jopa
Member
Posts: 15 
|
Post by jopa on May 5, 2014 17:42:54 GMT
Acts 15:1- Notice that these men came from Judea or Jerusalem and according to historians and the gospels this area was considered the most zealous and ultra conservative location in relation to the Law of Moses. These probably were believers already baptized. Also notice that some believers who apparently were already baptized belonged to the party of the Pharisees.
This was the first major problem/doctrinal issue faced by the young ecclesia. some of the zealots were trying to reconcile the Law with the idea of an unclean gentile/foreigner since the Jews considered themselves clean and they only were children of God. They did not seem to have a problem accepting Jesus as the Messiah and accepted that the majority portion of the Law was done away with; but, they could not accept that an unclean Gentile could be brought into the fold without the circumcision established by God with Abraham ( the sabbath was also an issue but not to the extent of cirucumcision).
verse 10- "why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" This error of needing cirucumcision to be saved in essence nullified the gospel(read Galatians which was Paul's letter/answer in relation to this very problem).
So in an effort to try to keep the peace between the Jews and the now Gentile brethren, the apostles counseled the Gentiles to at least observe some actions that were abhorrent to Jews because the Jewish brethren had been programmed from their birth to reject the 4 items found in verse 20. It is not that these were the only things the Law of Christ required nor were these commandments (in my opinion) but these were suggestions to keep the peace and not offend the Jewish brethren.
One more point on this chapter: Verses 36-40- Could Paul and Barnabas, who were full of the holy spirit, not ask to see who was right? Apparently, even if they would've asked, the holy spirit did not see fit to answer them. It was to be something they had to decide on their own and live with the consequences. Perhaps it did not make a difference in the long run and perhaps the decision was the intention of the holy spirit. One thing seems to be obvious- the holy spirit was manifested only in the cases where it was needed to show God's glory. The believers that had the holy spirit were on their own outside of these times just as we are.
|
|
|
|
Post by gsmithb on May 6, 2014 4:09:32 GMT
Acts 15:36-41 shows that the apostles were men of like passion as we are,even though they possessed the Holy Spirit. As we see later Paul recommends Mark to the churches for he was a loyal worker that had proved himself.
|
|
jopa
Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by jopa on May 6, 2014 17:45:04 GMT
Acts 16:25-34 Anybody care to suggest or answer how a jailer who appears to be a Roman pagan in the Roman city of Philippi was baptized the same night, and in fact it says, "the same hour" without learning the Truth as is the custom now where it takes weeks, even months?
|
|
Lee
Administrator
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by Lee on May 7, 2014 1:37:34 GMT
“ARE BRETHREN AT LIBERTY TO EAT BLOOD AND THINGS STRANGLED?”
W.U.—There can be no question that the Gentile believers, while exempt from all obligation to keep the law of Moses, were commanded (Acts 15:20, 29), to abstain from the eating of blood and things strangled, and the latter because of the former; that is things strangled were things with blood retained in them and therefore unfit for those forbidden to eat blood. There can also be no question that the black pudding of modern use, and many fowls and rabbits that are sold in the market would be excluded by the apostolic prohibition if it is binding on believers of our age. Any doubt that may exist on the question of whether it is binding now or not, arises from the fact that the prohibition seems to have been a concession to the Jewish section of the brotherhood in the first century, based upon the principle of not using liberty to the hurt of others. Thus James, on whose recommendation the prohibition seems to have been enjoined by the council of the apostles and elders, who “came together to consider this matter,” gave as his reason for recommending it: “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.“ If this was the object of the commandment—to avoid needless offence to the Jews who were all zealous of Moses and to whom it seemed that Moses was set at nought by Gentile believers, if besides neglecting circumcision of the flesh, they ate things offered in sacrifice to idols, and blood, and things strangled, then the force of it would be gone in a day like ours, when there is no Jewish element in the brotherhood to consider. Paul’s argument on the subject would seem to show that this was the position of the case. On the subject of eating things that had been offered in sacrifice to idols, for instance, Paul argues that an idol is nothing (1 Cor. 8:4), and that the flesh consecrated to an idol, and afterwards exposed for sale in the shambles, was none the worse for the performance, and could be eaten with thanksgiving by an intelligent believer (1 Cor. 10:27–30), except where the eating was likely to be construed into a participation in idolatry. His words on the last point place the matter in a clear light: “Whatsoever is set before you (that is, at a feast) eat, asking no questions for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice to idols, EAT NOT.“—(1 Cor. 10:27.) This shows that in Paul’s estimation it was a matter of indifference as to the eating of animals that had been offered in the idol worship so long as the fact of that offering was not the reason of the eating. So long as the matter was out of sight, believers were at liberty to eat even things offered in sacrifice to idols; but when the fact was brought forward, they were to desist, “for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake . . conscience I say, not thine own, but of the other”—(verse 29). Nevertheless, he recommends great caution in the use of this liberty. “Howbeit,” says he (chap. 8:7) “there is not in every man that knowledge; for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour, eat it as a thing offered unto an idol, and their conscience being weak, is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God, for neither if we eat are we better, neither if we eat not are we the worse. But take heed, lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak. For if any man see thee, which hast knowledge, sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him that is weak be emboldened to eat those things that are offered unto idols. And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died.” From this it is evident that Paul considered a brother at liberty to eat that which the letter of the Council at Jerusalem had forbidden, provided it could be done without hurting others who were weak; that is, those who could not see their way to such a liberty. At first sight it may seem strange how the doing of a thing not wrong in itself could hurt anyone however weak. Paul has given the answer: the liberty of the strong-minded brother, misunderstood by the weakminded brother, encourages the weakminded brother to do that which in that weak-minded brother’s opinion is wrong. Therefore, that which is not wrong-doing in the other, becomes wrong-doing in him, because he does it thinking it wrong. Thus his conscience is defiled: for so far as his relation to the matter is concerned, he has been as distinctly guilty of wrong-doing as if they had been actually wrong: that is, to him, the eating of the flesh has been an act of fellowship with idolatry, and, therefore, as distinctly sin as if he had worshipped the idol. Paul lays down the principle, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin,” therefore, “he that doubteth is damned if he eat.”—(Rom. 14:23.) The rule is of easy application to every matter, involving the question of right and wrong. If there is a doubt, be on the safe side. If liberty is clear, use it, only not to be detriment of another. “One believeth that he may eat all things . . I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean in itself, but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died . . For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended, or is made weak.”—(Rom. 14:2, 14, 15, 20, 21.) It is evident from the whole of the evidence that the commandment not to eat blood and things strangled was of the character suggested in the beginning of these remarks; and that, therefore, if things in themselves be good, and the use of them is unattended with spiritual harm to others, they are to be eaten with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. “Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer.”—(1 Tim. 4:5.) When doubts exist, let the parties concerned act on the advice of Paul: “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth.”—(Rom. 14:3.)
1876 Christadelphian p40–42
|
|
Lee
Administrator
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by Lee on May 7, 2014 1:41:52 GMT
THE EATING OF BLOOD
“Your answer in the January number of the Christadelphian on the subject of eating of blood, is not satisfactory. The decree of the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15.) was binding on the Gentile believer in the apostolic age, and must be binding now. If we may eat blood, may we not also commit fornication, for they are both joined in the same prohibition? And what then becomes of Paul’s declaration that no fornicator shall inherit the kingdom of God? It seems to me they stand or fall together, with the other points mentioned in the decree. Give the subject your reconsideration. It appears the decree on the subject was sanctioned by the Holy Spirit. It is, therefore, serious.”—(J.P.)
REMARKS.—In our first impressions on the subject, and for a considerable time, we were of our correspondent’s mind. The considerations which have modified our original view are set forth in the answer given in January last. These considerations might be amplified, but cannot be added to in substance by anything we could now say. We must, therefore, refer again to what is there written. If there were nothing outside the Jerusalem decree on the subject, our correspondent’s argument would stand; but Paul having expressly allowed, under certain circumstances, of the eating of things offered in sacrifice to idols, which is forbidden in the decree, the conclusion arises that that decree arose out of the peculiar circumstances of the Gentile believers, and not out of the nature of the things themselves. This conclusion is confirmed by the arguments used at the council at which the decree was enacted. It does not follow, however, that fornication becomes equally a matter of indifference, with the eating of things offered in sacrifice to idols; fornication is constantly forbidden, independently of the Jerusalem decree. It, therefore, stands on separate ground. Its mention along with the eating of things sacrificed to idols was, doubtless, due to the circumstance that fornication was a part of the idol worship. If the eating of blood had been condemned by the apostles apart from the Jerusalem decree, as part of their general teaching, the points would, as our correspondent says, have stood and fallen together. The eating of blood was condemned by the law of Moses, and also forbidden to Noah and his family; but, in both cases, the prohibition was connected with the system of worship by blood-shedding of animals; and in the case of the Mosaic law, the use of blood in sacrifice is the reason given for it (Lev. 17.): a reason which has lost its force at a time when God no longer requires the blood of bulls and goats in our approaches to Him. But if any brother have censcientious scruples on the point, Paul has taught us to respect those scruples, and to grieve Him not in our eating. It is cruel to do otherwise. Blood in any form is repugnant to every unde-praved appetite, and in no case can the disuse of it be a hardship. A brother or a sister who would not dispense with blood-pudding and such like, to please another who thinks it wrong, can scarcely claim to belong to the class who are ready even to lay down their lives for the brethren.
1876 Christadelphian: Volume 13. 2001 (electronic ed.) (185–186). Birmingham: Christadelphian Magazine & Publishing Association.
|
|
