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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

@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?

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]

@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?

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?

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. 15I 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? 20No, 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. 28But 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]

Larry:
I think the answer to your question is from the same Paul:

14Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15I 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? 20No, 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. 28But 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 ----------

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.