Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

General Christian Theology
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by Heirbyadoption »

A couple questions for y'all. Why do you think the Jerusalem council only required 4 specific things of the Gentiles? And was there something special about these four things (previous mention, cultural issue, etc) that they settled on them in particular?

And do you understand the Jerusalem council decision as binding on the whole church everywhere, or was it primarily to the churches who came down with the questions? And if the former, then is this enough Scriptural precedent for local congregations or brotherhoods to require extraBiblical regulations?
0 x
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by lesterb »

Heirbyadoption wrote:A couple questions for y'all. Why do you think the Jerusalem council only required 4 specific things of the Gentiles? And was there something special about these four things (previous mention, cultural issue, etc) that they settled on them in particular?

And do you understand the Jerusalem council decision as binding on the whole church everywhere, or was it primarily to the churches who came down with the questions? And if the former, then is this enough Scriptural precedent for local congregations or brotherhoods to require extraBiblical regulations?
Were they really extra-Biblical? I would view them as a summary of the moral code of the Old Testament. Paul went the rounds of the Gentile churches to deliver the decree. So it seems that it was across the board.

I would say that Acts 15 was a major victory over the Pharisaic element in the Jerusalem church.
0 x
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by Heirbyadoption »

Were they really extra-Biblical? I would view them as a summary of the moral code of the Old Testament.
Thank you, Lester. Could you expand on that a little, especially in light of Paul's consistent emphasis on freedom from the mandates of the Mosaic Law? Might it have been such a summary because it was James who offered it from the Jewish side, and it passed because it seemed a reasonable compromise for peace?

And if these decrees were binding on ALL the churches, is it not odd that there isn't further mention of them? And does the fact that it was a summary of the moral code of the OT limit what regulations a congregation can require, or are they then wide open to whatever they want to put on the books?
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by Valerie »

It would be beneficial to read early church writings- you should see how the Church expected women AND men to dress- there were many statements by early church fathers/writers that had high expectations that seem extra Biblical but as Max pointed out in another thread, most of the teachings to the church on how to be the church were oral. Things get written, when people contend or they faced heretics or disputes- one could say that was adding to Scripture I guess but, I do believe oral teachings were handed down as well as written epistles on expectations-
Example the beard thread- beards were not really addressed in the New Testament. But all drawings you see of Christ & disciples/Apostles, the men wore beards- well the Church was started by Jews- beards were required of Jews- there was no reason to write this down- however I have read writings by the early church it that Christian men wore beards- these writings were usually to heretics or bring correction to the Church who had apparently orally taught about beards by Jewish Apostles who started the Churches throughout the world. I read writings about hair, jewelry, clothes, make up, veils etc- that were apparently rules in the earliest days of the church but taught more orally that written down.
0 x
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by Heirbyadoption »

Valerie, the risk of relying on "oral" tradition is that we can assume any issue was addressed that we want, and it truly creates an unrestrained blank check. Secondly, most of us on here take the early church writers (beyond the actual authors of the accepted Biblical canon) as very informative and worthy of consideration, but not authoritative, as the Orthodox tend to. My questions at this point still revolve specifically around the one recorded church council in the actual New Testament, prior to any early church writers or possible oral teachings.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by Valerie »

Heirbyadoption wrote:Valerie, the risk of relying on "oral" tradition is that we can assume any issue was addressed that we want, and it truly creates an unrestrained blank check. Secondly, most of us on here take the early church writers (beyond the actual authors of the accepted Biblical canon) as very informative and worthy of consideration, but not authoritative, as the Orthodox tend to. My questions at this point still revolve specifically around the one recorded church council in the actual New Testament, prior to any early church writers or possible oral teachings.
Okay, I thought it would help- it's helped me. Acts 15 set the pattern for further church councils as things came up to address-
0 x
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by lesterb »

Heirbyadoption wrote:
Were they really extra-Biblical? I would view them as a summary of the moral code of the Old Testament.
Thank you, Lester. Could you expand on that a little, especially in light of Paul's consistent emphasis on freedom from the mandates of the Mosaic Law? Might it have been such a summary because it was James who offered it from the Jewish side, and it passed because it seemed a reasonable compromise for peace?

And if these decrees were binding on ALL the churches, is it not odd that there isn't further mention of them? And does the fact that it was a summary of the moral code of the OT limit what regulations a congregation can require, or are they then wide open to whatever they want to put on the books?
A person could write a small book to answer your question. 8-)

I don't have time for that. But here are a few thoughts.
[bible]acts 16,4[/bible]
Paul's dismissal of the OT Law was aimed at the Ceremonial Law. I don't believe that he ever said anything against keeping the spirit of the moral law, and Acts 15 zeros in on issues that were part of the moral law. I'm surprised that the Jews were willing to support a compromise as reasonable as James's decree. You notice later in Acts that they viewed this as a compromise for the Gentiles and were not at all in favor of Jewish people living by that standard.

I think Paul understood that, but was willing to accept Acts 15 as reasonable victory for the moment. He was also willing to compromise personally - he agreed to offer a sin offering at the request of James later to prove his own allegiance to the OT law. These are all transition issues. God himself slammed the door on the ceremonial law at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
0 x
RZehr
Posts: 7027
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by RZehr »

This is what I posted on a different thread - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=271&start=20
I firmly believe there is a place for the church to collectively discern the will of God and a need for christians to submit one to another.
Regarding extra biblical rules, I believe there is biblical support for that as well. One example is found in the subject of eating food.

Mark 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? Then in verse 15-23 Jesus is very clear that what we eat does not defile a person.

1 Corinthians 8 we see that there is no sin in the eating of food offered to idols. But there is harm in offending our brother. In 1 Corinthians 10:19-29 this teaching about food/idols/offending others is repeated.

Acts 15 the Jerusalem counsel We see the church coming together and deciding in verse 20 to not eat certain things. And the sent this decision to others that were not present.

Now a dissenter at the time could have pointed to Jesus teaching and insisted that it didn't matter what he ate, and on one level he would be absolutely correct.
But he would be missing the principle of submitting to one another, and missing principle of finding his place in the body. I believe this is an example of the church having authority to decide collectively a practical matter for the good of the body, at the expense of personal freedom. Even though there was clear teaching from Jesus (and acknowledged by Paul) that the thing itself was not sin.

My two bits.
Regarding the OP questions, I'm not sure why they chose the things they did, or if it is binding today. I know a lot of people to believe these are binding today, and while it seems to be the safe and wise position to take, based on:
Mark 7:15 - things you eat don't defile,
Luke 10:8 - eat what is set before you,
1 Corinthians 10:27 - don't ask questions about what you are eating,
I'm just not sure it is meant to be binding today. I think these things were a practical compromise made out of wisdom for peace.

While I'm mumbling about food and eating, I want to mention 1 Timothy 4:3-5. Is this where we get the tradition of praying before a meal? I think so.
0 x
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by lesterb »

Valerie wrote:
Heirbyadoption wrote:Valerie, the risk of relying on "oral" tradition is that we can assume any issue was addressed that we want, and it truly creates an unrestrained blank check. Secondly, most of us on here take the early church writers (beyond the actual authors of the accepted Biblical canon) as very informative and worthy of consideration, but not authoritative, as the Orthodox tend to. My questions at this point still revolve specifically around the one recorded church council in the actual New Testament, prior to any early church writers or possible oral teachings.
Okay, I thought it would help- it's helped me. Acts 15 set the pattern for further church councils as things came up to address-
This isn't really true. This is the only church council that we know of where the apostles themselves were there to participate in the discussion and to authenticate the results. The death of the apostles removed an element from the church that shifted the authority model. The apostles had a special mandate to start it in the right direction and to write the necessary instructions to keep church on track.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by Valerie »

lesterb wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Heirbyadoption wrote:Valerie, the risk of relying on "oral" tradition is that we can assume any issue was addressed that we want, and it truly creates an unrestrained blank check. Secondly, most of us on here take the early church writers (beyond the actual authors of the accepted Biblical canon) as very informative and worthy of consideration, but not authoritative, as the Orthodox tend to. My questions at this point still revolve specifically around the one recorded church council in the actual New Testament, prior to any early church writers or possible oral teachings.
Okay, I thought it would help- it's helped me. Acts 15 set the pattern for further church councils as things came up to address-
This isn't really true. This is the only church council that we know of where the apostles themselves were there to participate in the discussion and to authenticate the results. The death of the apostles removed an element from the church that shifted the authority model. The apostles had a special mandate to start it in the right direction and to write the necessary instructions to keep church on track.
Well, not to bunnytrail, I AM interested in hearing her OP answered by those who believe Acts 15 was the only mandates for the Church- and converts.
But I will say, since you have David Bercot's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, (I think you have it) David Bercot made the case in that book for Apostolic succession- so that pattern would have been adopted as the Church was in it's infant stage at the time of the writing of the New Testament- the Church was going to the world by way of the Holy Spirit-

I am too, interested in hearing her question answered though
0 x
Post Reply