewish tradition via the Noahide Laws.
   • Catholic Response: The Council of Jerusalem marks a decisive break from Jewish legalism, affirming the New Covenant’s freedom from the Mosaic Law and any prior covenantal codes, including the Noahide Laws. Acts 15:10 describes the Law as a “yoke” neither Jews nor Gentiles could bear, and James’ decree reflects a new Christian ethic rooted in the Gospel (CCC 1972). The reference to “Moses being preached” (Acts 15:21) acknowledges Jewish synagogue practices but does not bind Gentiles to them; rather, it explains the cultural sensitivity behind the prohibitions. The Church Fathers, like St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on Acts, 33), saw the Council as liberating Gentiles from Jewish law. The Noahide claim of continuity misinterprets the Council’s revolutionary outcome.
   • Scriptural Evidence: Ephesians 2:15 states that Christ abolished the “law with its commandments,” creating one new humanity, undermining the Noahide legal framework.
   • Conclusion: The decree establishes a Christian ethic, not Jewish Noahide continuity.
4. The Decree Reflects New Covenant Theology
   • Noahide Claim: The decree adapts Jewish Noahide principles, not a New Covenant ethic.
   • Catholic Response: James’ decree is grounded in the New Covenant, inaugurated by Christ’s death and resurrection (CCC 781). The Council’s decision is guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28), reflecting divine revelation, not Jewish tradition. The prohibitions address moral and cultural issues (e.g., idolatry and sexual immorality, 1 Corinthians 6:18), but their authority stems from Christ’s Church, not Genesis 9. The absence of explicit Christological language in James’ speech is contextual, as Peter’s prior testimony (Acts 15:7–11) centers on Christ’s grace. The CCC (1965–1968) teaches that the New Covenant fulfills all prior covenants, rendering the Noahide framework obsolete. The Noahide claim ignores this theological shift.
   • Scriptural Evidence: Hebrews 8:13 declares the Old Covenant “obsolete” in light of the New, including Noahide principles. The Noahide view overlooks the decree’s Christian foundation.
   • Conclusion: The decree reflects New Covenant theology, not Noahide principles.
5. The Council Addresses Christian Unity, Not Jewish Norms
   • Noahide Claim: The decree applies Noahide Laws to maintain Jewish-Gentile harmony.
   • Catholic Response: The Council of Jerusalem seeks to unify the Church under Christ, not to conform to Jewish norms for Gentiles. The prohibitions facilitate table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians, addressing practices that hindered unity (e.g., eating meat with blood, Leviticus 17:13). The decree’s authority lies in the apostles’ role as Christ’s representatives (Matthew 16:19), not rabbinic tradition. The Church Fathers, like St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book III, ch. 12), saw the Council as affirming the Church’s universal mission, not Jewish legalism. The Noahide claim of a Jewish compromise misrepresents the Council’s Christian purpose.
   • Scriptural Evidence: 1 Corinthians 10:14–21 shows Paul addressing idolatry in a Christian context, aligning with Acts 15’s goals, not Jewish Noahide norms.
   • Conclusion: The Council promotes Christian unity, not Jewish Noahide standards.

---

Conclusion

L.C. Tleane and other Noahides claim that the Apostle James taught the Noahide Laws in Acts 15:13–21, arguing that his decree mirrors these laws, suffices for Gentile believers, continues Jewish tradition, lacks New Covenant innovation, and addresses Jewish-Gentile relations through a familiar Jewish framework. From a Catholic perspective, these claims are refuted by the Council of Jerusalem’s Christocentric focus, its emphasis on faith over law, its break from Jewish legalism, its grounding in New Covenant theology, and its aim to unify the Church under Christ. The Catholic Church, guided by scripture (Acts 15:11), tradition (CCC 781–786), and the Magisterium, affirms that James’ decree in Acts 15 establishes a Christian ethic rooted in the Gospel, not a reiteration of the Noahide Laws. Catholics can confidently uphold this truth, proclaiming the New Covenant’s freedom and universality, fulfilled in Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).