It seems that even among the leaders there were differences of opinion. The dispute dragged on without coming to a resolution. Finally, Peter took the floor and rendered his judgment. He presented three arguments against requiring the gentiles to be circumcised. Peter held such respect that when he was done speaking, no one dared oppose him.
Then rose Paul and Barnabas, who spoke of the miracles that God had enabled them to perform among the gentiles. These miracles were proof that their missionary endeavors had the backing and blessing of God. The good fruit issuing from the labors of Paul and Barnabas proved them to be men of God. Moreover, their labors illustrated the grace of God that Peter had just been talking about. As an act of grace, God used the apostles to preach Christ to the gentiles so that they might believe on Him and be saved.
They were saved by this and other divine workings in their world and in their hearts. Thus, they were saved by grace. Now stood a leader whose voice carried considerable weight with the Jews who were zealous for the law. He was James, the man who had emerged as ruling elder of the church in Jerusalem. This was not the James who, along with Peter and John, had belonged to Jesus' inner circle.
He was martyred some years before Acts Nor was it another member of the original Twelve, James the son of Alphaeus Matt. According to the Christian writer Hegesippus second century AD , he was greatly admired by the people of Jerusalem because of his great piety. He spent so much time in prayer that his knees became hard like a camel's. In the ministry of Paul and Barnabas, God provided both kinds of proof. Paul and Barnabas had told the council about the miracles that testified God's approval of their efforts to evangelize the gentiles.
Now James rose and showed that the salvation of the gentiles was predicted by the Old Testament. He quoted Amos here in vv. It did not belong to a future dispensation. The prophet himself explains how gentiles would be saved at the time he foresees. He says that God would rebuild the tabernacle of David.
The meaning is that God would raise up a son of David to be the Messiah, whose work would qualify Him to be Savior of the world. Amos explains further that to receive salvation, the gentiles would only need to seek after "the Lord," another title of the Messiah. In other words, they would be saved not by becoming Jews, but by believing in the One sent to be their Savior.
The prophet says, "That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name," but James says, "That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called.
Although the Septuagint generally gives a loose translation of the Hebrew, it is careful enough that early church leaders and writers of the New Testament could, by restricting themselves to passages free of actual error, use quotations from this source. The prophet was evidently using Edom as one example of all who were alien to the commonwealth of Israel, for he immediately attached the words "and of all the heathen.
The "they" who would possess the heathen evidently refers to the household of faith. In other words, the church would someday embrace all nations. The Septuagint views the same development from the perspective of the gentiles who would be saved. They would forsake their estrangement from God and seek after Him. Viewed either way, the passage predicts salvation of all gentiles elect by God "upon whom my name is called". Future conversion of the gentiles is a frequent theme of Isaiah.
James concluded by affirming that the converts won by the ministry of Paul and Barnabas had indeed turned to God. In these words he was declaring his support for the missionary work of Paul and Barnabas. It would merely trouble them, and would discourage them from continuing on the path of truth and righteousness. He then presented a formal recommendation.
He called it a "sentence," or "judgment," but it was essentially equivalent to what we in our tradition of representative government refer to as a motion. He entered a motion that the council send the gentiles a command to observe four rules: 1 that they abstain from pollutions of idols—in other words, that they refrain from eating meat previously dedicated to a pagan god, 2 that they abstain from fornication, 3 that they do not eat things strangled—in other words, animals from which the blood had not been properly drained, and 4 that they consume no blood.
The fourth rule enlarged the third to include liquid blood, which many cultures have viewed as something to drink or to mix with solid food. Conspicuously missing from these rules was any mention of circumcision. Also missing was any suggestion that the gentiles must keep the whole law of Moses. Yet missing as well was any reference to the Ten Commandments.
Was he exempting the gentiles from the commandments against murder, stealing, etc. No, he was assuming that they understood their obligation to respect the basic laws of morality. They are the same as the provisions in the law of Moses applicable to "strangers" in the land; that is, to people of foreign extraction who had come to live in the land of Israel.
All these provisions appear in Leviticus 17 and Under the leadership of James, the early church decided that the standards which Leviticus lays out for gentiles are timeless.
Furthermore, God has never withdrawn these requirements. No, although some have reached good decisions, they are entitled to command our obedience only to the extent that their decisions agree with the Word and the Spirit.
Only the first council, the council in Jerusalem, was conducted under apostolic authority and recorded in Scripture. One consequence of surpassing importance is that all gentiles, both in the days of the early church and in our day, should accept how marriage is defined in the law of Moses. The first two rules that James proposed curbed practices posing a serious threat to gentile converts.
Eating meat dedicated to idols was a stumbling block especially to those gentiles who were still young in the faith. They felt in their conscience that to eat the meat of a pagan god was an act of disloyalty to their new Master, the God of the Bible. If they ignored conscience and ate the meat anyway, it was a step backward into their old life of idolatry.
Why did James bother to forbid fornication? Why did gentiles need a rule that seems redundant with the Seventh Commandment, the commandment against adultery? Because in the first century, a new male convert to Christ may have thought that adultery is stealing another man's wife, and he may have viewed other kinds of sex outside marriage as less objectionable. Illicit sex was commonplace because of the prostitution officially sponsored by pagan temples.
To guard Christian families from this threat, Paul stressed that relations with a temple prostitute were equivalent to marriage 1 Cor.
The rule against fornication that the Council adopted was likewise intended to enlighten gentiles concerning the true meaning of the Seventh Commandment. As we said earlier, the term "fornication" has wide-sweeping breadth, disallowing not only adultery with another man's wife, but also every other conceivable kind of immoral relations, including incest, homosexuality, bestiality, and visiting prostitutes.
The third and fourth rules that James proposed alerted gentile believers that although they were free from circumcision and from the ceremonial law of Moses, they were bound by the divine commandments given to Noah and his descendants. After the Flood, when God for the first time allowed man to take meat for food, He forbade the consumption of blood Gen.
That prohibition remains to this day. Abstaining from blood is still the obligation of all men, both Jews and gentiles. Why is blood a forbidden food? The question is a divine mystery, although the wording of the prohibition suggests that blood is somehow sacred, perhaps because it gives life.
As stated in Leviticus 17, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul" Lev.
In the modern world, one of the most grievous threats to holy marriage is use of pornography. A man addicted to lust of the eyes might, as desperate self-justification, decide that since he keeps his distance from real women, he is guiltless under the law. But the words of Jesus leave no doubt that sexual interaction with graphic images violates the Seventh Commandment. He said: "I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" Matt.
If looking with lust is essentially adultery, it is therefore a kind of porneia, or fornication. It follows that although temple prostitutes are no longer a threat to men in the church, James's rule against fornication has not ceased to be relevant. It must be brought forward and preached so that it might serve as a weapon against fornication in modern forms, such as use of pornography.
Paul devoted several passages in his letters to clarifying the restriction against eating meat offered to idols Rom. Simply to eat meat is not wrong in itself, regardless of its source. What is wrong is to eat it when the result might be spiritual damage to yourself or to another—to yourself if eating it feels like a gesture of disloyalty to God, to another if he interprets your conduct as approval of offering meat to idols.
A weaker brother might be tempted by your example to return to pagan practices. Paul tells his readers exactly where to draw the line. When they buy meat in the marketplace 1 Cor. If they do not know the source and others have no reason to think that they know the source, no harm is done. If they learn, however, that the meat was a pagan offering, they should refuse it 1 Cor. The prohibition against consuming blood has another dimension we would be wise to consider.
As human beings, we are such callous, hard-hearted creatures that we have trouble comprehending a supreme Being who is tenderhearted in the fullest degree. We understand Him better when we study the other provisions in the Mosaic law. Like many other commands in the books of Moses, this one is without parallel in any other law code, whether ancient or modern. Secular scholars, finding it extremely puzzling, have exercised themselves at great length to discover a pagan source, but without success.
This provision is not in the least puzzling, however, if we grant that the source is a Being with divine sensitivity to what is appropriate.
When He sees this milk being used to boil a little one, He finds it revolting, disgusting. Now perhaps we can better appreciate His command not to consume blood.
He created blood to make life possible for all His marvelous creatures. By the way, if someone offered you a glass of blood to drink, how would you feel? Your natural reluctance to drink it was instilled in you by your Creator. Our feeble attempt here to show how deeply God is offended by the perverse use of things He created sheds light on why He has absolutely forbidden homosexuality. James concluded his motion by stating that the new rules would not lead to neglect of the Old Testament.
The writings of Moses would continue to be read and revered wherever there were Jews. But James did not anticipate what has actually happened. As it turns out, the church has been God's main instrument for preserving the Old Testament.
The party of the Pharisees probably counted on James's support. He was well known to be scrupulous in his own observance of the law. His own habits suggested that he regarded the entire law as still binding on all believers. So when he declined to make the gentiles obey Moses, the opposition to Paul and Barnabas collapsed. The "whole church," presumably including the Pharisees, gave their assent to James's motion. The leaders then drafted a letter to be circulated among gentile believers who had been contaminated by the false teaching that surfaced at Antioch.
The source was identified as "the apostles and elders and brethren"—in other words, the same consensus that supported the final ruling of the council. The letter condemned in strong language the teaching that gentiles were subject to circumcision as well as all the other requirements of Mosaic law. It stated that any such teaching subverted their souls, and it dismissed the teachers of this doctrine as troublemakers.
At the same time, the letter gave Paul and Barnabas the highest commendation, bidding respect for them as men who risked their lives for the sake of Christ.
The question that might well have occurred to any reader of the letter was this. At what risk did the false teachers spread their doctrine? The answer? None, for they were seeking praise and prestige and material gain, not the salvation of souls.
While liberating the gentiles from any obligation to Moses, the letter laid down as binding the four rules proposed by James. It forbade eating meat offered to idols, the consumption of blood, the consumption of things strangled, and fornication. Lest gentile readers view the letter as human opinion, the writers stated clearly that they were issuing commandments.
Moreover, they named the Holy Spirit as the author. In other words, it was by His authority that the council set down the four rules.
After the letter was written, four men were chosen to carry it throughout the churches of Syria and Cilicia. Two were Paul and Barnabas. The others were Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, both leaders of the church in Jerusalem. Although the letter was written to all the churches, the place where the controversy began was Antioch.
Therefore, the four men chosen to disseminate the verdict of the Jerusalem Council went straight to Antioch from Jerusalem and gathered the entire local body of believers.
Why was circumcision such a critical issue in the Church at this time? How did the leaders tell the members that circumcision was no longer required? How do modern Church leaders communicate decisions and counsel to members of the Church?
What is our obligation regarding the counsel and direction of Church leaders? For additional help with this answer, see The Teachings of the Living Prophets [religion student manual, ], chapters 8—11; and Dallin H. Tell students that we should always prayerfully follow the counsel of the living prophet and sustain him in every way. Home ChurchofJesusChrist. Read Acts —6 with your class and ask: What issue did this Church council deal with? Whose will was it that the gospel be preached to the Gentiles?
Read Acts —35 with the class and consider asking questions like the following: Why was circumcision such a critical issue in the Church at this time? Previous Next. Does the decree assume that the gentiles know all the valid laws except these four? Why would it be necessary to list these four laws, but not others?
To answer that, scholars have explored some possible literary sources of these prohibitions. What was this collection of restrictions based on? Luke does not tell us. Most scholars have advocated either one or the other, but there are weaknesses with each. A Noachic theory neatly explains the prohibition of blood and, as a corollary, strangled meat, which contains blood , because Gen.
Since Noah is the ancestor of gentiles as well as Jews, these commands could with reason be applied to gentiles. At least the Talmud shows that Jews discussed which laws applied to gentiles who wished to obey God. Dunn notes a variety of rabbinic opinions about which laws were applicable to proselytes, gentile Godfearers and resident aliens. However, the Noachic theory has serious shortcomings. In the rabbinic lists, blood is not directly forbidden.
Strangled things are not specifically mentioned, either, and it is not clear that the prohibitions about porneia or idol-meat can be traced back to Noah. Wilson, after a thorough analysis his discussion of the decree is probably the single best treatment , summarizes the weaknesses of the Noachic theory:.
Noachic laws are dissimilar in both number and in content…. The most common theory is that of a Leviticus source. With a little creativity, Lev. What makes the Leviticus theory especially attractive is that all four prohibitions apply specifically to alien gentiles as well as to Israelites. But the correspondence is not exact, and Wilson lists numerous problems. Scholars often mention incest, because Lev. It seems best to understand porneia in a broad sense; the discussion of incest in Lev.
Another problem with the Leviticus theory is that Luke does not indicate that the decree has a biblical origin. Another objection is that other Mosaic laws applying to aliens living in Israel were not included in the decree. The alien ger in Hebrew proselytos in the Septuagint 31 was also required to keep the Sabbath Ex. None is given. The mention of strangled meat is especially puzzling, for either theory. Is avoiding strangled things just as important as avoiding sexual immorality?
Neither the Old Testament nor the New gives strangled things that much importance. Moreover, Deut. Neither theory explains why it is in the decree. Another weakness of both Noachic and Leviticus theories is that, if the list were based on the law of Moses, it would imply that the law of Moses was still in force — four laws for gentiles, and laws for Jews. Both Noachic and Levitical theories have serious inadequacies. The variety of rabbinic opinions —- long after the date of Acts —- about which laws applied to gentiles 33 suggests that there was no list of undisputed authority, whether Noachic or Levitical, that the apostles could have quoted from.
More likely, the decree was created specifically for the early Christian church. The four prohibitions do not need to have a common source; one may have come from Gen. Many commentators have concluded that the decree was designed to make it possible for Jewish and gentile Christians to fellowship together without requiring the Jewish Christians to compromise their purity customs. Indeed, there is almost a consensus that the decree required gentiles to conform to the most important sensitivities of Jewish Christians.
This view is held by Longenecker, Neyrey, Seifrid, Tannehill, and others. Some commentators specify that the issue is table -fellowship: eating together. It is true that table-fellowship was an important part of social acceptance, and it is true that three parts of the decree may involve dietary restrictions, but Luke says nothing in this chapter unlike about table-fellowship.
Sanders 35 correctly notes three problems with the table-fellowship theory:. Nor does it seem likely that these four are the most important rules. If gentiles kept the decree, they could still be unclean by Pharisee standards even pious, God-fearing Cornelius was controversial. Common sense would have told the gentiles that fellowship could proceed if they followed Pharisee rules.
Also, for this theory, it is odd that porneia would be mentioned but other sins not mentioned. Because the more common theories about purpose are not entirely convincing, other suggestions are worth examining in greater detail. Some have suggested that the decree simply prohibited customs associated with pagan cults. All four prohibited things had some connection with pagan customs. Pollutions of idols has an obvious connection with paganism. Porneia can, too, since it can refer to cultic prostitution, or it may be a metaphor for religious disloyalty.
That haima [blood] refers to the bloody rites of pagan sacrifices, one of their most prominent features, is certainly feasible…. It was also the custom in some cults to drink the blood of the victim…. What about strangled things? But strangling was a pagan custom in Alexandria, and old Macedonian cults killed without bleeding the animals.
Apparently they were in Corinth; it is plausible that a decree to this effect would be needed. This is possible, but not proven. Perhaps it seems unlikely. However, it may be misleading to expect all four prohibitions to be of the same category. Old Testament laws mixed ritual and moral laws; Jewish vice lists also did, and other Christian lists did, too.
The first three items may have been prohibited for cultic associations, and porneia for moral reasons; all were considered equally polluting and ungodly. Since idolatry and sexual immorality were considered chief sins of gentiles, it would be reasonable to address both problems in an early decree.
The best explanation of the decree, if a single explanation must be sought, is that it forbids gentile Christians to participate in four things associated with pagan cults. This conclusion is supported in part by the failure of other theories to explain the decree, and it harmonizes with these facts:. The people then argue that the council rejected only circumcision and not the need to obey the law of Moses — that is, that the council merely concluded that gentiles do not have to be circumcised in order to obey the law of Moses as if everyone agreed that the law of Moses should be obeyed; only that it did not require gentiles to be circumcised.
This interpretation would make the decree unnecessary. Moreover, the Greek words do not support this translation, and I am not aware of any published translation that conveys this idea. Acts shows that gentiles do not have to obey the law of Moses. Also, John shows that circumcision is part of the law of Moses. Last, Gal. The Pharisees were claiming that gentiles had to obey the whole package of old covenant law.
The Acts of the Apostles. Sacra Pagina Series, vol. Collegeville, Minn.
0コメント