Acts 15:23-29 and the Law

[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.