Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

[Peregrino]

Aren't we missing what triggered this whole council in the first place? It was a response to what had happened earlier when some brothers caused a lot of offense by trying to impose cultural traditions on the church under the guise of religious requirements. IMO it was the Jerusalem brothers extending the hand of fellowship to the gentile believers, acknowledging God at work among them while pointing out a few areas that would keep the gentiles from in turn becoming an offense to the culturally jewish believers.

[Heirbyadoption]

Aren't we missing what triggered this whole council in the first place? It was a response to what had happened earlier when some brothers caused a lot of offense by trying to impose cultural traditions on the church under the guise of religious requirements. IMO it was the Jerusalem brothers extending the hand of fellowship to the gentile believers, acknowledging God at work among them while pointing out a few areas that would keep the gentiles from in turn becoming an offense to the culturally jewish believers.

The thought had occurred to me.

[haithabu]

I see some conceptual overlap between the Jerusalem edict and the seven Noahide laws described by the Talmud. These laws are supposed to be the marks of the righteous Gentiles who will have a share in the world to come.

The main thrust I see in both is a recognition that salvation is available to those outside of the Mosaic covenant subject to a requirement for right worship and right living.

Much of the discussion on this thread revolves around what precedent the edict has set for a church's standard setting authority. I think that that authority was assumed by the Council but that it was not their main concern.

Their concern was to avoid setting standards which were not strictly necessary. Perhaps they had in mind Jesus' accusation to the scribes and Pharisees that they wantonly put heavy burdens on people with no desire to relieve them.

The main significance of the edict I see for the Gentile believers at the time was that it was an official recognition by the Apostles that one could become a Christian (ie a subject in good standing of the Messiah Jesus) without becoming a Jew. It was the first step in a process which would end in Christianity and Judaism becoming separate religions - though of course the Apostles wouldn't have seen it that way.

To them Judaism was not a different religion per se but a side deal which God had made specifically with the descendants of Jacob governing matters of this life. Or as I have suggested elsewhere, that the covenant of Moses was a basically a lease agreement rather than a path to salvation in itself.

Their statement that Moses has in every place those who teach him (ie for the purpose of proselytization) implies that they saw conversion to Judaism as an entirely separate matter from becoming a Christian.

The main significance that I see for the Jerusalem edict today is that I have used it as a defense against some progressives who try to stigmatize Christianity as equivalent to Islam on account of the more severe provisions of the Law. The edict establishes from the very beginning that Christians are not bound to stone adulterers, kill apostates or unbelievers or engage in holy wars, but rather those things are excluded by Jesus' teaching.

[Ernie]

The four abstinences are very interesting.
1.Pollutions of Idols 2.Fornication 3.Things strangled 4.Blood

1. This could mean association with pagan idol worship and probably included eating meat offered to idols. IMO, Paul didn't seem to think that this point was necessary. He visited places of idolatrous worship and would have been glad to eat meat offered to idols as long as no one knew where the meat came from.
2. Not sure why this one is here. Why didn't they list lying, stealing, bearing false witness, etc.?
3. Old Testament Law
4. Old Testament Law

The best explanation I've heard yet for these "decrees for to keep" is that Jewish Christians would have been unable to eat and commune and worship and touch Gentiles who did these four things. And so that Jews and Gentiles could function together, the Gentiles were being asked to defer to those who had a conscience in these matters. I can understand this for #'s 1,3,4 but still don't know what to do with #2.

Application for today? "Those without a conscience on a matter should be willing to defer to those who do, especially if the matter would make it difficult for a person with conscience to commune."

Any response on this, particularly prohibition #2 ?

[Neto]

The four abstinences are very interesting.
1.Pollutions of Idols 2.Fornication 3.Things strangled 4.Blood

1. This could mean association with pagan idol worship and probably included eating meat offered to idols. IMO, Paul didn't seem to think that this point was necessary. He visited places of idolatrous worship and would have been glad to eat meat offered to idols as long as no one knew where the meat came from.
2. Not sure why this one is here. Why didn't they list lying, stealing, bearing false witness, etc.?
3. Old Testament Law
4. Old Testament Law

The best explanation I've heard yet for these "decrees for to keep" is that Jewish Christians would have been unable to eat and commune and worship and touch Gentiles who did these four things. And so that Jews and Gentiles could function together, the Gentiles were being asked to defer to those who had a conscience in these matters. I can understand this for #'s 1,3,4 but still don't know what to do with #2.

Application for today? "Those without a conscience on a matter should be willing to defer to those who do, especially if the matter would make it difficult for a person with conscience to commune."

Any response on this, particularly prohibition #2 ?

It is indeed a sort of odd man out. Some commentators feel that it was a symbolic usage, and that the meaning is closer to the other three. (Involvement with false gods is often characterized as adultery or being false to God, who is characterized as a husband.)

[haithabu]

It's possible that #2 was included because it addressed one of the salient differences between Jewish and Greco-Roman culture. Both cultures shared prohibitions against murder, theft etc, but in the area of sexual morality, not so much. The assembly may have been concerned that the Gentile believers not continue in that lifestyle.

This fits the general pattern of the prohibitions. They all focus on issues where the new believers are called to be countercultural.

[silentreader]

The four abstinences are very interesting.
1.Pollutions of Idols 2.Fornication 3.Things strangled 4.Blood

1. This could mean association with pagan idol worship and probably included eating meat offered to idols. IMO, Paul didn't seem to think that this point was necessary. He visited places of idolatrous worship and would have been glad to eat meat offered to idols as long as no one knew where the meat came from.
2. Not sure why this one is here. Why didn't they list lying, stealing, bearing false witness, etc.?
3. Old Testament Law
4. Old Testament Law

The best explanation I've heard yet for these "decrees for to keep" is that Jewish Christians would have been unable to eat and commune and worship and touch Gentiles who did these four things. And so that Jews and Gentiles could function together, the Gentiles were being asked to defer to those who had a conscience in these matters. I can understand this for #'s 1,3,4 but still don't know what to do with #2.

Application for today? "Those without a conscience on a matter should be willing to defer to those who do, especially if the matter would make it difficult for a person with conscience to commune."

Any response on this, particularly prohibition #2 ?

Intriguing opinion I ran across tonight.
That all 4 points can be related to Leviticus 17&18. That point #2 was not referring to general sexual immorality, but rather to the prohibitions against the relational marriages mentioned in Leviticus 18, prohibitions which Gentile Christians were probably unfamiliar with.

Any insights by now, Signtist?

[Neto]

The four abstinences are very interesting.
1.Pollutions of Idols 2.Fornication 3.Things strangled 4.Blood

1. This could mean association with pagan idol worship and probably included eating meat offered to idols. IMO, Paul didn't seem to think that this point was necessary. He visited places of idolatrous worship and would have been glad to eat meat offered to idols as long as no one knew where the meat came from.
2. Not sure why this one is here. Why didn't they list lying, stealing, bearing false witness, etc.?
3. Old Testament Law
4. Old Testament Law

The best explanation I've heard yet for these "decrees for to keep" is that Jewish Christians would have been unable to eat and commune and worship and touch Gentiles who did these four things. And so that Jews and Gentiles could function together, the Gentiles were being asked to defer to those who had a conscience in these matters. I can understand this for #'s 1,3,4 but still don't know what to do with #2.

Application for today? "Those without a conscience on a matter should be willing to defer to those who do, especially if the matter would make it difficult for a person with conscience to commune."

Any response on this, particularly prohibition #2 ?

Intriguing opinion I ran across tonight.
That all 4 points can be related to Leviticus 17&18. That point #2 was not referring to general sexual immorality, but rather to the prohibitions against the relational marriages mentioned in Leviticus 18, prohibitions which Gentile Christians were probably unfamiliar with.

Any insights by now, Signtist?

Didn't ask me, but yes, that would be spiritual "immorality". I think you're right.

[Signtist]

Any insights by now, Signtist?

I didn't teach, which these days almost means the same thing as I didn't study the chapter. But I was surprised at a few folks who thought the command to not eat blood was merely to not offend anyone.

And then the guy who taught opened the class with a few introductory thoughts, and the class just kind of unfolded before him. He only spoke again to close. Gotta figure out his recipe!

[silentreader]

Any insights by now, Signtist?

I didn't teach, which these days almost means the same thing as I didn't study the chapter.


But I was surprised at a few folks who thought the command to not eat blood was merely to not offend anyone.