Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

General Christian Theology
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 »

RZehr wrote: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.
Isn't she asking about why Acts 15 didn't address all the extra Biblical rules the brotherhood came up with?
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:
lesterb wrote:
Valerie wrote:
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
Like I said in my last post, the mandate in Acts 15 was only for the gentile part of the church. It wasn't for Jewish believers and James makes that pretty clear in the latter part of Acts.
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 »

I must have misunderstood, I thought she was trying to see if that was the only 'rules' for ALL Believers for ALL time, and if so, why are there extra Biblical rules now? Did I understand incorrectly?
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:
Isn't she asking about why Acts 15 didn't address all the extra Biblical rules the brotherhood came up with?
Maybe she is. Personally, I think (why do I say that? :? can you think any other way?) that this was a policy to meet the need of the time. And that is what our church guidelines are intended to do. We aren't saying that this is the only way to do it, and that other ways are wrong. But we are saying that we believe this is a safe way to serve God. We look at a Bible principle and try to find a way to apply it as a brotherhood.

So our brotherhood has a statement in its guidelines about not using alcoholic beverages, or tobacco, or recreational drugs. None of that would have made a lot of sense during that era. Today it does. The Mennonite church at one point grew tobacco. Today, conservative Mennonites don't. So weren't those Mennonites who grew and even used tobacco not Christians? That isn't necessarily true. But in today's world the danger of tobacco use is so well recognized that I don't think a Christian has very much excuse for using it.
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:
Isn't she asking about why Acts 15 didn't address all the extra Biblical rules the brotherhood came up with?
Maybe she is. Personally, I think (why do I say that? :? can you think any other way?) that this was a policy to meet the need of the time. And that is what our church guidelines are intended to do. We aren't saying that this is the only way to do it, and that other ways are wrong. But we are saying that we believe this is a safe way to serve God. We look at a Bible principle and try to find a way to apply it as a brotherhood.

So our brotherhood has a statement in its guidelines about not using alcoholic beverages, or tobacco, or recreational drugs. None of that would have made a lot of sense during that era. Today it does. The Mennonite church at one point grew tobacco. Today, conservative Mennonites don't. So weren't those Mennonites who grew and even used tobacco not Christians? That isn't necessarily true. But in today's world the danger of tobacco use is so well recognized that I don't think a Christian has very much excuse for using it.
I think that's a reasonable pattern- I question why the alcohol as it was available during the time of Acts 15 wasn't it? The other things you mentioned were not I realize so I do understand the Church as it was growing had to apply this same practice as they would face new issues-
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:
lesterb wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Isn't she asking about why Acts 15 didn't address all the extra Biblical rules the brotherhood came up with?
Maybe she is. Personally, I think (why do I say that? :? can you think any other way?) that this was a policy to meet the need of the time. And that is what our church guidelines are intended to do. We aren't saying that this is the only way to do it, and that other ways are wrong. But we are saying that we believe this is a safe way to serve God. We look at a Bible principle and try to find a way to apply it as a brotherhood.

So our brotherhood has a statement in its guidelines about not using alcoholic beverages, or tobacco, or recreational drugs. None of that would have made a lot of sense during that era. Today it does. The Mennonite church at one point grew tobacco. Today, conservative Mennonites don't. So weren't those Mennonites who grew and even used tobacco not Christians? That isn't necessarily true. But in today's world the danger of tobacco use is so well recognized that I don't think a Christian has very much excuse for using it.
I think that's a reasonable pattern- I question why the alcohol as it was available during the time of Acts 15 wasn't it? The other things you mentioned were not I realize so I do understand the Church as it was growing had to apply this same practice as they would face new issues-
Alcohol was practically a necessity of life at that time. It was used like we use coffee today, plus it had medicinal qualities that made it useful. The Bible does speak against the over indulgence in wine, etc.

I don't take the position that a glass of wine is wrong. But the whole alcohol schematic speaks of a lifestyle that isn't pleasing to God and I don't want to be seen sitting on my porch drinking a can of beer. For the same reason I won't order a cocktail at at dinner party, not even a non-alcoholic one. I was at a work dinner one time and people all around me were ordering the best and the strongest. I ordered root beer and the waiter hesitated a bit, then warned me that the only way they had root beer was in a bottle. I didn't think anything of it until he brought it to me, in a bottle that looked exactly like a regular beer bottle. He had thought further than I did, and was afraid I'd be offended at the appearance. For his sake, I'd order something else if I could do it over again.
0 x
Neto
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by Neto »

Coffee is also a stimulant, and I think that its indiscriminate use should be cause for concern, the same as for alcoholic beverages such as wine. (I don't think there is any reason why any believer should consume distilled liquors.)

But all that aside, I have long wondered how the statement at the end of James' remarks should affect our understanding of whether those injunctions were for all people in all times, or even for all non-Jewish people then. I'm referring to vs 21, where he gives as a reason for his recommendations that "The Law has been preached in every city from the earliest times, and is read in the synagogue on every Sabbath." How does that statement support his position, unless it was a merely pragmatic decision, just for reputations sake? What of peoples who were never exposed to the Jewish Law, or never had a Synagogue in their area, or never heard of the Sabbath? Back some years ago there was a huge controversy in missions circles regarding the consumption of blood. For some tribes in Africa (such as the Nuer) blood is (or was) their main source of certain nutrients. The people we lived with would have never purposely consumed blood, but they did (and do) eat strangled meat.
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
Ernie
Posts: 5447
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:48 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Anabaptist Umbrella
Contact:

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by Ernie »

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?
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."

It is possible for a person with conscience on a matter to hold the church hostage to his conscience but that is a different matter and Paul addresses this also.

Further...
Peter added some extra biblical requirements such as not braiding ribbon into ones hair, wearing gold and pearls.
(I doubt the women who had tendencies this way had pleasant thoughts about Peter the evening after his letter was read to their church but that is pure speculation.)
Peter did not say they should refrain from wearing silver so I guess silver is ok? I think not.
I think the scriptures were given us for our learning and that these injunctions from Peter are both prescriptive and a pattern for how church is expected to do today.
0 x
The old woodcutter spoke again. “It is impossible to talk with you. You always draw conclusions. Life is so vast, yet you judge all of life with one page or one word. You see only a fragment. Unless you know the whole story, how can you judge?"
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by Heirbyadoption »

I'll try to get back here after the kids are abed, but just for the record, Lester and Valerie, I is and always have been a "he." :laugh
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:I'll try to get back here after the kids are abed, but just for the record, Lester and Valerie, I is and always have been a "he." :laugh
Well, that's sort of what I thought, but then I read Valeries post and thought I must have remembered wrong.... :-| :-|
0 x
Post Reply