@JakeWilson If Acts 15:21 means that Gentiles were led into Torah observance then verse 20 makes no sense, as "abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood" are Torah items. Rather than being led into Torah observance (which would definitively include circumcision) verse 21 limits Torah observance for Gentiles to 4 items only so that they are not forced to bear a yoke that even the fathers and apostles could not bear (v.10).

@MikeBorden Physical circumcision is a sign of the eternal, Abrahamic Covenant and applies only to the literal descendants of Avraham. The New Covenant wasn’t provided to create proselytes or graft Gentiles into unregenerate Israel but into the Israel of God, to wit, into a body of reborn Jews and Gentiles. Circumcising born again Gentiles is diametrically opposed to salvation since it reunites them with fallen men (in this case with Jewry outside the New Covenant).

@MikeBorden The yoke is the Oral Law, a plethora of minute regulations introduced on top of the Written Torah, and binding in order to be saved according to the Pharisees.

@MikeBorden The Gentiles in Acts 15 had to forbear any sacrificial-sexual idolatry instantly in order to RETAIN THEIR SALVATION. It's like telling a new church member to stop watching porn or shooting heroin = that is the start of a "Christian" walk. Acts 15:21 means what it says: the Gentiles attended Synagogue services on Shabbat to get acquainted with the Torah.

@MikeBorden Just to add: When Pharisees (in this case Shammaites, the strictest school) speak of the Law of Moses (Acts 15:5), they do not simply mean the Written Law but the entire body of man-made Pharisaic Law - that was and is the yoke. Paul followed Christ, - do you think he ate pork chops, ditched the Sabbath, and enjoyed Sunday meetings? And the Corinthians, Jews and Gentiles, imitated Paul.

@JakeWilson Do I think Jesus ate pork chops? Is that the question? No, I do not. He was born under the law (and kept it) to redeem those under the law. Do I think Paul would eat a pork chop? Absolutely, if he was with Gentiles and absolutely not if he was with Jews (1 Cor. 9:20-22). Depending upon if anyone he was with would be offended or not, he would also eat meat that had been offered to idols (1 Cor. 8).

Paul upbraided Peter in public to his face, not because he ate with Gentiles (breaking the law) but because he vacillated when some Jews showed up and caused some Gentiles to stumble because of it.

You may keep Torah if you please but you may not require it of those Gentiles who have been born again by grace through faith. Requiring such a thing of them is tantamount to declaring that you, by Torah observance, are of a higher standing in the Lord or have attained a greater righteousness. The danger is that, by such a requirement, you may cause a Gentile brother to go under the law for justification and thereby fall from grace.

There are more than a few places where Paul makes this very clear, especially Galatians.

I am sure that there is a great deal of religious benefit for the saved Jew to keep Torah, thus maintaining their heritage. Even for them, the danger remains that one would begin to conflate Torah observance with justification and fall from grace. Honor one day above another unto the Lord in your heart and allow a brother to honor every day the same unto the Lord in his heart. It is the same Lord and He alone is the judge.

@MikeBorden "To redeem those under the law"? Since when were Gentiles ever under Mosaic Law? "Under the law" refers to the Law of Sin, which unregenerate Gentiles and Jews are under. In pre-New Covenant times, Gentiles became subject to the Written Torah through PHYSICAL circumcision. Yet, since the ratification of the New Covenant, Gentiles become subject to the Written Torah through SPIRITUAL circumcision which occurs during full water immersion. The rest I may tackle tomorrow.