# Acts 15: 29



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Sep 29, 2005)

*29that you abstain from (A)things sacrificed to idols and from (B)blood and from (C)things strangled and from (D)fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."*

Was James telling the gentiles to refrain from essential or non-essential things here? Could alcohol fall into this category? 

Calvin says:

But here appeareth a manifest reason why they gave particular commandment concerning things offered to idols, blood, and that which was strangled. They were, indeed, of themselves things indifferent; yet such as had some special thing in them more than other rites of the law. We know how straitly the Lord commandeth to eschew those things which are contrary to the external profession of faith, and wherein there is any appearance or suspicion of idolatry. Therefore, lest there should any blot of superstition remain in the Gentiles, and lest the Jews should see anything in them which did not agree with the pure worship of God, no marvel if, to avoid offense, they be commanded to abstain from things offered to idols.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 29, 2005)

The issue in the forefront of the minds of the church in Acts 15 seems to be primarily "visual": how to distinguish the church from the world, now that the ceremonies of the OT were abolished, and the wall of separation (Jews/Gentiles) broken down. The fact of this annulment was clear as early as Acts 10. Its continued acceptance, i.e reinforcing the precept doesn't seem to be a hard point for Paul and company to win. Rather, the question that probably took the longest time at the council was: how was it practically to be handled?

A) 1 Cor. 10 :14-33, along with Romans 14:14ff, provides a good exegesis of the first point. The Gentile's great offense was idolatry, so countenancing idolatry by eating it's offerings was a close issue. The issue, as Paul points out, is mainly the _unbeliever's_ conscience, as well as weak believers.

B & C) Together, these really go back to creation (or Noaic) ordinances, recognizing God's will with respect to the matter before the Mosaic law (see Gen. 9:4). This is a visible mark of respect for the sovereign God, the Life-giver.

D) Immorality is contrary to God's moral law. This is humanity's consuming vice. Obeying God's will with regard to sexual morality is an index (not an infallible guide) of a society's health (whether they had the written law or not). The Christian community must be marked by obedience to this precept, or it will be 1) indistinguishable from the world, 2) earn the mocking of the world, and 3) incur the consequential wrath of God. So really, the whole moral law is indirectly affirmed here.

That's my take.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Nov 6, 2005)

15For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer (Y)walking according to love (Z)Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.

What about when Christ ate grain on the sabbath at the Jews offense?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 6, 2005)

The issue with the Jews was not that they were weak, and might be led into sin by Jesus' disciples actions (which by not condemning he plainly sanctioned). A true "offense" is causing a brother to stumble, and sin against his conscience--for whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23).

When some high-and-mighty legalist, suffused with self-righteousness and self-importance, _takes offense_ because you are not following his man-made ordinances as if they were doctrines (Mk. 7:7), adding to the Word of this law in contradiction to the express command (Deut. 4:2, 12:32), and creating another gospel (Gal 1:6-7; 3:3)--you should follow Christ's example, and Paul's. For the sake of the gospel--*offend them!*


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 6, 2005)

I'm completely confused. This seems contradictory.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 6, 2005)

Is the legalist being led (or even tempted) into a sin against his conscience? In other words,, were the Pharisees tempted to go out and shuck grain walking through the fields on a Sabbath and eat?

No. Their religious sensibilities were "offended." Like their olfactory nerves might be "offended" by the presence of flatulence. And for this "offense" they were condemnatory.

It's OK to be religiously "offended" by, say, profanity. After all, it is a plain violation of the 3rd commandment. We are, in fact, obliged to be offended by sins that really do offend God. And if we are offended, we are probably pretty safe from being consciously tempted to the same sin.

The Pharisees had (erroneously) made their tradition into a matter of conscience (saying "its a sin!") by which they meant to bind others down to the same man-made regulation. "You stop that! That offends me! That offends God!" Keeping away from sin is expected of those in covenant with God. Jesus denounced these man-made traditions as positively pernicious, and not honestly, biblically religious at all. God hadn't said any such thing. Therefore to say such was sinful was itself presumtously sinful. The Pharisees were professional victims, always being offended by the "unwashed" around them (Jn. 7:49).


Paul, way on the other hand, in Rom. 14, is not speaking of the legalist getting "offended." He is speaking of the Christian _giving a real offense_ to his weaker brother, by leading him into a sin against his conscience. This weak guy is no Pharisee. He has a tender conscience, and few muscles exercised as of yet in Christian liberty. He has likely come out of Judaism (or some other set up) full of rules, rites, and regulations. Many ceremonies in Judaism, though God-given, are no longer applicable--but they still exert pressure on the conscience by habit. Other matters were just ignorant will-worship, but the conscience is still gripped by them. Until he is genuinely free of this entanglement, until he can tell a true moral requirement from a matter of indifference, he is bound to honor his conscience (because God will still judge him according to his conscience).

Now if he balks at a certain suggestion of yours because he fears to sin, but you say ,"c'mon man--trust me, this is no sin!" and he is persuaded to enter in not from inner persuasion but on your say-so, _and later feels crushed by his conscience,_ you have sinned in offending against him.


Is the distinction in the cases still confusing?

[Edited on 11-7-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 7, 2005)

How would you apply this to a case in our day and time where one beliver drinks wine to God, but another abstains because he believes it is SINFUL to drink, and wrong. Does the one who drinks abstain for the sake of the one who abstains?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 7, 2005)

I would say the answer lies in whether the imbiber's actions or words function as _temptations_ to the abstainer. If so, he should refrain. Here, the abstainer's attitude is expressed humbly, "Look, I think this is sinful. You are so confident it isn't. Part of me wants to enjoy what you seem to be enjoying. But I can't tell the difference between that yearning, and a sinful urge--part of the flesh--to do something displeasing to God. If I give in, before I'm inwardly persuaded, I will be sinning--against my conscience."

Now, as I recall, Gabe, you have a personal case that involves your parents objecting to alcohol. So, you have to weigh the matter of your willingness to live by their rules and enjoy the benefits of their favor or favors, versus living the full life of Christian liberty. "Love suffers long, and is kind" (1 Cor. 13:4). Jesus could have happily stayed in the Temple for the rest of his life (Luke 2:49). Perhaps Mary and Joseph could have dedicated him like Hannah dedicated Samuel. But instead he went home and was "subject" to his earthly parents. And the day came when Jesus lovingly but firmly told his mother, "Why are you making this concern [running out of banquet wine] a matter to you and me? _My_ hour is not yet come" (John 2:4).

If the abstainer is not tempted to sin, then when he accuses the imbiber of sinning, "Aaahgh! You sinner, you! < waggle finger > Tsk Tsk Tsk. Oooooooh. That makes me so mad. God will judge you! I'm offended!" he looks him back and says, "Show me that in the Bible. Can't do it? OK. Bottoms up! Oh, by the way, stop teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. _That_ *is* in the Bible."

The difference is the difference between "weak" brothers, and arrogant Pharisees (John 10:41).


----------



## Saiph (Nov 7, 2005)

I think you are right Bruce.

Gabriel, I struggled with this idea for a while until meditating on the following passage:



> Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.
> Rom 14:15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.
> Rom 14:16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil.
> Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
> ...



I have Christian friends that do not drink, and some that do. Of the ones that abstain, some do not care if we drink, and like us to excercise our liberty in Christ, but some are very offended so we abstain around them.


----------



## Herald (Nov 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> *29that you abstain from (A)things sacrificed to idols and from (B)blood and from (C)things strangled and from (D)fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."*
> 
> Was James telling the gentiles to refrain from essential or non-essential things here? Could alcohol fall into this category?
> ...



There are times when putting things in the venacular is helpful. Why should the Gentile believers irk their Jewish brethren? I am not sure this passage falls into the sphere of Christian liberty. When we choose not to drink in front of a brother that is of weaker faith, it usually is a one-on-one affair. Joe may choose not to drink in order not to offend Bob. But the situation in Acts 15 was different. The letter sent to Antioch included instructions from the Apostles (Acts 15:22). Apostolic authority was at play here. This is why I do not view Acts 15 as a voluntary restraint of Christian liberty. It was hard enough to get Jews and Gentiles together. For Gentiles to partake of food that offended the Jews (because of tradition and the Mosaic law) would not encourage unity.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Nov 7, 2005)

1.	Paradox: Rom. 14 vs. Acts 15
2.	Legalism = Making nonessential things essential 
a.	What is essential? A command of God
b.	Romans 14 specifies wine and meat as nonessential 
i.	Wine and Meat can be an essential when it causes a stumbling block. However in an appropriate context it is nonessential and perfectly fine. 
c.	Paul and co. forbids the gentiles to eat meat with the Jews.
i.	Is Paul contradicting himself? No he remains to only take issue with essential things knowing that eating meat amongst the Jews would indefinably cause a stumbling block and offense. 
3. Conclusion: Paul did not forbid meat and wine everywhere all of the time knowing that it would be appropriate in most situations. To forbid wine everywhere all of the time would be to forbid it even when it used appropriately and is a non-essential. The contract therefore contradicts Romans 14 and is legalistic and causes disunity over non-essential things.
4.	Solution: Change the wording of the contract to where punishment will occur only if someone complains of offense or if drunkenness occurs. 

I can't sign this contract in faith as it contradicts the Bible and makes extra biblical commands. Forcing me to sign something that I believe is sin would be sin.


----------



## Herald (Nov 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 1.	Paradox: Rom. 14 vs. Acts 15
> 2.	Legalism = Making nonessential things essential
> a.	What is essential? A command of God
> ...



Tim, maybe I am missing something in the discussion. What contract are you referring to?


----------



## pastorway (Nov 7, 2005)

if this is for your school, you have agreed to abide by their rules and already submitted yourself to their authority as a student when you enrolled there. So this should be a non-issue. There is nothing to appeal. 

Their rule does not violate Scripture. The Bible never says, "Thou art required to drinketh alcohol." Your choice is to submit to their rules and abstain from alcohol, or find another school.

Phillip


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 7, 2005)

Tim,
Phillip is right. Dead on right.

Look, if you can convince the administrators of your school that for you to sign this pledge would violate your conscience, more power to ya. But if they insist on it as part of their in-house rules, then the law of the 5th commandment takes over. If you really think it is sin for you to take that pledge, and they don't bend, then you gotta go somplace else, for your own conscience sake.

And if they really are legalists, and are adding to the gospel (I'm not saying they are--I'm not getting into that fight), then you are better off elsewhere. Don't sign a pledge in which you _yourself_ make knowingly false statements, like "I believe drinking is sin, therefore I will not use alcohol here at Bodiddly U." Shake the dust off your feet.

But you ought to consider the matter from the practical standpoint as well. If your sinning is not in the picture is it in your best interest to stay, and abide by the house-rules? Think about it this way: 15 years from now, you are going to have "house-rules" for your kids, as well as God's rules. There is a difference, but you have authority to dictate to those children God gives you how things will be done around your house. "This is the way we do things around here, son, and if you don't mind me, you'll get a strapping."

The rules in your house should flow out of your first commitment to God's Word, and then practical considerations. But if you tell your kid not to play with his toy-X, and he does it anyway--what law except the 5th commandment do you have to justify discipline? Nothing. The 5th commandment is enough.

The school makes its own policies. Don't rebel to make a point. Just walk away.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Nov 17, 2005)

Jesus constantly broke the legalistic laws of the authorities.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> Jesus constantly broke the legalistic laws of the authorities.



James is not referring to man made laws but God's.


----------

