Origen on the Apostolic Decree: Why These Four Torah Commands?
Origen’s Commentary on Romans offers a fascinating perspective on the Apostolic Decree in Acts 15. Rather than seeing the Council as setting aside the Torah for Gentile believers, Origen argues that the apostles looked to the Torah itself to determine what God required of Gentiles. This article explores his reasoning concerning blood, strangled meat, and circumcision, and what it might contribute to the larger question of Gentile Torah observance.
Acts 15 is frequently cited as proof that the apostles rejected the Torah as an authoritative standard of conduct for Gentile believers. It is true that the apostles opposed the idea that Gentiles had to become circumcised or keep Torah in order to be saved (cf. Acts 15:1, 5). Peter insisted that both Jews and Gentiles are saved “through the grace of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11). However, the idea that the apostles rejected the Torah as a standard of conduct for those who are already saved runs into an obvious problem.
Indeed, immediately after deciding that Gentile believers did not need to be circumcised, the apostles required these same Gentiles to obey four commandments:
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. (Acts 15:19–20)
These commandments were not merely temporary concessions to Jewish sensitivities. The apostolic letter calls them “requirements” (Acts 15:28–29),[1] and Acts 16:4 describes the Council’s rulings as “decrees” that Paul and Timothy delivered to the congregations “for observance.”
Moreover, these commandments come straight from the Torah. As I argued in my recent debate on Acts 15, whatever else we conclude about this passage, it makes no sense to say that the apostles set aside the Law of Moses for Gentile believers while, in the very same decision, requiring them to obey commandments from that Law.
Still, Acts 15 raises the question: Why did the apostles require these four commandments in particular? The third-century Christian scholar Origen offers an interesting answer.
The Apostolic Decree and Leviticus 17–18
One plausible interpretation of the Apostolic Decree is that the four prohibitions are derived from Leviticus 17–18. Benjamin Frostad notes that this is probably the most widely held scholarly view concerning the source of the four prohibitions. Although the verbal parallels are not exact in every instance, their content and order correspond to the laws in these chapters.[2]
That connection is especially significant because Leviticus 17–18 applies these commandments not only to native Israelites but also to the “stranger” (the non-Israelite, the Gentile) living among Israel. For example, regarding the consumption of blood, God commands the following:
If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.” (Leviticus 17:10)
Likewise, after prohibiting the sexual relationships listed in Leviticus 18, God says:
But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you. (Leviticus 18:26)
Thus, the Torah itself identifies certain commandments in these chapters as applying to both Israelites and Gentiles. This is where Origen’s perspective is particularly interesting.
Origen’s “Universal Law”
In his Commentary on Romans, Origen observes that the Law of Moses sometimes explicitly identifies the people to whom a particular command applies. Some commandments are addressed to Israel specifically, while others are expressly applied to Gentiles as well. As an example of the latter category, Origen quotes Leviticus 17:10–12, where both Israelites and resident strangers are prohibited from consuming blood. He then writes the following:
You see then that the law respecting blood, which was given universally, both to the sons of Israel and to foreigners, is observed by us Gentiles as well who, through Jesus Christ, believe in God. (Origen, Romans 2.13.14)[3]
Origen explicitly identifies Gentile followers of the Messiah with this category, explaining that Scripture “customarily calls us proselytes and foreigners.” Origen calls this a “universal” law because the Torah itself applies it to Israelite and foreigner alike. He then makes the connection to Acts 15:
This is why the Church of even the Gentiles has received the universal law which safeguards against blood with the sons of Israel. For in those days the blessed council of the apostles, understanding that these things were written in the law in this way, for that reason pronounced dogmas and decrees for the Gentiles, writing that they should not only keep themselves from things sacrificed to idols and from fornication but also from blood and strangled things. (Origen, Romans 2.13.14)
After this, Origen anticipates an objection: the Torah explicitly says that strangers must abstain from blood, but where does it say that they must abstain from strangled animals? Origen answers by continuing into the very next verses of Leviticus 17:
But you will perhaps ask whether, just as the observance concerning blood makes clear, so it could be taught concerning things strangled that a universal law has been given both to the sons of Israel and to foreigners, since the statutes of the apostles decreed that the Gentiles are to observe even this. Listen to how carefully it has been safeguarded in the laws of God concerning this as well… (Origen, Romans 2.13.14)
He then quotes Leviticus 17:13–14:
Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. (Leviticus 17:13–14)
Origen thus understands the apostolic prohibition against “things strangled” in light of the Torah’s requirement that an animal’s blood be poured out before it is eaten. And once again, Leviticus explicitly applies this requirement to both “the people of Israel” and “the strangers.”
So, according to Origen, the apostles did not invent an arbitrary set of rules for Gentile believers, nor does he say that these commandments were merely temporary concessions intended to keep Jewish believers from being offended. Rather, he says that the apostles recognized that these requirements were “written in the law.” They recognized that the Torah itself applied these prohibitions to Israelites and strangers alike, and “for that reason” included them in their decree for Gentile believers.
Why Not Circumcision?
If the apostles were consulting the Torah to determine the obligations of Gentile believers, why did they not require circumcision? The answer is that the Torah itself does not ordinarily require the resident stranger to become circumcised.
This point is easy to overlook. The Torah contains numerous commandments explicitly applying to the stranger. Among other things, they participate in Sabbath rest, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, the Day of Atonement, various sacrificial regulations, and numerous other commandments. Frostad emphasizes that the Torah actually incorporates the stranger into a surprisingly large portion of its legislation.[4]
However, an adult stranger living among Israel is not generally commanded to become circumcised. The principal circumstance in which the Torah requires circumcision of the stranger concerns participation in the Passover sacrifice:
If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. (Exodus 12:48)
It is important to notice what this passage does not say. It does not say that a stranger must be circumcised merely because he lives among Israel and worships Israel’s God. Rather, circumcision is required if he wants to eat the Passover sacrifice. Indeed, as Frostad points out, Exodus continues to call this individual a “stranger” whether he is circumcised or not. His status as a resident stranger, therefore, does not depend on circumcision. An uncircumcised stranger is still required to participate in other aspects of Passover. For example, Exodus 12:19 explicitly includes the stranger in the command to abstain from leaven during the festival. What he could not do without being circumcised was eat the Passover lamb. Frostad therefore concludes that the Torah provides a category for an uncircumcised stranger who nevertheless participates in Israel's life and remains subject to the commandments that apply to him.[5] Consequently, rejecting mandatory circumcision for adult Gentile believers does not necessarily entail rejecting the Torah for Gentile believers.
Interestingly, Origen makes essentially the same observation about Exodus 12:48. He emphasizes that the Torah does not say that a stranger must keep the Passover and therefore be circumcised. Rather, he draws attention to the conditional wording of the passage: “if he should come to you and if he should celebrate the Passover” (Origen, Romans 2.13.17, emphasis added). Thus, for Origen, a stranger is required to be circumcised only if he chooses to celebrate the Passover, not simply because he lives among Israel. (In the context of Exodus 12, I take this requirement to refer specifically to eating the Passover sacrifice.) This fits Origen’s broader argument that the Torah imposes circumcision specifically upon Abraham’s descendants and members of his household, rather than upon Gentile believers in Messiah as such:
But we have said all these things in order to show what great distinctions exist in the law between the commandments, and to teach in particular about the precept of circumcision, which was imposed upon no one else except those who stem from Abraham’s race, their home-born slaves, and those slaves purchased at a price. But free from such laws are those from the Gentiles who, through Christ, believe in God. (Origen, Romans 2.13.16)
These insights from Origen provide a useful framework for understanding Acts 15. The apostles accepted Gentile believers as Gentiles. They did not require them to become circumcised. But the fact that these Gentile believers were uncircumcised did not place them outside the authority of the Torah altogether. They were still responsible for commandments that the Torah itself applies to Gentiles. In fact, that is exactly what we see in the Apostolic Decree.
A Starting Point for Gentile Torah Observance
Of course, this does not answer every question about a Gentile believer’s obligation to the Torah. For instance, the Apostolic Decree contains only four explicit prohibitions, but these obviously cannot represent the full extent of what was expected of Gentile believers. The decree says nothing explicitly about murder, theft, honoring one’s parents, sorcery, blasphemy, coveting, or numerous other commandments that the New Testament clearly requires Gentile believers to obey. Paul, for example, commands Gentile believers to honor their parents by quoting the fifth commandment (Eph. 6:1–3), and he explicitly invokes the Torah's prohibitions against adultery, murder, theft, and coveting as commandments believers must fulfill through love (Rom. 13:8–10).
Frostad (following a few other scholars, such as Eyal Regev) argues that the four prohibitions function as a baseline or entry point for Gentile believers, who would continue hearing the Law of Moses in the synagogue and grow in their understanding and observance of the Torah. He therefore interprets Acts 15:21—“Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues”—as pointing to their continued instruction in the Torah. Whether that interpretation is correct is beyond the scope of this article, but I recommend Frostad’s thesis for a fuller defense of this view.
In any case, according to Origen, the apostles looked at what was “written in the law” and applied to Gentile believers those commandments that the Torah itself applied to Gentiles. This does not mean, however, that Origen consistently believed every commandment addressed to the resident stranger remained binding on Gentile believers. Elsewhere, for example, he does not regard literal Sabbath observance as binding on Gentile believers (Contra Celsum 2.7), even though the Torah explicitly includes the stranger in its Sabbath regulations (Exod. 20:10; 23:12; Deut. 5:14). Thus, I would argue that Origen does not always apply this principle consistently.
Nevertheless, Origen is right to recognize that Acts 15 does not set the Torah aside. He insists that the Torah must be examined carefully to determine precisely what each command requires and to whom it applies. This provides a useful framework for understanding the Council’s decision. The apostles could receive Gentile believers without requiring circumcision because the Torah itself recognizes uncircumcised strangers among God’s people. At the same time, those strangers were still required to obey the commandments that applied to them. On Origen’s reading, the Apostolic Decree reflects the same principle for Gentile believers.
So Acts 15 does not answer every question about the extent of Gentile Torah observance. But according to Origen, the apostles give us a sensible place to begin: when asking what God requires of Gentiles, begin with what the Torah itself requires of Gentiles.
[1] As Jason Wendel observes, “In roughly contemporary writings, ἐπάναγκες [‘requirements’] is used to denote things that are commanded or legally necessary (cf. Plutarch, Ant. LVI.56.4; Solon XXII.4; Josephus, Antiq. XVI. 365; Philo, Hypothetica, 7:5; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiq. XI.59.5; Arrian, Indica, 11:6).” Wendel, Luke and the Law: A Defence of Christian Law-Observance (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2026), 56n52.
[2] Benjamin Frostad, “He Made No Distinction: Gentiles and the Role of Torah in Acts 15” (MA Thesis, Briercrest Seminary, 2021), 85–86.
[3] All quotations from Origen come from Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1–5, trans. Thomas P. Scheck, Fathers of the Church 103 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001).
[4] Frostad, “He Made No Distinction,” 9–16.
[5] Frostad, “He Made No Distinction,” 19–21.
About David Wilber
David Wilber is an author, Bible teacher, and CEO of Pronomian Publishing LLC. He has written several books and numerous theological articles, with his work appearing in outlets such as the Christian Post and the Journal of Biblical Theology. David has spoken at churches and conferences across the nation and has served as a researcher and Bible teacher for a number of Messianic and Christian ministries…
Origen’s Commentary on Romans offers a fascinating perspective on the Apostolic Decree in Acts 15. Rather than seeing the Council as setting aside the Torah for Gentile believers, Origen argues that the apostles looked to the Torah itself to determine what God required of Gentiles. This article explores his reasoning concerning blood, strangled meat, and circumcision, and what it might contribute to the larger question of Gentile Torah observance.