Acts 15 and the Law of Moses: A Theological Reflection on the Solberg–Wilber Debate

There was a recent debate between R. L. Solberg and David Wilber on July 30^th, 2026, on whether Acts 15 requires Gentile believers to keep the Law of Moses. This debate offered a fascinating window into how Christians interpret Scripture, understand covenant theology, and navigate the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. As I listened to both men present their cases, I found myself returning repeatedly to the biblical text itself — especially Acts 15, Hebrews 8, and Paul’s letters — to evaluate whose position truly aligns with the testimony of Scripture.

My thesis is simple: Acts 15 does not place Gentile believers under the Law of Moses, and the New Testament consistently affirms that the Sinai Covenant is obsolete, which means that the Sinai covenantal system is no longer the governing authority for those who are in Christ Jesus.

In this essay, I will explain why I believe R. L. Solberg’s position reflects the biblical evidence more faithfully than David Wilber’s, and why the New Covenant provides a clearer, more coherent framework for understanding the apostolic decree.

This essay reflects my conviction that the apostles did not place Gentiles under Torah, and that Paul’s teaching consistently reinforces this reality. Paul’s theology reflects the New Covenant framework revealed in Christ, not the ongoing authority of the Sinai covenant.

The Heart of the Debate: What Did the Apostles Require?

Acts 15 opens with a crisis: certain men were teaching that Gentiles “must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses” to be saved (Acts 15:1). This was not a minor disagreement. It was a salvation issue — the very reason Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem.

Peter’s response is unmistakable: “We believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” (Acts 15:11, NASB)

This meant that salvation was not through circumcision or Torah observance (Acts15:7-11).

The Council’s decision reflects this conviction. Gentiles were not placed under the Law of Moses. Instead, they were instructed to abstain from four specific practices: things offered to idols, blood, things strangled, and sexual immorality. These prohibitions were pastoral and relational, designed to preserve unity between Jewish and Gentile believers in a culturally volatile environment. They were not a covert introduction to full Torah observance.

This is where Solberg’s argument shines. He consistently frames Acts 15 within the broader New Testament witness, showing how Paul later applies the decree through the lens of Christian liberty governed by love (especially in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10). Wilber, by contrast, attempts to stretch these four commands into a gateway to Torah observance — a move that neither the text nor the apostolic practice supports.

The Covenant Question: Old and New

A major point of divergence between the debaters was the status of the Sinai Covenant. Wilber insists that it has not passed away and therefore continues to bind Christians to the Law of Moses. But this claim collapses under the weight of Scripture.

Hebrews 8:13 (NASB) states plainly: “When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete.”

The tearing of the temple veil at Jesus’ death signaled the end of the earthly sacrificial system — the heart of the Sinai Covenant. The Lord Jesus Himself inaugurated the New Covenant at Passover when he instituted what we call ‘the Lord’s Supper’ (Matthew 26:26-30). Paul reinforces that Christians are freed from the law’s jurisdiction because Christ has fulfilled it, and he does this repeatedly when he wrote:

• “You are not under law but under grace.” (Romans 6:14, NASB)

• “Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness.” (Romans 10:4, NASB)

• “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.” (Galatians 5:18, NASB)

• “We are no longer under a guardian.” (Galatians 3:25, NASB)

• Christ abolished the law composed of commandments and ordinances. (Ephesians 2:15, NASB)

These passages do not abolish God’s moral law. They abolish the Sinai covenant and its system.

This is precisely where Solberg’s case is strong, and Wilber’s is weak. Solberg’s case recognizes this covenantal shift. Wilber’s does not. His insistence that the Sinai Covenant remains in force leads him to misinterpret Acts 15, Hebrews 8, and the role of the law in the life of the believer. It also forces him to rely on external articles, as seen in the debate, rather than Scripture to defend his position — a weakness Solberg exposed effectively.

The Four Prohibitions: Moral Law vs. Sinai Law

Wilber argues that because the four prohibitions in Acts 15 come from the Torah, Gentiles are being placed under the Law of Moses or Torah obligation. But this reasoning fails to distinguish between moral law, which predates Sinai, and covenantal law, which was given specifically to Israel.

Sexual immorality was condemned long before Moses. So was murder. So was idolatry. These are universal moral truths, not Sinai‑specific obligations. The apostles did not hand Gentiles “a starter pack” for Torah observance. They gave them four specific relational commands to preserve unity in a mixed Jewish‑Gentile church.

Solberg rightly emphasizes that if the apostles intended to place Gentiles under the Law of Moses, they could have simply said so. Instead, in Acts 15:28 (NASB) they say: “To lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials.”

Four commands do not equal 613.

Wilber attempts to expand these commands into broader Torah categories, but this requires reading far more into the text than the apostles ever stated. It also ignores the fact that Gentile believers in Jesus were not attending synagogues to learn Moses — a point Wilber repeatedly misinterprets in Acts 13. The Gentiles in those synagogues were proselytes to Judaism, not followers of Jesus. Once they recognized and embraced Jesus as Messiah, synagogue attendance became impossible, as Jesus Himself warned that believers would be expelled.

Paul’s Letters: The Apostolic Interpretation of Acts 15

One of the strongest elements of Solberg’s case is his consistent appeal to Paul’s letters. In the texts, Paul is never shown teaching Gentiles to grow into Torah observance. The texts never say he instructed them to keep the Sabbath, the feasts, or the dietary laws. The text never shows Paul telling them to be circumcised. Instead, the texts reveal that he teaches them to walk by the Spirit, to love one another, and to live in the freedom Christ Jesus purchased with His own blood.

Paul’s theology is the apostolic interpretation of Acts 15. Paul’s theology reflects the New Covenant framework revealed in Christ, not the ongoing authority of the Sinai covenant.

This does not abolish God’s moral law. It places it in its proper Christ-centered context.

Wilber’s position requires Gentiles to grow into full observance of the Torah — yet the New Testament never shows this happening. Not once. Solberg highlights this absence effectively, and it is one of the most decisive points in the debate.

A Final Assessment

Both men communicated their positions clearly, but only one aligned with the testimony of Scripture. Solberg’s case is grounded in covenant transitions, supported by Paul’s letters, and consistent with the actual practice of the early church. Wilber’s case, though earnest, misinterprets key passages, misunderstands the covenants, and relies on assumptions the text does not support.

Acts 15 does not require Gentile believers to keep the Law of Moses. The Sinai Covenant and its system are obsolete. God’s moral law remains. The New Covenant governs Christian life, and the apostles never taught Gentile believers to grow into Torah observance.

In my view, Solberg presented the stronger, more biblically faithful case. His interpretation reflects the freedom, unity, and grace of the New Covenant — the covenant sealed in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is Himself the fulfillment of the law.