The Gospels & ActsDiscussion of texts from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:31)
Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council, and Christian Liberty
Is this an instance in which the elders of the Church (in this case, the Apostles) were authoritatively telling believers not to do what God Himself had deemed OK (for example, the food sacrificed to idols, which Paul later says was fine so long as it didn't militate against one's conscience) for the sake of the weaker brothers (former Pharisees)?
Hi Joshua. By implication it was still the counsel of God even though it was not a sin in and of itself to eat food sacrificed to idols. However, such was the effect it would have in the minds of Jews, that it was necessary to prohibit such wherever Moses was preached. This is a clear instance of the church legitimately binding men's consciences to abstain from something lawful in itself where it was evident that participation would result in scandal. Perhaps we would state the matter best by saying that the church applied the charitable spirit of the Word in going beying the bare letter of it.
Josh,
I think the apostles are advising those Gentiles how they are to seek to obey the Lord, with reference to the OT revelation they already have. No, they do not have to follow the Mosaic code. However...
The three items appear to me to have reference to three aspects of OT instruction.
1) Idolatry. The issue here is not the "meat" issue, and that should not be "read into" this circumstance. The OT is FULL of prohibition against idolatry. We would also say that this has a general reference to that 1st Moral table (regarding loving the Lord your God). The Gentiles were to observe the OT commands as warnings regarding ALL THINGS idolatrous.
2) Sexual Immorality. This issue was (and continues to be) a fundamental human behavior problem. It was endemic to the ANE in the pre-Christian era, and also in the apostolic times of the Roman Empire. Sexual license is a cardinal indicator of godlessness. So this point addresses moral behavior at the social level. We could also say that this points in a general way to the continuing validity of the 2nd Moral table (love thy neighbor as thyself).
3) Things strangled and from blood. This point has proved confusing to many, in part because if point 1 was dealing with meat, why repeat the same in effect? I think the first interpretive question is understanding what the council is giving the Gentiles: interpretive tools for understanding the OT Scriptures as NT believers. Another possibility is that they are telling them this to try to keep them from offending the Jews--but again, I think this gets off topic.
I suggest that rather than Moses, the council is directing them to pre-Mosaic revelation. Genesis 9:4 is a command given to ALL Noah's children, INCLUDING the Gentiles: "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." In other words, the council is saying to the Gentiles: If God already expressed his will to you, recorded in the OT, but outside the Mosaic code, then that command is still binding upon you.
Hope my helps.
__________________ Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI
Made both Lord and Christ--Jesus, the Destroyer Acts 2:36 - 1 Cor. 10:9-10 & 15:22-26 - Hebrews 2:9-15 - 1 John 3:8 - James 4:12
When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us. --Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --
This is a clear instance of the church legitimately binding men's consciences to abstain from something lawful in itself where it was evident that participation would result in scandal.
Thus, I suppose the qualifier to authorize church leadership to enforce something concerning things indifferent not dictated by Scripture is if it would cause scandal? This is confusing...how would scandal then become defined? Sigh...
Josh,
I think the apostles are advising those Gentiles how they are to seek to obey the Lord, with reference to the OT revelation they already have. No, they do not have to follow the Mosaic code. However...
The three items appear to me to have reference to three aspects of OT instruction.
1) Idolatry. The issue here is not the "meat" issue, and that should not be "read into" this circumstance. The OT is FULL of prohibition against idolatry. We would also say that this has a general reference to that 1st Moral table (regarding loving the Lord your God). The Gentiles were to observe the OT commands as warnings regarding ALL THINGS idolatrous.
2) Sexual Immorality. This issue was (and continues to be) a fundamental human behavior problem. It was endemic to the ANE in the pre-Christian era, and also in the apostolic times of the Roman Empire. Sexual license is a cardinal indicator of godlessness. So this point addresses moral behavior at the social level. We could also say that this points in a general way to the continuing validity of the 2nd Moral table (love thy neighbor as thyself).
3) Things strangled and from blood. This point has proved confusing to many, in part because if point 1 was dealing with meat, why repeat the same in effect? I think the first interpretive question is understanding what the council is giving the Gentiles: interpretive tools for understanding the OT Scriptures as NT believers. Another possibility is that they are telling them this to try to keep them from offending the Jews--but again, I think this gets off topic.
I suggest that rather than Moses, the council is directing them to pre-Mosaic revelation. Genesis 9:4 is a command given to ALL Noah's children, INCLUDING the Gentiles: "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." In other words, the council is saying to the Gentiles: If God already expressed his will to you, recorded in the OT, but outside the Mosaic code, then that command is still binding upon you.
Hope my helps.
Ok, I think. My head is a bit cluttered. So my allusion to Paul's dealings with food sacrificed to idols is not really to be considered when examining this passage? I'm just a bit confused. Thanks for helping the dense fellow.
Thus, I suppose the qualifier to authorize church leadership to enforce something concerning things indifferent not dictated by Scripture is if it would cause scandal? This is confusing...how would scandal then become defined? Sigh...
1. Worshipping idols is sin. 2A. In culture A eating food sacrificed to idols is worshipping idols. Ergo, in culture A eating food sacrificed to idols is sin. 2B. In culture B eating food sacrificed to idols is inescapable, and many people do so without any thought of worshipping idols. Ergo, in culture B eating food sacrificed to idols is permissible, but use discretion. We therefore define scandal as an action indifferent in itself which is necessarily associated with a sinful action in a given culture.
helps.
Linear Mode
