Counsil of Jerusalem (Acts 15)

Aino said:

Would the resolutions of the counsil of Jerusalem still apply in todays church? What do the prohibitions actually mean in todays context?

Click to expand...

Well, firstly, Acts 15 clarifies that we don't need to follow Mosaic law. Secondly, avoiding sexual immorality is hopefully self-explanatory. Thirdly, the issue of food sacrificed to idols is discussed in a lot more detail in Paul's letters.

Therefore the only tricky issue here is abstaining from blood and from the meat of strangled animals (i.e. meat without the blood drained out). This prohibition goes back to Noah (Genesis 9:4), but Christians disagree on whether it still applies.

Aino said:

Would the resolutions of the counsil of Jerusalem still apply in todays church? What do the prohibitions actually mean in todays context?

Click to expand...

Hello,

There is a theme throughout the Bible that we must obey God rather than man, so we should be careful not to misinterpret something that was against obeying the laws of man as being against obeying the laws of God. According to Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed for us to tell that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they tried to lead is away from what God had commanded, so if any man tries to tell you not to obey God's law, then you should regard them as a false prophet and obey God instead of them. However, when Acts 15 is correctly understood, it does not teach anyone against obeying God's law.

It is important to note that nowhere does God's law require all Gentiles everywhere to become circumcised, nor does it require either Jews or Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, so the issue in Acts 15:1 was not in regard to whether Gentiles had to obey the commands of their God, but whether they had to obey the laws of man/customs of Moses in order to become saved. God's law was never given as a means of becoming saved through our own effort, so it does not follow that because we shouldn't obey it or man's traditions for how to obey it in order to become saved that therefore we shouldn't obey it for the purposes for which it was given.

According to Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and Romans 10:5-10, God's law is not too difficult for us, so if Acts 10:10 had been referring to God's law instead of man's law as being a heavy burden no one could bear, then they would be directly contradicting God. In 1 John 5:3, it also confirms that the commands of God are not burdensome. Rather, the Jerusalem Council was simply expressing the same view of the Pharisaic traditions that Jesus expressed in Matthew 23:3-4 when accused them of tying up heavy burdens and put them on people's shoulders, but would not lift a finger to move them. In contrast, Jesus said that the way he taught to obey God's law was light and easy and the way where we will find rest for our souls (Matthew 11:28-30, Jeremiah 6:16-19). So it was not Christ's example of obedience to the law that they were rejecting, but the mountains of man-made traditions found in the customs of Moses.

There are 1,050 commands in the NT, so you take the four prohibitions in Acts 15:20 as being an exhaustive list of everything that would be required of Gentiles, then that would exclude over 99% of the commands given in the NT, including those given by Jesus, so it is clear to me that it was never intended to be an exhaustive list. Rather, they were laws that would require Gentiles to make a clean break from continuing to participate in the idolatrous practices that they had come out of. It was Paul's understanding that Gentiles would continue to learn how to obey the rest of the laws of Moses by hearing them taught every Sabbath in the synagogues (Acts 15:21).

Keep in mind one can please God with their actions as much as is possible by choosing to do good things that aren't in the Law at all. This is because God looks at your motives, not what you do. (More about this from a few days ago.)

Aino said:

Ok, so are christians, jews or gentiles supposed to keep the mosaic law, and if so, what parts? Why was anything decided upon in the counsil of Jerusalem if we're still supposed to keep all ot laws? Isn't that being under law, if you start keeping all kinds of commands and telling others to do so as well? Is it Gods will to us that we get grace for all our past sins but have to obey the ot law from the point onwards that we become christian?

Click to expand...

The commands of the Holy Spirit relayed by James in this passage were for this reason:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. (Acts 15:19, 1984 NIV)

In other words, the commands were meant to make sure the gentiles would continue on the correct path to God.

However, your concern cannot be addressed without us (me?) understanding what you mean by "supposed to." You don't have to do anything; you are free. What do you think the possible consequences are as a result of doing or not doing something?

Aino said:

Ok, so are christians, jews or gentiles supposed to keep the mosaic law, and if so, what parts?

Click to expand...

I think so. God has always been holy, righteous, and good from the beginning, so the way to act in line with God's character existed from the beginning independently of any covenant, thought it was later revealed in the Mosaic covenant, so there is a difference between a set of instructions for how to do what is holy, righteous and good (Romans 7:12), and a covenant agreement to abide by those instructions. Regardless of what covenant someone is under, if any, anyone who wants to find out how to act in line with God's character can find out by reading the Mosaic law, but as part of the New Covenant, we are still instructed to do what God has revealed to be holy, righteous, and good (1 Peter 1:13-16, 1 John 3:4-10, Ephesians 2:10).

For example, in 1 Peter 1:13-16, we are told to have a holy conduct because God is holy, so how do we know how to do that? That phrase is a reference to Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, and it should be relatively straightforward that having a holy conduct involves keeping God's holy days. Note that it does not say that we should have a holy conduct in order to be like Jews or because we are under the Mosaic Covenant, but because God is holy, so it is about acting in line with the holiness of our God. Keeping the Sabbath holy and keeping God's dietary laws are also part of what it meant to Israel to have a holy conduct.

Even during OT times, there was not a single person who was responsible for obeying every single command in the Mosaic law. Not even Jesus was able to obey the laws that were in regard to a woman's period or to giving birth. Some laws were given to the King, the High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, children, people living in the land, strangers living among them, and to everyone, so it takes careful prayer and study to determine how the law applies to us today. Laws often have conditions under which they apply, such as with the Sabbath only applying when it is the 7th day, so there is a difference between saying that we are not required to obey a law when the conditions under which it applies have not been met and saying that that we are not required to obey a law. The laws in regard to temple practice are a good example of this because they only apply under the condition that there is a temple in which to practice them. When Israel when is in exile in Babylon, the condition for their return to the land was to return to obedience to God's law, which required them to have access to the temple which they didn't have access to, so God counted doing what they could do as full obedience.

Why was anything decided upon in the counsil of Jerusalem if we're still supposed to keep all ot laws?

Click to expand...

The issue was the role of Jewish man-made laws, traditions, customs, rulings, and fences for how they taught that you needed to obey God's law. For example, there are 24 chapters worth of traditions and rulings in the Mishna for just how to keep the Sabbath, such as how far someone could walk or how much someone could lift before it counted as work, and Pharisees would not have considered teaching Gentiles to keep the Sabbath without teaching them to follow their traditions for how to keep it. According to Isaiah 45:17 and Romans 11:26, all Israel will be saved, so they mistakenly believed that Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become saved, which involved agreeing to follow the customs of Moses (Exodus 20:19, Acts 15:1). This was the same issue that Paul was dealing with in Galatians, where he was adamant that we are not saved by works of law, but by faith. So the Jerusalem Council ruled that Gentiles did not have to become Jews and obey the man-made customs of Moses in order to become saved, but they did not rule that Gentiles did not have to obey the law of their God, and if you think that they did rule that, then you should obey God instead of them.

Isn't that being under law, if you start keeping all kinds of commands and telling others to do so as well?

Click to expand...

Yes, that is being under the law, but Paul spoke about a number of different categories of laws, such as the law of God (Romans 3:31, Romans 7:22-25, Romans 8:7), the law of sin (Romans 7:23-25), the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2), the law of the Spirit (Romans 8:2), the law of faith (Romans 3:27), the law of righteousness (Romans 9:31), the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21), and works of law (Galatians 3:10), so it is important to correctly identify from the context which law we are not under.

For instance, in Galatians 5:16-23, everything listed as being works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic law, while everything listed as being fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with the law, so it doesn't make any sense to interpret Galatians 5:18 as saying that we aren't under the Mosaic law if we are led by the Spirit, especially when the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27). Rather, it is the law of sin that was brought to increase sin, which stirs us the works of the flesh that are against the Spirit. Likewise, in Romans 6:14, it is not the law of Mosaic where sin had dominion over us, but the law of sin. In Romans 7, Paul said that God's law is holy, righteous, and good, that it is spiritual, that it is the good he sought to do, and the good he delighted in doing, but contrasted that with a law of sin that had dominion over him by stirring up sin and causing him not to do the good that he wanted to do, so the law of sin is in opposition to the Mosaic law, and the law that we are not under when we are under grace.

Is it Gods will to us that we get grace for all our past sins but have to obey the ot law from the point onwards that we become christian?

Click to expand...

How do we know which actions are our past sins? According to Romans 7:7, the Mosaic law was give to reveal what sin is and without it we wouldn't even know what sin is, and according to 1 John 3:4, sin is defined as lawlessness, so when Messiah was telling people to repent from their sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand, he was telling them to repent from their disobedience to the Mosaic law, so repentance from our disobedience to the Mosaic law is a central part of the Gospel message. Messiah was sinless, so set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:3-6). Our sanctification is about being made to be more like him in doing what is holy, righteous, and good in accordance with the law.

According to Titus 2:11-14, our salvation involves being saved from the penalty of our lawlessness by Messiah giving himself to redeem us from all lawlessness, but it also involves being saved from continuing to sin by God's grace training us to do what He has revealed to be godly, righteous, and good, and training us to renounce doing what He has revealed to us to be ungodly and sinful, which is essentially what the Mosaic law was given to reveal to us how to do. According to Romans 1:5, we have received grace to bring about the obedience of faith. According to John 1:16-17, grace was added upon grace, so the grace of Messiah was added upon the grace of the law. According to Strong's, "grace" is defined as "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life" and when God's will is reflected in our lives it takes the form of obedience to His instructions. So God's grace is not at all opposed to God's law, as if a house divided against itself could stand, but rather God's grace is what trains us to obey God's law through faith.

Greg J. said:

Keep in mind one can please God with their actions as much as is possible by choosing to do good things that aren't in the Law at all. This is because God looks at your motives, not what you do. (More about this from a few days ago.)

Click to expand...

There is no possible good that isn't in accordance with the principles of the Mosaic law.

However, your concern cannot be addressed without us (me?) understanding what you mean by "supposed to." You don't have to do anything; you are free. What do you think the possible consequences are as a result of doing or not doing something?

Click to expand...

There is a good reason why the land of the free is not the same as the land where there are no laws. Having the freedom to do whatever we want includes the freedom to harm others, so there are ways that we ought to and ought not to use our freedoms, which takes us back to laws. So true freedom is not the freedom to do whatever we want, but rather it is the freedom to do what we ought. God's law instructs how to use our freedoms in the way that we ought, so it is a law of liberty (Psalms 119:45). We are "supposed to" do what we ought according to the purposes for which God made us, which are according to His law. We have been saved by grace through faith, not by doing good works, but for the purpose of doing good works (Ephesians 2:8-10), so we are supposed to what God has revealed to be good works.

Aino said:

Would the resolutions of the counsil of Jerusalem still apply in todays church?

Click to expand...

They were abandoned even in the New Testament.

The biggie is not eating food sacrificed to idols. Why wouldn't this apply? And why would a Christian possibly want to do it? Besides, the epistles of John warn the same thing. "Little children, keep yourselves from idols."