# Acts 15:23-29 and the Law



## Osage Bluestem

What does this mean for us today? If the Holy Ghost and the apostles said that this is all we as gentiles need to observe then why all of the uproar over the 10 commandments and the pentatuach?

Acts 15:23-29 KJV
[23] And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
[24] Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
[25] It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
[26] Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[27] We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
[28] For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
[29] That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: *from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well*. Fare ye well.


----------



## T.A.G.

I am waiting for this response


----------



## Osage Bluestem

T.A.G. said:


> I am waiting for this response


 
Yeah, this out to be interesting.


----------



## chbrooking

The context has to do with markers of Jewish distinctiveness -- such as circumcision and kashrut. The challenge was a social one. How, in Christ's body, where unity is a core concern, are you to handle such radically different cultures? 

When I was studying among Jewish people, I often heard, "It's easier for someone who is not kosher to conform, than it is for someone who is kosher to conform." That's true, actually. And Paul said much the same thing in Rom. 14. I think this has to do with a modicum of restraint imposed upon the Gentiles for the sake of unity among brethren. 

The fornication part is, I'll admit, awkward in the context. Perhaps the Greek culture was so lax and callous with regard to sexual morality, that this was an area that required special mention. 

What is clear, however, is that this is not the only text laying out legislation, and to read this as though it were independent of the rest of the New Testament would be a grave error. We do not permit lying and murder simply because it isn't listed here, do we?


----------



## Osage Bluestem

chbrooking said:


> What is clear, however, is that this is not the only text laying out legislation, and to read this as though it were independent of the rest of the New Testament would be a grave error. We do not permit lying and murder simply because it isn't listed here, do we?


 
True. That is a given regarding the rest of scripture. 

This letter was addressing gentiles to let them know what laws they needed to keep in order to be in good standing with the Church. Since they weren't Jews they weren't required to observe the OT law, just the things the Holy Ghost listed in the letter. Obviously rapists and murderers are sinning. We get that from the rest of scripture. Where in the rest of scripture does it override this letter and require gentiles to follow the decalogue?


----------



## chbrooking

I'm a bit confused? Rapists and murderers (your own examples) are precisely matters of the decalogue. And should we go through the rest of the commandments? I wouldn't think it necessary, given that a) we assume continuity, not discontinuity and b) this is a confessional board. But if you'd like to work our way through the commandments, we shall. Which commandment do you think does NOT apply?


----------



## Osage Bluestem

chbrooking said:


> Which commandment do you think does NOT apply?


 
What about the sabbath?

By the way, I'm not addressing what I actualy think. I'm simply asking questions.


----------



## Prufrock

David,

As Clark has stated very well already, the council was not making a comprehensive list of every single duty required of New Testament believers -- it was about the ceremonial law. The continuity of the moral law was never in question: so the proper question is _not_ where does the NT affirm each particular law of the moral law (e.g., the Sabbath) as binding on the Gentiles, but rather is a particular law (e.g., the Sabbath) part of the moral law? If so, then Acts 15 has nothing to do with it, and nothing needs to be "overridden."


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The point of the Acts dispute was not whether all mankind has to obey God (whose moral law is part of creation, part of the image of God in every heart). But whether the form of the OT law was binding: i.e., do the Gentiles have to become Jews. The form of the Law is the whole structure. The abolition of the structure would not necessarily (and certainly does not and cannot) remove that moral cornerstone, which we see summarized in the Ten Words.

If you note v29 carefully, you discover there 1) prohibition from participation in heathen practice (even if the Christians deny the substance); 2) the prohibition of blood and strangulation (which would leave the blood, so these two appear to be unified) goes back to a universal prohibition found in Gen.9:4; so it would appear that the apostles enjoin any prohibition of God's that applies to all creation, particularly that pre-dates the Israelite economy.

3) Immorality here, I think, is the continuing applicability of all laws pertaining to sexual misconduct and of consanguinity; while there is probably a natural-law explanation that can be appealed to with regard to these regulations, still an appeal to the laws of sexual morality as God-given to Israel serve as ideal restrictions for all times and places.

So, I think that we can see the rationale behind what the Church teaches, and that without recourse to simple pragmatism, or potentially crossing principles with other apostolic teaching.


----------



## larryjf

[28] For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
[29] That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

That is "necessary" for peace within the early Church. Not all of these things are necessary for the whole Church at all times, but specifically to the Church of their time when the shadows of Judaism were being supplanted by the fullness of Christ. These things (meats and blood) would surely provoke Jewish believers to set at nought their Gentile counterparts.

And i agree that fornication is mentioned in addition to the others because the Gentiles were given to it and did not consider it within their social structure to be a sin.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Larry,
While I'm not asking you or anyone in particular to change to agree with me, I am seeking to avoid exactly that form of situationalism that a "temporary," or "don't provoke this group," or a "this group has a special temptation" interpretation takes from this text.

I expect an interpretation that finds in this passage a broad applicability down to the present day. Furthermore, such a reading supports the Presbyterian, conciliar view of church authority. It seems to me decidedly un-Presbyterian to find a way around saying that the Church in Jerusalem dictated to the whole Church (global) a message that was crafted to abide through the ages.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

You need to back up to verse 19 and see verse 21, too. As Larry notes, the purpose was for maintaining the peace in the early church.

AMR


----------



## larryjf

Contra_Mundum said:


> Larry,
> It seems to me decidedly un-Presbyterian to find a way around saying that the Church in Jerusalem dictated to the whole Church (global) a message that was crafted to abide through the ages.


 
I may be missing something here, so please correct my understanding if it needs to be corrected. It's my understanding that Presbyterian government does not imply that decisions made by the Church are necessarily for every generation. For instance, i can think of theoretical Church decisions relating to the Lord's Supper during the time of Prohibition to be decisions only embraced for that time period.

If that is the case, i'm not sure why a Church decision that was made for a particular time in Church history would have to be a universally accepted decision for all times.

Doesn't the fact that the message was dictated only to the Gentiles also speak against the idea that this was a decision for all of the Church?

I'm just not seeing the context of the decision as being one of global/universal direction


----------



## Contra_Mundum

AMR:
And...?

How are the verses you've alluded to contrary to what I've said, in either one of my posts.

The difference between these two interpretations has nothing to do with the nature of that present condition, but whether the understanding of HOW the apostolic church addressed the problem has lasting, binding reference.

In my opinion, reading their deliverance as essentially _a temporary expedient for that era,_ fails to understand how the apostles viewed the authority of the OT, how they understood the whole Law not being binding on the Gentiles while still allowing that there is a law that must be followed, and evades any continuing force behind their direction.

What my interpretation does is look into the OT that they possessed, and would have appealed to for authority to dictate, to explain the words they chose.


Larry:
I do not agree that what they are deciding is simply a "practice."
I believe the issue they are addressing is "doctrinal." And doctrine is not malleable over generations.

Why do you think what they wrote is only applicable for "Gentiles", and has nothing to do with the "Jews"?

Where you see a relation to some church-commentary during "Prohibition", I much rather see the issue as one with affinities to Nicea or Chalcedon.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

larryjf said:


> I may be missing something here, so please correct my understanding if it needs to be corrected. It's my understanding that Presbyterian government does not imply that decisions made by the Church are necessarily for every generation.


 
I have heard people say this in places from time to time. It is often used to support female pastors. How would one determine the relevancy of a particular passage in regards to a particular generation. I have seen no pointers on this in scripture.


----------



## larryjf

@Rev. Buchanan: If it's doctrinal then how can "abstain from meats offered to idols" be in line with "Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do (1 Cor 8:8)" ... as it also refers to foods offered to idols

@David: In that quote i was responding to the charge that it was "unpresbyterian" to say that a church decision could have an impact within a certain time frame without being for every church of every generation. I was not trying to exegete the text at that point. 

As far as the text in hand...Acts 15...

Verse 5 specifies the issue at hand "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses." 
Verse 11 shows part of Paul's response, which presumes the original issue has to do not only with "moral living" but with salvation itself "But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
Verse 23 addresses the letter specifically to the Gentiles of certain regions, not to the universal Church "to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia"
Finally, the letter is never ordered to be read in any other church.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

larryjf said:


> @David: In that quote i was responding to the charge that it was "unpresbyterian" to say that a church decision could have an impact within a certain time frame without being for every church of every generation. I was not trying to exegete the text at that point.


 
How do we determine when a scriptural directive becomes void for a generation?


----------



## larryjf

DD2009 said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> @David: In that quote i was responding to the charge that it was "unpresbyterian" to say that a church decision could have an impact within a certain time frame without being for every church of every generation. I was not trying to exegete the text at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do we determine when a scriptural directive becomes void for a generation?
Click to expand...

 
As i posted above, when the directive is given to a specific people group (i.e. Gentiles) within specific regions (i.e. Antioch, Syria, Cilicia) we should apply it to that specific people group and region. Where do we get the authority to expand this beyond the Gentiles or beyond the regions specified?


----------



## Osage Bluestem

larryjf said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> @David: In that quote i was responding to the charge that it was "unpresbyterian" to say that a church decision could have an impact within a certain time frame without being for every church of every generation. I was not trying to exegete the text at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do we determine when a scriptural directive becomes void for a generation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As i posted above, when the directive is given to a specific people group (i.e. Gentiles) within specific regions (i.e. Antioch, Syria, Cilicia) we should apply it to that specific people group and region. Where do we get the authority to expand this beyond the Gentiles or beyond the regions specified?
Click to expand...

 
I have always understood that we believe the directives of God to be consistant and unchangeable unless otherwise directed. I was unaware that we could limit his directives to just those original people who received the scriptures from the hand of the apostles. If that is so, why don't we cut the canon down to just what is applicable to us?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Larry:
I think the answer to your question is from the same Paul:14Therefore, my beloved, *flee from idolatry*. 15*I speak as to sensible people*; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20*No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.* 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
23 "All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question *on the ground of conscience*. 26For "the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof." 27If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28*But if someone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience*— 29I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? 30If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?
31So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks *or to the church of God*,​1Cor10:14-32 (ESV)


There is interplay between the practical and the doctrinal here, however this passage is not entirely free of doctrinal considerations, and the doctrinal undergirds the practical. Paul says: DO NOT EAT certain meats, BECAUSE they have been sacrificed, and in the context of that sacrifice. He also says, DO NOT EAT, when it sends the same message as in the first place (even when a Christian knows better).

The point in the first place is NOT that Christians shouldn't ever eat what is sold in the market (at a discount) and without pangs of conscience, but that they MUST NOT frequent the banquets of the Idol Temples. This, then, I take to be the principal concern of the Jerusalem deliverance, beside which there is the subordinate necessity (occasional, temporal) to avoid offense.

I find the whole of Paul's teaching here on this topic to be little more than expanded (inspired) commentary on Jerusalem Council.


----------



## larryjf

Contra_Mundum said:


> Larry:
> I think the answer to your question is from the same Paul:14Therefore, my beloved, *flee from idolatry*. 15*I speak as to sensible people*; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20*No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.* 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
> 23 "All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question *on the ground of conscience*. 26For "the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof." 27If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28*But if someone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience*— 29I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? 30If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?
> 31So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks *or to the church of God*,​1Cor10:14-32 (ESV)
> 
> 
> There is interplay between the practical and the doctrinal here, however this passage is not entirely free of doctrinal considerations, and the doctrinal undergirds the practical. Paul says: DO NOT EAT certain meats, BECAUSE they have been sacrificed. He also says, DO NOT EAT, when it sends the same message as in the first place (even when a Christian knows better).
> 
> The point in the first place is NOT that Christians shouldn't ever eat what is sold in the market (at a discount) and without pangs of conscience, but that they MUST NOT frequent the banquets of the Idol Temples. This, then, I take to be the principal concern of the Jerusalem deliverance.


 
I would suggest that Paul is saying "don't eat meat if it will violate conscience" and at the same time saying "eating the meat does not violate God's instructions to us." The conscience being violated is due to its previous submersion in paganism and has nothing to do with God's law as such.

---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------




DD2009 said:


> I have always understood that we believe the directives of God to be consistant and unchangeable unless otherwise directed. I was unaware that we could limit his directives to just those original people who received the scriptures from the hand of the apostles. If that is so, why don't we cut the canon down to just what is applicable to us?


 
If the directives themselves are put into a limited application then i don't see how we have the right to change that.
That is not to say that we can't apply it indirectly to our lives...but as it stands as a directive it was for a specific people of a specific region.

I can certainly apply it to my life as i learn how to connect with Christians from other cultures and the sacrifice that i can make of my own liberty for their conscience sake on matters that are cultural rather than religious in nature.

If the directives in Scripture are always for all people of all times then would you be in favor of not wearing clothes that are made of more than one material (Lev 19:19)?


----------



## chbrooking

Rev. Buchanan,
I appreciate the association of this text with that of Genesis 9 (a connection I've heard/seen before), but I wonder if other texts might not also bear intertextual fruit. Rev. 2:14 and 20 seem to draw a connection to Balaam and Jezebel. At least two of these things are associated with Balaam and Jezebel -- meat sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality. Gen 9 doesn't mention sexual immorality or idolatry. And while strangling would leave the blood in the meat, and therefore violate the proscription of Gen 9, strangling, _per se_, is not specifically mentioned in that text. 

I'm very reluctant to disagree with you on a matter of exegesis. I've generally been very impressed by your handling of the text. But your appeal to pre-Israelite instruction in order to provide abiding significance (much as Paul does in 1Tim 2:12ff) might be based on a connection with Genesis 9 that isn't there. I'm not SAYING it isn't there. But would you mind arguing for the connection in a bit more detail? 

Respectfully,


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Larry,
I think you are divorcing the latter consideration from the opening words.

The first statement, "Flee idolatry" conditions the remainder of the passage. The next directions he gives has nothing to do with what those sacrifices are "actually" but what they teach. And he tells Christians that they CANNOT drink that cup or eat at that table. This is not your or my "option." We are forbidden to attend upon and participate in (not necessarily forbidden to be a mere observer) at a false religious ceremony.

It is only after that meat has been disposed of at market, that the question of conscience comes up. And then, still Paul doesn't present the matter in terms of conditions, but by an appeal to our duty to others, essentially to the 6th commandment. But in any case, he still says there are clear situations where we are NOT to eat certain meat.


Actually, I'm not the one having any problem here. Someone could read your explanation of Paul as either he contradicts himself, or he contradicts the Jerusalem Council. So, to avoid that charge I see the other side having to recourse to say that the Jerusalem Council's deliverance is only conditional, and temporary, and full of vague references to hurt feelings, rather than to solid, biblically-backed commandment. Thus is removed what seems to them to be Paul's "later" direction, somehow superseding the former command.

I find that whole approach to the issue too convenient.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

chbrooking said:


> Rev. Buchanan,
> I appreciate the association of this text with that of Genesis 9 (a connection I've heard/seen before), but I wonder if other texts might not also bear intertextual fruit. Rev. 2:14 and 20 seem to draw a connection to Balaam and Jezebel. At least two of these things are associated with Balaam and Jezebel -- meat sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality. Gen 9 doesn't mention sexual immorality or idolatry. And while strangling would leave the blood in the meat, and therefore violate the proscription of Gen 9, strangling, _per se_, is not specifically mentioned in that text.
> 
> I'm very reluctant to disagree with you on a matter of exegesis. I've generally been very impressed by your handling of the text. But your appeal to pre-Israelite instruction in order to provide abiding significance (much as Paul does in 1Tim 2:12ff) might be based on a connection with Genesis 9 that isn't there. I'm not SAYING it isn't. But would you mind arguing for the connection in a bit more detail?
> 
> Respectfully,


Hi Clark,

A quick search doesn't turn up much OT on the issue of strangling, which is why I think the issue is covered under the matter of eating blood (and I've looked at this before, but time prevents a new thorough search). The law states Israel isn't to straight eat/drink blood, nor consume blood left in an animal.

I begin at the point of the reason for gathering the Council, to speak to the issue of the Gentiles' relation to the Law. Once Peter points back to his experience with Cornelius (we tend to forget that they didn't yet have the book of Acts!), the question is largely settled, but not solely on the basis of his personal revelation. Instead we see the Church appealing to Scriptural authority.

But the settlement still leaves the question (we are still wrestling with it today, to some extent)--what about the _morality_ of the law? Isn't the law moral? Isn't moral law universal? We can't tell the Church (Jews and Gentiles) that the Bible (and they only possess the OT in written form) doesn't inform us morally anymore, when surely it does.

But when we ask the question: was eating blood just one of those "separation laws" of Moses?, we find that it wasn't. It is as old as Noah, meaning that God gave this command to all peoples from ancient times.

The principle, it seems to me, then follows that we understand that morality isn't simply the laws given in any particular time and place, and not confined to Moses Law, now abrogated. But all moral laws (divine origin) are to be obeyed, as well as any positive precepts we determine he has imposed from the beginning of time. So, if there still was a physical Tree of Life, it would still be off limits to us unless God removed the restriction (being a positive prohibition).

Ergo, the stipulation about blood, no less than the stipulation concerning the lives of murderers, is to be received today, and not considered removed in the same sense as the Law has been. I do believe that Paul's example of appealing to Creation (1Tim.2) is instructive. I think that the apostles looked at chronology, and not simply at Moses in toto, when they understood that the Old Covenant was over and the Law set aside.

Your thoughts concerning Jezebel and Baal might be a productive avenue to pursue. The history of the People is meant to be instructive to us.

I have to go. So no more comment tonight. I will think further.


----------



## chbrooking

Please do, as time permits.
I don't think we are that far apart in our positions, but I want to be sure. I think the context carries more of the Jew-Gentile interaction (and conflict) issue than your interpretation. But I'll revisit the text in light of your remarks, and see if my understanding requires adjustment.
Thanks,


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Contra_Mundum said:


> AMR:
> And...?
> 
> How are the verses you've alluded to contrary to what I've said, in either one of my posts.


Sorry, Bruce, my comments were directed to the OP. And I am not claiming zero application to us today: nothing is unclean (Romans 14:14) per liberty granted (1 Cor 10:25), contrary to the attempts of men to impose differently. Nevertheless, one can abuse one's freedom at the expense of offending others or destroying one's credibility.



> They use that remedy which was fit for the nourishing of brotherly peace and concord among the Churches, that the Gentiles may for a time apply themselves to the Jews. But if we will grant anything, we must assuredly confess that this is according to the word of God, that love bear the sway in things indifferent; that is, that the external use of those things which are of themselves free be bent unto the rule of charity. - Calvin's Commentaries - Acts 15



As for the inclusion of fornication in the passage, Calvin notes:



> whereas James reckoneth up a common corruption among things which are of themselves not corrupt, there is therein no inconvenience {_in that there is an absurdity_}; so that we know that it was not his meaning to place those things in one order which are very far unlike among themselves. For, whereas unclean men do thereby color and cloak their filthiness, they may easily be refuted. James, say they, coupled eating of blood with whoredom; but doth he compare them together as things that are like, at least which disagree not in any point. Yea, he doth only respect {_refers to_} the wicked and corrupt custom of men, which was fallen away from the first law and order of nature appointed by God.



AMR


----------



## chbrooking

Contra_Mundum said:


> I do believe that Paul's example of appealing to Creation (1Tim.2) is instructive. I think that the apostles looked at chronology, and not simply at Moses in toto, when they understood that the Old Covenant was over and the Law set aside.


 
I very much agree. That's why I brought it up. I'm looking forward to further interaction on this.


----------



## larryjf

Contra_Mundum said:


> Larry,
> I think you are divorcing the latter consideration from the opening words.
> 
> The first statement, "Flee idolatry" conditions the remainder of the passage. The next directions he gives has nothing to do with what those sacrifices are "actually" but what they teach. And he tells Christians that they CANNOT drink that cup or eat at that table. This is not your or my "option." We are forbidden to attend upon and participate in (not necessarily forbidden to be a mere observer) at a false religious ceremony.
> 
> It is only after that meat has been disposed of at market, that the question of conscience comes up. And then, still Paul doesn't present the matter in terms of conditions, but by an appeal to our duty to others, essentially to the 6th commandment. But in any case, he still says there are clear situations where we are NOT to eat certain meat.
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm not the one having any problem here. Someone could read your explanation of Paul as either he contradicts himself, or he contradicts the Jerusalem Council. So, to avoid that charge I see the other side having to recourse to say that the Jerusalem Council's deliverance is only conditional, and temporary, and full of vague references to hurt feelings, rather than to solid, biblically-backed commandment. Thus is removed what seems to them to be Paul's "later" direction, somehow superseding the former command.
> 
> I find that whole approach to the issue too convenient.


 
I'm sorry...i thought we were talking about the same passage in Corinthians. I see now that you were posting on 1 Cor 10 while i was posting on 1 Cor 8. It was 1 Cor 8 that i was making my point with...not with 1 Cor 10...so my comments regarding the 1 Cor 10 that you posted on were irrelevant.


----------



## MW

George Gillespie (English Popish Ceremonies, 20):



> Thus much may be collected from Acts xv. 21, where James gives a reason wherefore *it was expedient* that the Gentiles should observe some of the Jewish rites for a time, as Calvin, Beza, and Junius, expound the place. His reason is, because the Jews, being so long accustomed with the hearing of the law of Moses, and such as did preach the same, could not be made at first to understand how the ordinances which God gave to his people by the hand of Moses, might be cast off and not regarded, which importeth as much as I say, namely, that the reason wherefore the converted Jews were so apt to be scandalised by such as cared not for the ceremonial law, and held themselves obliged to observe the same, was because they saw not how they could be exempted from the ordinances and statutes of the law of Moses, with which they had been educated and accustomed.


----------



## timmopussycat

Contra_Mundum said:


> Larry,
> While I'm not asking you or anyone in particular to change to agree with me, I am seeking to avoid exactly that form of situationalism that a "temporary," or "don't provoke this group," or a "this group has a special temptation" interpretation takes from this text.
> 
> I expect an interpretation that finds in this passage a broad applicability down to the present day. Furthermore, such a reading supports the Presbyterian, conciliar view of church authority. It seems to me decidedly un-Presbyterian to find a way around saying that the Church in Jerusalem dictated to the whole Church (global) a message that was crafted to abide through the ages.


 
I am not sure that your reading provides any inherent support for the Presbyterian concilliar view of church authority. With a at least one Apostle present and contributing to the discussion, we have a factor in play not present in any non-Apostolically attended councils.


----------



## chbrooking

I do believe the unity of the church was being threatened by this Jew/Gentile conflict. We get a snapshot of what that conflict looked like in Acts 6:1 and in Gal. 2:11ff. This seems to have been the first great doctrinal threat. And Paul clearly saw the danger (Gal. 1:8).

These texts, the texts in 1 Corinthians that have been mentioned above, and the immediate context of this passage (particularly v. 1) suggests that the principal concerns were circumcision and kashrut, though there seems to have been other applications of the believing-Pharisees' concerns, which might have included feast days, ceremonial washings, etc. The pharisees were making these old covenant requirements prerequisite and corequisite for salvation. (v. 1). 

I think we also need to appreciate that the ancient world was a very ‘religious’ place (cf. Paul at Athens). We take it for granted that we can go to the local supermarket and buy a steak. But in the ancient world, almost everything had religious overtones. Idolatry, sexual immorality and food were part and parcel of the religious cults around them, and out of which many of the gentiles would have come. 

So what we have is an instruction given to a people who are coming out of a life comfortable with idolatry and sexual immorality -- and they wouldn’t have even considered the food thing. And that instruction is designed to reduce the friction between the Jews and Gentiles in the church. It was received with great joy (v. 31), since it was not overly burdensome. It did not require circumcision, and it only required a bit of conscientiousness with regard to diet. It required a radical reorientation for the Gentiles, but the burden of the change was light. On the other hand, it would require an equally radical reorientation for the Jewish believers, as they would now be encouraged to fellowship with the non-kosher and uncircumcised, contrary to everything they had ever been taught.

But as for today, I’m torn. Bruce is surely right that Gen 9:4 puts abstinence from blood within the general laws for mankind post-flood (no more blood pudding or blood sausage!?) V. 10, too, probably points us in the direction of looking at it this way.

On the other hand, vv. 10, 19 and 28 regard this legislation as a burden. I cannot see an apostle calling marital fidelity a burden. I cannot see an apostle considering honoring your parents as a burden. But I can see them regarding the sacrificial setting aside of freedom as a burden borne for the sake of unity. Not that idolatry and sexual immorality are matters of freedom, but with the change in their worship, the food thing might have been overlooked -- and that food thing was very significant for the Jews.

v. 21 is decisive for me, however -- specifically the γάρ, “for”. “*For* from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” V. 20 lists the proscriptions, and v. 21 provides some justification for those proscriptions. The justification is that Jews will be found everywhere -- you won’t be able to plant a church where no one will be offended should you violate these things. In other words, v. 21 lends support to the idea that the reason behind the ‘burden’ laid on the Gentiles is not post-Noahic (or, rather, pre-Abrahamic) legislation, but unity. 

Now I have a question. Are post-Noahic laws binding today? I cannot really think of a theological mechanism which might be used to say, “No.” But if we are not under the higher-order Mosaic legislation, are we under the lower order Noahic? It is true that Paul appeals to the created order to ground his position on women in the church, but if we were returned to the Noahic law, I would have expected more in the NT to establish that. So I'm TENTATIVELY answering my own question, "No." But I'm open to correction.


----------



## timmopussycat

If by post-Noahic you mean post-Noahic, pre-Mosaic then the answer would appear to be yes since God gave these laws to all men and has never rescinded them.


----------



## chbrooking

Yes, that's what I mean. What I'm not sure about, though, is this. This approach would place the blood restriction on the order of the moral law. While not every moral law is exhibited to the same degree by the light of nature, the blood-in-the-meat restriction seems to have even less light-of-nature representation than the sabbath. Further, where in the Ten Commandments would this blood-in-the-meat restriction fall? One would expect to find it there, i.e., within the summary of the moral law. As to whether or not they are rescinded -- the dietary restrictions of the mosaic covenant WERE rescinded, and these dietary restrictions built upon this very same principal -- that the life is in the blood. 

If the colonies enacted a law that said apples could not be fermented. Then the states enacted a law that said fruit could not be fermented. Then a new regime arose which removed the state's law about fermenting fruit, would we still maintain that apples could not be fermented, since they were not specifically rescinded? -- even if the state's law unquestionably built upon the same reasoning that prohibited apple fermentation in the colonies? It's a rudimentary illustration, I know. I'm just trying to capture the fact that the mosaic ceremonial law built upon this very restriction. And that law was abrogated, except insofar as general equity makes it still applicable. Wouldn't the same principal that abrogated the food laws in the Mosaic legislation abrogate the same law based upon the same principal in the Noahic? 

I'm just asking. Alternatively (under the abiding significance view), we would say the analogy would go like this:

The colonies prohibit the fermentation of apples. The states prohibit the fermentation of fruit. The new regime generally removes fermentation law, but does stipulate that apples may not be fermented. That would in effect be the function of Acts 15. It would be clarifying that the Noahic legislation was still in force, since one might think otherwise, given the removal of other dietary restrictions.

It's a tough question. I personally think that the Jew-Gentile conflict is more of a governing influence than the abiding applicability view seems to account for. I don't think there is inherently a problem with a temporary conciliar rule that promotes peace and unity during this clearly transitional period between Pentecost and the destruction of the temple. It would, in fact, be a redemptive-historically sensitive application of the sixth commandment. But a number of questions remain. If it's temporary, shouldn't we expect to see textual indications of its transience? If it's abiding, how do we handle the principal driving it being fulfilled in Christ, yet the 'shadow'--or the shadow of the shadow-- remaining? Where does it fall within the moral law? Etc.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I have looked a bit at the history of interpretation on the question. Certainly, it seems as though the ordinary, historic Reformed view interprets the directions to the Gentiles as mainly "prudential" in nature. Of course, the matter of sexual immorality stands out as something entirely different, and I have noted from the interpreters several different ways of addressing that discrepancy.

Frankly, it is a struggle for me to feel at odds with so many wise men. As is often (nicely) the case, I feel closer to Calvin on the issue than to some others, though not completely on-board with him either. It seems to me that there is quite a variety of opinons within the fundamental "prudential" position agreed upon.

I truly wonder if "our side's" determination to resist Rome's claims to dictate via church-authority, and to import illegitimate power to church councils by a misapplication of this passage, has led us to downgrade the kind of declaration this council made.

It truly seems to me that the basic approach we ought to be taking to this council, and their decision and counsel to the whole church, ought to be: that we study to understand what (if any) _*biblical basis*_ stands behind the counsel they issued. Because, if there is biblical grounds for what they say, that go beyond the injunction to love the weaker brother and avoid causing his sin, then we are certainly not dealing with a matter that is merely prudential.


Questions have come up for me, in reading commentator's interpretations:
All the interpreters have to deal with the "sexual immorality" issue. Are the Gentiles actually to refrain from SI _merely_ for prudential (temporary) reasons? I read one fellow who proposed that they were only being told to refrain from practices that "appeared to be" SI, so as to avoid offending the Jews (didn't they get their definitions of SI from the law?). By which I understood, the Gentiles were OK to do XYZ according the nature of the behavior, however they should not do XYZ because the Jews would think of it as SI.

Now, tell me, what *could possibly* fit into that category? As soon as we look for definitions, descriptions, and clarification of SI, we have to go back to that very law, which is being set aside. May I remind us, that in defining the limits of consanguininity (who we may marry, to avoid unlawful or incestuous marriages), we take those limits from the law of Moses. This is actually Confessional among us.

The "obvious" answer to this whole conundrum, it seems to me, is that the JerC (having set the Law by the way, properly and truly), now shows how it is nevertheless containing of some material that, despite its outmoded legislation, is still valuable because it teaches moral truth on the subject of SI more clearly than almost anyplace else in the Bible. Is this not a most rational answer to a most rationally expected question that should arise, once the fundamental statement on Gentile inclusion has been recognized?

We don't obey/follow the prohibitions on SI, as described in Moses, BECAUSE it is Moses and the Law. But because we recognize this category addressed long ago in the Law is essentially moral in character, and the deliverance of the JerC seems to recognize this reality.

It seems to me the Council gives another hermeneutical principle, regarding that matter of blood/strangling. It seems obvious they are not overlooking the fact that this injunction is FIRST expressed long before Moses, to Noah. Calvin notes this fact (unlike some others), and the obvious reality that the heathen had for milennia been obligated by this rule, even where it was forgotten, but he believes that it was cultic/sacrifice related, and therefore set aside with the coming of Christ.

I question if this is patent from Gen6. I think it far more likely that the hermeneutical rule laid down here is that (ala 1Tim.2) Genesis predates the Law of Moses, and contains much useful information on God's will. Just because Exodus-Deuteronomy is mainly set by according to its legislation, Genesis is not set by in the same way. Is it not reasonable to conclude that this answers a potientially serious question that might arise, in the context of what they say about Gentile inclusion?

The Main statement (surely a doctrinal, lasting statement) raises new and immediate questions, that the JerC feels the need to clarify. Why haven't we in the Reformed world first tried to ascertain what should be the biblical rationale behind these three or four clarifications, rather than adopting a view that says, "the Gentile Christians just need to avoid offending the Jewish Christians (love) in these matters"? Does the JerC have special revelation that tells them that, given time (unspecified), this question will "blow over"?


I think one more thing I can say, by way of clarification, is that I want to be understood as taking the Reformed side in the matter of Church/Concilliar authority, against either Rome or the East. We may not legislate for the church, period. But, we have adopted statements of Councils (that may err) as constitutional, doctrinal positions not to be deviated from. And we "receive" reports on Scriptural questions frequently, where we come close to saying, "this seems biblical to us, in the main."

In either case, we seem to be saying something very close to "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." At least in the matter of Creed and Confession, we are limiting (for churches in our communion) our closest recognition and fellowship to those churches who agree with us on the biblilcal basis for our positions.


----------



## MW

I thought Calvin was clear.

Fornication was mentioned not because it was merely expedient, but because it was the notorious sin of the Gentiles, and it was expedient for the witness to the Jews to show moral disapprobation of it. So it still falls under expediency because of the Jews (afterall, it is only one moral commandment out of ten), but it is not merely expedient because it touches on a moral issue.

For Presbyterians the issue is this, has God given ordinary power to higher courts to decide casuistic matters and to regulate matters of indifference for the sake of the gospel? Our forbears answered in the affirmative, perhaps to the dismay of the civil libertarian strain of modern Presbyterians.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Does Scripture say SI was notorious among the Gentiles, or exclusively? I'm not questioning its ubiquity; however, given what Scripture says in regard to similar proclivities among the Jews, I say the conclusion doesn't follow, because the whole world was gone after lust. Indeed, Paul points to an "outrageous" SI, 1Cor.6, indicating that that the Gentiles are not completely without sexual mores.

So, it just seems to to me we get right back to a "well, it must have been this way" decision.

Still seems to me that we ought to be looking for the appropriate doctrinal, biblical basis for the guidance the Council gives.


----------



## MW

The notoriety of the Gentiles for fornication is presupposed in the scandalous example of 1 Cor. 5. What makes "such fornication" so heinous is the fact that even the Gentiles were ashamed of it. Eph. 4:17-19 is specific.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I pointed to the Corinthian scandal because despite their depravity, they still "drew lines," that is they frequently held to a relic-morality. I understand Paul says there, "Even (!) the Gentiles abhor...," but Gentile debauchery is only comparative.

What I'm looking for are texts that support the view that SI was peculiarly a Gentile problem. Of course "uncleanness" and "sensuality" (note the link to greed) in Eph.4 seem to point to a SI issue; still to make a fine connection to Act.15, I would really like to see "porneia." But may I point out that Rom.2:22 accuses the Jewish nation of "characteristic" adultery!

What I find is that, first of all the Gentiles don't have any "corner" on SI.
Second, no matter if this is their besetting sin (hence, the JC addresses this issue directly), when one asks the question: "Where do I go to discover God speaking definitively on the nature and limits of proper sexual conduct?" he finds that the old law contains precisely the definitions he's looking for.

*How are the Gentiles--or anyone else--to be taught, clearly, what constitutes SI?* The answer seems obvious to me--the old law definitions suffice. We use them today, in our Standards. Ergo, the old Law as such is set aside, however hermeneutically (on this lastingly pertinent subject) the definitions of SI prove the utility of those passages.

I cannot yet get away from the idea that the Gentiles are being directed to a biblical, textual foundation for the JC's directives.


----------

