Acts 15 implies Torah observance

[Eoghan]

In Acts 15 there is a decision to limit the requirements for acceptance of the gentiles to four basic requests. This point is generally acknowledged by all. What is not clear is the appendix to this.

From the context it is unclear whether this is added to win over the Council of Jerusalem or by way of explanation. Can anyone offer a clear explanation why this is added. Remember that this is an account of the debate from a distance - it's inclusion must have some significance beyond an account of the debate.

 

[Pergamum]

We can eat things strangled and blood.

This "prohibition" was given to the Gentiles so as not to offend the Jews; sort of like Western missions agencies telling their missionaries to Muslim countries not to eat pork and drink wine openly lest it become a stumbling block. Nothing inherently wrong with things strangled or blood, but it was Jewish stumbling blocks.

Food sacrificed for idols is of the same category; obviously not a total prohibition or else Paul wouldn't need to discuss it later.

Sexual immorality was the Gentile sin of choice and so the letter included this too....in effect saying, "Don't offend your weaker gentile brothers, your Jewish brothers and don't fall into your old cultural sins...."

 

[JonathanHunt]

Pergy is right on the money here. I've been thinking over this area recently as I've started preaching through Galatians.

Of course, if these 'restrictions' (bar adultery) were rules that should be kept absolutely, then salvation is not by grace alone - the very thing Paul is blugeoning into the Galatians' heads. As it is, they are a list of advice to avoid causing unneccessary offence - and none of them involves the gentiles in any great sacrifice.

 

[Eoghan]

I disagree, the christians of the day were being welcomed into messianic synagogues. There was no requirement for full Torah observance. Instead the Ruling council of the church met and set four conditions.

There is no link between salvation and eating meat which contains blood. Rather it is a practice that shows respect for biblical teaching on blood.

THAT HOWEVER WAS NOT MY QUESTION.

Messianic Jews focus on the subsequent verse regarding Torah reading every Shabbat. Was Peter implicitly saying get them into church (synagogue) with this as the entrance exam then hit them with the full Torah. Precisely why is the weekly reading of Moses mentioned.

I say again, why is the weekly reading of Moses mentioned. What is it's significance given that the preceeding verse effectively acknowledges that Torah observance has been abrogated for the gentile?

 

[toddpedlar]

It seems to me that to infer from the letter written to the churches that the Torah must be read from every worship service is an egregious case of eisegesis. That is not AT ALL believable as a reason for the inclusion of the statement that the Jews had the Torah read each week. It's not an affirmation of that practice unless you are predisposed to read that into the text.

The letter to the churches in Acts 15 merely acknowledges the bare fact that Moses was at the time read every week in the Jewish synagogues. It's a simple acknowledgment of the fact, that's all - an ackowledgment that the Jews, in their synagogues, would be hearing the Law preached to them weekly - and this is given as an undergirding reason that the things mentioned should be avoided... a reminder that the Jews would be hearing each week that the animal that is strangled is forbidden them. Remember that the people to whom this letter went were NOT ALL CONVERTED JEWS. For the most part, as Acts 15 indicates, they were Gentile churches that probably needed reminding that weekly the Jews in their synagogues would have the dietary laws reinforced to them.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I agree, given that Paul elsewhere calls the eating of meat sacrificed to idols indifferent, I believe this is an entreaty to the Gentiles to forego some of their liberty for the sake of their fellow Brothers who have scruples. It's good Pastoral counsel.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

For what it's worth, Gen 9:4 comes many centuries prior to the Mosaic ordinance. I'd call this a general prohibition, with Acts 15:29 serving as a reminder to the forgetful.

 

[Eoghan]

Thank you the reminder to the gentiles that this was being continually reinforced to the Jewish believers makes sense for that part of the texts inclusion.

Much appreciated

 

[JonathanHunt]

I disagree, the christians of the day were being welcomed into messianic synagogues.

Proof?

There was no requirement for full Torah observance. Instead the Ruling council of the church met and set four conditions.

Ruling council of the church? You sure you're a reformed baptist?

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

One more consideration: Those four practices were common in the gentile/idolatrous worship. The gentiles were instructed here to stay away from those forms of idolatry. This would furnish them with a hedge against their old ways, and provide a basis for fellowship with the Jews in the Church as well.

And, I agree that the mention of the reading of Moses is incidental, not prescriptive. Good job, guys!

 

[Eoghan]

Ruling council of the church? You sure you're a reformed baptist?

Afraid I rate the Apostles slightly higher than "the deaconate" or even the full "members meeting"

The Westminster Assembly still carries weight even now. How much more the collective wisdom of the Apostles, the pillars of the church as Paul called them.

Until Paul started preaching to the Gentiles, the "church" was formed by Messianic Jews. Christianity was and is a Jewish religion (that bit is missed by most people). Even once Paul was "officially" preaching to the gentiles he still started in the synagogue and worked out.

Paul was a Pharisee he might have become the apostle to the gentiles but he was a messianic jew, (a messianic pharisee). There is a resurgence in the Messianic church and that begs the question - how do we relate to them and they to us?

 

[JonathanHunt]

Ruling council of the church? You sure you're a reformed baptist?

Afraid I rate the Apostles slightly higher than "the deaconate" or even the full "members meeting"

The Westminster Assembly still carries weight even now. How much more the collective wisdom of the Apostles, the pillars of the church as Paul called them.

Until Paul started preaching to the Gentiles, the "church" was formed by Messianic Jews. Christianity was and is a Jewish religion (that bit is missed by most people). Even once Paul was "officially" preaching to the gentiles he still started in the synagogue and worked out.

Paul was a Pharisee he might have become the apostle to the gentiles but he was a messianic jew, (a messianic pharisee). There is a resurgence in the Messianic church and that begs the question - how do we relate to them and they to us?

There is only one church. To my mind, attaching the label 'messianic' to some church members and not others never helps. We are 'all one in Christ Jesus'