blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
This morning I was reading Acts 15, where it talks about Paul and Barnabas disputing with the men from Judaea, and eventually being sent to Jerusalem to resolved the circumcision issue. I have a couple questions about the passage.
I've always wondered why the church didn't just accept the apostolic authority of Paul. At the beginning of the chapter, I started thinking that maybe these people just saw Paul as any other person and questioned his apostolic authority, like the people mentioned in 2 Corinthians (I think).
Then, when I got to verse 24, another thought came to mind:
Act 15:24 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:
I had never realized that the people Paul was arguing with were people from the church of Jerusalem. I started wondering if the church sent Paul and Barnabas back to Jerusalem because they were caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they had Paul's apostolic authority while, on the other hand, they had representatives of another apostolic authority. They believed the 12 apostles had special authority and they believed Paul had that same authority. Since they couldn't decide which apostolic authority was correct, they sent them to Jerusalem to "fight it out among themselves".
What do you think?
The second question I have is about Acts 15:21.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
In the rest of the verses, they're teaching that the practice of circumcision is not necessary for Gentiles. Is this verse teaching that, although circumcision wouldn't continue into the NT, the Law of Moses does? Any thoughts?
Finally, I wonder if anybody has any thoughts about verse 16:
Acts 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
I don't think, and I think most here would agree, that this is talking about some future tabernacle that is going to be built. Holding that view of the scripture seems to make it just so irrelevant to the topic being discussed at Jerusalem.
How would you explain the phrases in this verse? What is the tabernacle of David referred to here? In what way is it "built again", implying that it previously had been built and needs to be rebuilt? How is the tabernacle fallen down, and what does it mean to build the ruins thereof and set it up?
Bob
I've always wondered why the church didn't just accept the apostolic authority of Paul. At the beginning of the chapter, I started thinking that maybe these people just saw Paul as any other person and questioned his apostolic authority, like the people mentioned in 2 Corinthians (I think).
Then, when I got to verse 24, another thought came to mind:
Act 15:24 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:
I had never realized that the people Paul was arguing with were people from the church of Jerusalem. I started wondering if the church sent Paul and Barnabas back to Jerusalem because they were caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they had Paul's apostolic authority while, on the other hand, they had representatives of another apostolic authority. They believed the 12 apostles had special authority and they believed Paul had that same authority. Since they couldn't decide which apostolic authority was correct, they sent them to Jerusalem to "fight it out among themselves".
What do you think?
The second question I have is about Acts 15:21.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
In the rest of the verses, they're teaching that the practice of circumcision is not necessary for Gentiles. Is this verse teaching that, although circumcision wouldn't continue into the NT, the Law of Moses does? Any thoughts?
Finally, I wonder if anybody has any thoughts about verse 16:
Acts 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
I don't think, and I think most here would agree, that this is talking about some future tabernacle that is going to be built. Holding that view of the scripture seems to make it just so irrelevant to the topic being discussed at Jerusalem.
How would you explain the phrases in this verse? What is the tabernacle of David referred to here? In what way is it "built again", implying that it previously had been built and needs to be rebuilt? How is the tabernacle fallen down, and what does it mean to build the ruins thereof and set it up?
Bob