"It came to pass, in the time of Paul the apostle(more or less) that certain men came forth from Judea and taught the gentiles saying, "unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Of course this went against what Paul had been teaching; that it's only through grace and faith that one attains salvation, and nothing more. The old commandments were set aside in favor of the new when Christ came to die on the cross.
The dispute was brought up during a council in Jerusalem where the original apostles, the converted Pharisees, Paul and Barnabas were present. The Pharisees, as anal as ever over the law, insisted that the gentiles be circumcised. Simon Peter spoke up in defense of the gentiles, stating that God gives the Holy Spirit to Jews and Gentiles alike, and if God Almighty makes no distinction between them, who were they to impose the burden of the law on them?
This, Simon Peter said, "we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they." He mentioned too that it was by faith that the hearts are purified; insinuating as well that it's not adherence to the commandments that brings salvation.
James spoke after that, quoting the old testament where God said something about how He would rebuild the tabernacle of David and set it up so that the rest of mankind(non-jews, ie: gentiles) "may seek the Lord, Even all Gentiles who are called by His name."
All's fine and good, till James saw it fit to add his opinion:
"Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood."
The council was apparently satisfied with that compromise, and so a letter was drafted to the gentiles saying:
"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well."
And since those since were documented in the book of Acts which is now part of the bible, has it now become the will of God that we abstain from these things?
It troubles me. It was the view of James back in his day that these were the bare minimum of the old law that the gentiles should keep. In the letter to the gentiles, the author said that it "seemed good to the Holy Spirit" that those particular burdens were laid on believers. Acts did not state that the Holy Spirit explicitly agreed. Did they take His silence as concurrence?
The biggest question now though is .. is ... can I still have my steak medium rare?! And of course there's the issue of sexual immorality..
If certain issues such as the consumption of blood, and other exhortations that the current establishment think archaic can be set aside, would it one day be acceptable to .. fornicate as long as it is within the boundaries of a loving, committed relationship between two God-fearing Christians who would have been married had they lived in a much earlier era, and are currently prevented from doing so only by the relatively modern obligations of life like undergraduate studies, paying off student loans, getting a job and combating an almost constant inadequacy of finances?
As a disclaimer, I have to add that the bible has to be taken as a single coherent message and not out of context like what I perhaps just did. Or did I? Perhaps I have become as Peter said in his second epistle:
"For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.
For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them."
Perhaps. But what exactly, praytell, is the "holy commandment"?"
-
That was from my blog. thought i would get better responses here..
Of course this went against what Paul had been teaching; that it's only through grace and faith that one attains salvation, and nothing more. The old commandments were set aside in favor of the new when Christ came to die on the cross.
The dispute was brought up during a council in Jerusalem where the original apostles, the converted Pharisees, Paul and Barnabas were present. The Pharisees, as anal as ever over the law, insisted that the gentiles be circumcised. Simon Peter spoke up in defense of the gentiles, stating that God gives the Holy Spirit to Jews and Gentiles alike, and if God Almighty makes no distinction between them, who were they to impose the burden of the law on them?
This, Simon Peter said, "we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they." He mentioned too that it was by faith that the hearts are purified; insinuating as well that it's not adherence to the commandments that brings salvation.
James spoke after that, quoting the old testament where God said something about how He would rebuild the tabernacle of David and set it up so that the rest of mankind(non-jews, ie: gentiles) "may seek the Lord, Even all Gentiles who are called by His name."
All's fine and good, till James saw it fit to add his opinion:
"Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood."
The council was apparently satisfied with that compromise, and so a letter was drafted to the gentiles saying:
"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well."
And since those since were documented in the book of Acts which is now part of the bible, has it now become the will of God that we abstain from these things?
It troubles me. It was the view of James back in his day that these were the bare minimum of the old law that the gentiles should keep. In the letter to the gentiles, the author said that it "seemed good to the Holy Spirit" that those particular burdens were laid on believers. Acts did not state that the Holy Spirit explicitly agreed. Did they take His silence as concurrence?
The biggest question now though is .. is ... can I still have my steak medium rare?! And of course there's the issue of sexual immorality..
If certain issues such as the consumption of blood, and other exhortations that the current establishment think archaic can be set aside, would it one day be acceptable to .. fornicate as long as it is within the boundaries of a loving, committed relationship between two God-fearing Christians who would have been married had they lived in a much earlier era, and are currently prevented from doing so only by the relatively modern obligations of life like undergraduate studies, paying off student loans, getting a job and combating an almost constant inadequacy of finances?
As a disclaimer, I have to add that the bible has to be taken as a single coherent message and not out of context like what I perhaps just did. Or did I? Perhaps I have become as Peter said in his second epistle:
"For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.
For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them."
Perhaps. But what exactly, praytell, is the "holy commandment"?"
-
That was from my blog. thought i would get better responses here..
