The Acts 15 Decree

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Peter (or James for that matter) did not have any “written scripture” at that point.

As also Jesus had, they had written TORAH, PROPHETS and PSALMS - the Tanakh,

i.e. SCRIPTURE !

and they all honored TORAH.

 

[RDKirk]

You mean like "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it." 1Cor 10:25,26 which I already had mentioned in the OP. Doesn't sound like Paul took issue with eating meat from strangled animals. Nor, unlike James, did he view salvation as contingent upon abstaining from eating such things. The Acts 15 decree had to do with salvation being contingent upon compliance to regulations. James disagreed with Peter and Paul and viewed salvation as contingent upon which what one eats and drinks.

Paul ignored the decree and preach a gospel contrary to it. You won't find the decree mentioned in any of his epistles, not even Galatians, what does that tell you about it's alleged "importance". It's only important to those who want to tinker with the gospel, using it as a precedent to leaven the whole lump.

<sigh>No.

I mean:

Look at the people of Israel. Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in what is offered on the altar? What am I saying then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I do say that what they sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to participate with demons! You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot share in the Lord’s table and the table of demons.

There is no problem eating meat that had been offered to pagan idols because those false gods don't really exist and the pagan ritual did nothing spiritual to the meet.

But if we participate in the pagan ritual ourselves, it does do something spiritual to us. Paul says stay away from idolotry and its rituals. The letter to the gentiles says the same thing.

 

[mark kennedy]

Love is a part of the law but how do you quantify how much you should love others. If you have 100 christians and 99 of them say someone has no love but 1 says that other person does have love. How do you or me decide if that person has enough love to be saved from eternal suffering?

You don't, God does.

 

[Grip Docility]

The Acts 15 Decree

Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." Turns out those men were from the church at Jerusalem. So Paul, Barnabus and Titus went down to that church to debate the matter. Paul presented his gospel to the leadership at the church of Jerusalem, some of whom held to the beliefs of the Circumcision. Peter completely agreed with Paul that salvation was solely by grace apart from complying to the laws of Moses. But James picked up on something Peter said. Namely speaking to the Circumcision on the leadership team there Peter said, "Why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?" Acts 15:10 Peter was referring to their making salvation out to be conditioned upon one's compliance to the Law of Moses. Paul writes extensively on that point in Galatians such as "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law." Gal 3:10,11

What James does is try to find a compromise. He literally compromised the gospel. He took Peter's comment of the Law being too hard to keep, and what he did was that instead of rejecting the Law altogether as a means to salvation as Peter and Paul did, he simply cherry picked a few commands from the law and made the Gentile's salvation conditioned upon their compliance to those regulations. James says, "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." Acts 15:19-20

Consider how arrogant that statement is. Who does James think he is that he could tinker with the gospel in this fashion. Indeed one wonders whether a number of Paul's statements in Galatians were directed at James. Such as "even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" Gal 1:8 And Paul's emphasis concerning the origin of his gospel, "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Gal 1:11,12 That in contrast to James' fabricated gospel. For soon thereafter in Galatians Paul references the events of Acts 15. Nor does Paul speak of this decree in any of his epistles, not even in Galatians, but rather in fact often writes contrary to them. James imposes dietary restrictions on the Gentiles as a condition for salvation. Paul writes contrary to James' decree, for example, "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it." 1Cor 10:25,26 And the context indicates that even included meats sacrificed to idols if it didn't bother one's conscience or that of another.

Catholic Councils and Canon Law

Catholicism took hold on James' example in Acts 15 as endorsing the idea that you could convene councils which could tinker with the gospel and make salvation contingent upon man made Catholic Canon Law. James is the father of Catholicism, and thus he's their goto guy when it comes to supporting their soteriology and they are the ones who inserted his epistle into the Bible which may end up being a subject of another thread.

Negligence and Hypocrisy in the church at Jerusalem

How was it that the leadership team at the church of Jerusalem included those of this heretical sect of the Circumcision? And that in light of the fact that Peter sided with Paul with regards to the gospel. Peter was not as respected in the church there as some make him out to be. Notice James' statement previously "It is my judgment". James had such a dominant role in that church that others, even the apostles were mere rubber stampers in comparison. Perhaps Peter had a misconception of humility being a trait in which you allow others to walk all over you.

Furthermore consider in Acts 11 when he returned preaching to the Gentile Cornelius, and that even reluctantly. This is how he was welcomed in his own church, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them." Acts 11:3,4 Note the prejudice. Obviously if even an apostle has to come up with an excuse to preach to the Gentiles, Gentile Christians were not welcomed in that church. This despite the fact that James himself hypocritically writes, "My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality." James 2:1 Paul writes, "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile" Rom 10:12 and he preaches the same gospel to both. But in the church of Jerusalem there was reckoned a difference between Jew and Gentile. James even made a distinction between the two in his tinkering with the gospel. And then Peter abandons his responsibility to the Gentile Christians, abandoning the Great Commission given him, abandoning the fact that he himself admitted that Christ had called him to preach to the Gentiles, and decided to make his ministry exclusively to the Jews, along with John and James. "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews." Gal 2:9 Though while they (James, Peter and John) agreed to this, Paul apparently didn't agree. For he continued to minister to both Jew and Gentile alike and never even mentioned the decree in any of his epistles even though in Galatians he spoke of the meeting.

Peter Rebuked for Fear and Hypocrisy

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group." Gal 2:11,12

Likely what happened here is that James wanted to make sure that the regulations he had imposed on the Gentile Christians were being observed. Interesting to note, first of all, who did James send? He sent the very category of people who had been preaching a false gospel to begin with - the group of the circumcision. Likely the same false pharisaical brothers among the leadership in Jerusalem who had insisted, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." Acts 15:5 (Kind of an - in your face Paul - moment) Paul noticed that Peter was apparently afraid of these guys. Doesn't say why he was afraid, but it appears that through James' influence and his circumcision cronies, and Peter's fear and insecurity lead to the rise of Catholicism. If Paul had taken a more direct approach from the start in dealing with that sect, rebuking James directly for what he explicitly said in tinkering with the gospel, as he had publicly rebuked Peter for what Peter only implied by his actions, Catholicism and the rise of other Neo-Circumcision sects, may have been rooted out from the start. Nonetheless in his battle against the Circumcision Paul has left us with ammunition in his epistles against such sects.

I love what you’ve expounded on, here, but James had to be tactful towards the Jews.

He buried James 2:10 in there and without it, I would be sunk when in heated debates with legalist types.

James also adds this... James 2:25, which refers to a sex workers salvation.

Don’t cast the Epistle of James out just yet.

It is one of Graces greatest debate hammers. People twist James without reading full context. James takes Grace to its furthest level.

James 2 isn’t about rich and poor but those that appear righteous and those that are carnally condemned.

James has a very sharp way of reeling legalist’s in and then bursting their bubble if they read him closer.

 

[Guojing]

The interesting lesson I have learned when I read both Acts 15 and Acts 21 is this, the Jerusalem Council event in Acts 15 is solely to determine whether Gentile Christians need to follow the Law of Moses.

It was taken for granted that the Jewish Christians must continue to keep the law of Moses even after they are saved, as Acts 21 confirmed.

So this clearly indicated to me that the Gospel that Paul was preaching among the Gentiles, that we are saved, apart from works of the Law, was different from the Gospel that was being preached to the Jews in Acts, by Peter and the 12.

 

[mark kennedy]

The Acts 15 Decree

Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." Turns out those men were from the church at Jerusalem. So Paul, Barnabus and Titus went down to that church to debate the matter. Paul presented his gospel to the leadership at the church of Jerusalem, some of whom held to the beliefs of the Circumcision. Peter completely agreed with Paul that salvation was solely by grace apart from complying to the laws of Moses. But James picked up on something Peter said. Namely speaking to the Circumcision on the leadership team there Peter said, "Why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?" Acts 15:10 Peter was referring to their making salvation out to be conditioned upon one's compliance to the Law of Moses. Paul writes extensively on that point in Galatians such as "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law." Gal 3:10,11

What James does is try to find a compromise. He literally compromised the gospel. He took Peter's comment of the Law being too hard to keep, and what he did was that instead of rejecting the Law altogether as a means to salvation as Peter and Paul did, he simply cherry picked a few commands from the law and made the Gentile's salvation conditioned upon their compliance to those regulations. James says, "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." Acts 15:19-20

Consider how arrogant that statement is. Who does James think he is that he could tinker with the gospel in this fashion. Indeed one wonders whether a number of Paul's statements in Galatians were directed at James. Such as "even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" Gal 1:8 And Paul's emphasis concerning the origin of his gospel, "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Gal 1:11,12 That in contrast to James' fabricated gospel. For soon thereafter in Galatians Paul references the events of Acts 15. Nor does Paul speak of this decree in any of his epistles, not even in Galatians, but rather in fact often writes contrary to them. James imposes dietary restrictions on the Gentiles as a condition for salvation. Paul writes contrary to James' decree, for example, "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it." 1Cor 10:25,26 And the context indicates that even included meats sacrificed to idols if it didn't bother one's conscience or that of another.

Catholic Councils and Canon Law

Catholicism took hold on James' example in Acts 15 as endorsing the idea that you could convene councils which could tinker with the gospel and make salvation contingent upon man made Catholic Canon Law. James is the father of Catholicism, and thus he's their goto guy when it comes to supporting their soteriology and they are the ones who inserted his epistle into the Bible which may end up being a subject of another thread.

Negligence and Hypocrisy in the church at Jerusalem

How was it that the leadership team at the church of Jerusalem included those of this heretical sect of the Circumcision? And that in light of the fact that Peter sided with Paul with regards to the gospel. Peter was not as respected in the church there as some make him out to be. Notice James' statement previously "It is my judgment". James had such a dominant role in that church that others, even the apostles were mere rubber stampers in comparison. Perhaps Peter had a misconception of humility being a trait in which you allow others to walk all over you.

Furthermore consider in Acts 11 when he returned preaching to the Gentile Cornelius, and that even reluctantly. This is how he was welcomed in his own church, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them." Acts 11:3,4 Note the prejudice. Obviously if even an apostle has to come up with an excuse to preach to the Gentiles, Gentile Christians were not welcomed in that church. This despite the fact that James himself hypocritically writes, "My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality." James 2:1 Paul writes, "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile" Rom 10:12 and he preaches the same gospel to both. But in the church of Jerusalem there was reckoned a difference between Jew and Gentile. James even made a distinction between the two in his tinkering with the gospel. And then Peter abandons his responsibility to the Gentile Christians, abandoning the Great Commission given him, abandoning the fact that he himself admitted that Christ had called him to preach to the Gentiles, and decided to make his ministry exclusively to the Jews, along with John and James. "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews." Gal 2:9 Though while they (James, Peter and John) agreed to this, Paul apparently didn't agree. For he continued to minister to both Jew and Gentile alike and never even mentioned the decree in any of his epistles even though in Galatians he spoke of the meeting.

Peter Rebuked for Fear and Hypocrisy

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group." Gal 2:11,12

Likely what happened here is that James wanted to make sure that the regulations he had imposed on the Gentile Christians were being observed. Interesting to note, first of all, who did James send? He sent the very category of people who had been preaching a false gospel to begin with - the group of the circumcision. Likely the same false pharisaical brothers among the leadership in Jerusalem who had insisted, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." Acts 15:5 (Kind of an - in your face Paul - moment) Paul noticed that Peter was apparently afraid of these guys. Doesn't say why he was afraid, but it appears that through James' influence and his circumcision cronies, and Peter's fear and insecurity lead to the rise of Catholicism. If Paul had taken a more direct approach from the start in dealing with that sect, rebuking James directly for what he explicitly said in tinkering with the gospel, as he had publicly rebuked Peter for what Peter only implied by his actions, Catholicism and the rise of other Neo-Circumcision sects, may have been rooted out from the start. Nonetheless in his battle against the Circumcision Paul has left us with ammunition in his epistles against such sects.

The Jerusalem Council convened over the question of circumcision. The Pharisees, some now professing Christiand, rose up and said the Gentils must be circumcised in order to be saved. Peter stands up and says that we should not put a yoke on the Gentiles that neither we nor our fathers could bear. All tge Apostles agree and at this time Paul and Barnabas have just returned from the forst missionary journey to Cyprus and Galatia. It hasn't been that long since Peter made the first Gentile converts back in chapter 10. Paul was absolutly livid over this, at one point calling Peter a hypocrite because he didn't want to be seen by the Jews fellowshipping with Gentiles.

James, the brother of Jesus would have been considered royality since he shared the geneaology of Jesus. That's why James over seen the event. What was at stake was the future of the Gentile churches, had Paul not intervened concilations would have been made to Judaism.

 

[mark kennedy]

What the OP leaves out. Is the fact that our Lord told Peter, Et al, that the Keys to the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose were given to the apostles.

Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Binding and loosing were understood terms used by the rabbis to establish codes of behavior. What was permitted was “loosed.” What was forbidden was “bound.” And whatever they decided would be backed up by Heaven itself.

Peter, James and Paul had Christ-given authority to make that decision.

The OP also fails to mention is this is the first time justification by grace through faith is unanimously affirmed by the Apostles.

 

[chilehed]

The Acts 15 Decree

That's a very unusual personal opinion.

How do you know that you're not one of those referred to in 2 Peter 3:16?

 

[bcbsr]

So this clearly indicated to me that the Gospel that Paul was preaching among the Gentiles, that we are saved, apart from works of the Law, was different from the Gospel that was being preached to the Jews in Acts, by Peter and the 12.

Peter and Paul preached the same gospel

I would have to disagree with you on the idea that Peter preached a different gospel than Paul. Nowhere did Peter preach justification by the law.

He didn't mention the Law in Acts in preaching on the Pentecost. Rather he preaches the same as Paul does in Romans 10 "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" Acts 2:21 Nor in Acts 3 in his second sermon did he even mention the Law. Nor in Acts 4. In Acts 10 when Peter preached to Cornelius he said the same as Paul, "Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." Acts 10:43 In Acts 15 he said, "Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." Act 15:7-11

 

[bcbsr]

James, the brother of Jesus would have been considered royality since he shared the geneaology of Jesus. That's why James over seen the event. What was at stake was the future of the Gentile churches, had Paul not intervened concilations would have been made to Judaism.

Actually Jesus did not affirm nepotism. First we know that during his ministry his brothers didn't believe in him (which would include James). "For even his own brothers did not believe in him." John 7:5 And consider how Jesus responded when his mother and brothers came to take him away from his ministry because they consider him crazy "Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, 'He is out of his mind.'" Mark 3:20,21 Then if we continue on to verse 31 when they actually arrived it says: Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." "Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother." Mark 3:31-35

So Jesus did not support Nepotism. However your point is taken. For it has become apparent not only from what we see regarding the status of James, but also the veneration Mary receives today particularly by Catholics, that Nepotism infiltrated the Christian community early on and became one of the sources of historical corruption in the Church.

 

[bcbsr]

The OP also fails to mention is this is the first time justification by grace through faith is unanimously affirmed by the Apostles.

Actually that made no difference to Paul. Paul writes, "If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Gal 1:9-12 And even concerning the meeting in Jerusalem he says, "As for those who seemed to be important— whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance— those men added nothing to my message." Gal 2:6

Makes no difference to Paul, makes no difference to God, makes no difference to me. Paul did not need the affirmation of the other apostles to validate his gospel. Rather he went down there to correct the fact that a false gospel was out of the church at Jerusalem.

 

[bcbsr]

That's a very unusual personal opinion.

How do you know that you're not one of those referred to in 2 Peter 3:16?

And how do you know that you're not?

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually Jesus did not affirm nepotism. First we know that during his ministry his brothers didn't believe in him (which would include James). "For even his own brothers did not believe in him." John 7:5 And consider how Jesus responded when his mother and brothers came to take him away from his ministry because they consider him crazy "Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, 'He is out of his mind.'" Mark 3:20,21 Then if we continue on to verse 31 when they actually arrived it says: Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." "Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother." Mark 3:31-35

So Jesus did not support Nepotism. However your point is taken. For it has become apparent not only from what we see regarding the status of James, but also the veneration Mary receives today particularly by Catholics, that Nepotism infiltrated the Christian community early on and became one of the sources of historical corruption in the Church.

That's not nepotism and the verse you cited was early in his ministry. James was also Judean and a son of David. James in Acts 15 was obviouly a leader in the church and wirked closely with the Apostels.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Acts 15 Decree

Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." Turns out those men were from the church at Jerusalem. So Paul, Barnabus and Titus went down to that church to debate the matter. Paul presented his gospel to the leadership at the church of Jerusalem, some of whom held to the beliefs of the Circumcision. Peter completely agreed with Paul that salvation was solely by grace apart from complying to the laws of Moses. But James picked up on something Peter said. Namely speaking to the Circumcision on the leadership team there Peter said, "Why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?" Acts 15:10 Peter was referring to their making salvation out to be conditioned upon one's compliance to the Law of Moses. Paul writes extensively on that point in Galatians such as "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law." Gal 3:10,11

What James does is try to find a compromise. He literally compromised the gospel. He took Peter's comment of the Law being too hard to keep, and what he did was that instead of rejecting the Law altogether as a means to salvation as Peter and Paul did, he simply cherry picked a few commands from the law and made the Gentile's salvation conditioned upon their compliance to those regulations. James says, "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." Acts 15:19-20

Consider how arrogant that statement is. Who does James think he is that he could tinker with the gospel in this fashion. Indeed one wonders whether a number of Paul's statements in Galatians were directed at James. Such as "even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" Gal 1:8 And Paul's emphasis concerning the origin of his gospel, "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Gal 1:11,12 That in contrast to James' fabricated gospel. For soon thereafter in Galatians Paul references the events of Acts 15. Nor does Paul speak of this decree in any of his epistles, not even in Galatians, but rather in fact often writes contrary to them. James imposes dietary restrictions on the Gentiles as a condition for salvation. Paul writes contrary to James' decree, for example, "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it." 1Cor 10:25,26 And the context indicates that even included meats sacrificed to idols if it didn't bother one's conscience or that of another.

Catholic Councils and Canon Law

Catholicism took hold on James' example in Acts 15 as endorsing the idea that you could convene councils which could tinker with the gospel and make salvation contingent upon man made Catholic Canon Law. James is the father of Catholicism, and thus he's their goto guy when it comes to supporting their soteriology and they are the ones who inserted his epistle into the Bible which may end up being a subject of another thread.

Negligence and Hypocrisy in the church at Jerusalem

How was it that the leadership team at the church of Jerusalem included those of this heretical sect of the Circumcision? And that in light of the fact that Peter sided with Paul with regards to the gospel. Peter was not as respected in the church there as some make him out to be. Notice James' statement previously "It is my judgment". James had such a dominant role in that church that others, even the apostles were mere rubber stampers in comparison. Perhaps Peter had a misconception of humility being a trait in which you allow others to walk all over you.

Furthermore consider in Acts 11 when he returned preaching to the Gentile Cornelius, and that even reluctantly. This is how he was welcomed in his own church, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them." Acts 11:3,4 Note the prejudice. Obviously if even an apostle has to come up with an excuse to preach to the Gentiles, Gentile Christians were not welcomed in that church. This despite the fact that James himself hypocritically writes, "My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality." James 2:1 Paul writes, "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile" Rom 10:12 and he preaches the same gospel to both. But in the church of Jerusalem there was reckoned a difference between Jew and Gentile. James even made a distinction between the two in his tinkering with the gospel. And then Peter abandons his responsibility to the Gentile Christians, abandoning the Great Commission given him, abandoning the fact that he himself admitted that Christ had called him to preach to the Gentiles, and decided to make his ministry exclusively to the Jews, along with John and James. "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews." Gal 2:9 Though while they (James, Peter and John) agreed to this, Paul apparently didn't agree. For he continued to minister to both Jew and Gentile alike and never even mentioned the decree in any of his epistles even though in Galatians he spoke of the meeting.

Peter Rebuked for Fear and Hypocrisy

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group." Gal 2:11,12

Likely what happened here is that James wanted to make sure that the regulations he had imposed on the Gentile Christians were being observed. Interesting to note, first of all, who did James send? He sent the very category of people who had been preaching a false gospel to begin with - the group of the circumcision. Likely the same false pharisaical brothers among the leadership in Jerusalem who had insisted, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." Acts 15:5 (Kind of an - in your face Paul - moment) Paul noticed that Peter was apparently afraid of these guys. Doesn't say why he was afraid, but it appears that through James' influence and his circumcision cronies, and Peter's fear and insecurity lead to the rise of Catholicism. If Paul had taken a more direct approach from the start in dealing with that sect, rebuking James directly for what he explicitly said in tinkering with the gospel, as he had publicly rebuked Peter for what Peter only implied by his actions, Catholicism and the rise of other Neo-Circumcision sects, may have been rooted out from the start. Nonetheless in his battle against the Circumcision Paul has left us with ammunition in his epistles against such sects.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Wow.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually that made no difference to Paul. Paul writes, "If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Gal 1:9-12 And even concerning the meeting in Jerusalem he says, "As for those who seemed to be important— whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance— those men added nothing to my message." Gal 2:6

Makes no difference to Paul, makes no difference to God, makes no difference to me. Paul did not need the affirmation of the other apostles to validate his gospel. Rather he went down there to correct the fact that a false gospel was out of the church at Jerusalem.

He did have the full affirmation of the other Apostles, especially after gis first missionary journey. The reason the council was held in Jerusalem was because that's where the Apostles were at the time. You seem oblivious to the message and sigbificance of the Jerusalem and if you think there was a lasting conflict between Paul, the Apoateles and James you are greatly mistaken.

 

[bcbsr]

---SE---

First, Peter and the other apostles were told to leave Jerusalem for Samaria and the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8) But they didn't till much later on. Not even when God tried to drive them out with Saul. "Now Saul was consenting to his death. At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles." Acts 8:1 Then in Acts 10 Peter is reluctant to preach to Cornelius. And after doing so did he invite him to church? Of course not. In fact in Acts 11 when he went back to the church at Jerusalem they were all hostile to the fact that he preached to a Gentile. And even earlier in Acts 6 regarding the prejudice the Jewish Christians exercised against the Hellenist widows, he brushed off with "It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables." With the one assigned to the task, Philip and Stephen demonstrated in the chapters that followed that they could do both the ministry of the word and "wait on tables" (simply a derogatory comment reflecting the apostle prejudice against those associated with Gentiles)

All these give evidence of a culture of ethic prejudice on the part of Jewish Christians in the church at Jerusalem against Gentiles, which the apostles themselves go caught up in, and consequently acting negligently concerning the false gospel that was being preached to the Gentiles from men of their own church.

Granted that later in life Peter grew out of his adolescent prejudice. Though even his epistles don't appear to be address to Gentile Christians.

 

[chilehed]

And how do you know that you're not?

I'm not the one who presented as fact a long dissertation about a personal opinion. I gather that you don't have a good answer.

 

[bcbsr]

I'm not the one who presented as fact a long dissertation about a personal opinion. I gather that you don't have a good answer.

So you're saying the fact that I have a long scriptural analysis on the subject proves that I don't have a good answer. Kind of anti-rational. You may want to check out my studies and see for yourself whether I haven't studied the matter thoroughly enough.
bcbsr.com
The Acts of the Apostles
Galatians

 

[chilehed]

So you're saying the fact that I have a long scriptural analysis on the subject proves that I don't have a good answer.

That's not what I said at all, nor anything like it. The fact that you so badly misunderstand what I said in three or four short sentences calls into question your reliability as a commentator on Sacred Scripture.

 

[Ken Rank]

The Acts 15 Decree

Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." Turns out those men were from the church at Jerusalem. So Paul, Barnabus and Titus went down to that church to debate the matter. Paul presented his gospel to the leadership at the church of Jerusalem, some of whom held to the beliefs of the Circumcision. Peter completely agreed with Paul that salvation was solely by grace apart from complying to the laws of Moses. But James picked up on something Peter said. Namely speaking to the Circumcision on the leadership team there Peter said, "Why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?" Acts 15:10 Peter was referring to their making salvation out to be conditioned upon one's compliance to the Law of Moses. Paul writes extensively on that point in Galatians such as "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law." Gal 3:10,11

What James does is try to find a compromise. He literally compromised the gospel. He took Peter's comment of the Law being too hard to keep, and what he did was that instead of rejecting the Law altogether as a means to salvation as Peter and Paul did, he simply cherry picked a few commands from the law and made the Gentile's salvation conditioned upon their compliance to those regulations. James says, "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." Acts 15:19-20

Consider how arrogant that statement is. Who does James think he is that he could tinker with the gospel in this fashion. Indeed one wonders whether a number of Paul's statements in Galatians were directed at James. Such as "even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" Gal 1:8 And Paul's emphasis concerning the origin of his gospel, "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Gal 1:11,12 That in contrast to James' fabricated gospel. For soon thereafter in Galatians Paul references the events of Acts 15. Nor does Paul speak of this decree in any of his epistles, not even in Galatians, but rather in fact often writes contrary to them. James imposes dietary restrictions on the Gentiles as a condition for salvation. Paul writes contrary to James' decree, for example, "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it." 1Cor 10:25,26 And the context indicates that even included meats sacrificed to idols if it didn't bother one's conscience or that of another.

Catholic Councils and Canon Law

Catholicism took hold on James' example in Acts 15 as endorsing the idea that you could convene councils which could tinker with the gospel and make salvation contingent upon man made Catholic Canon Law. James is the father of Catholicism, and thus he's their goto guy when it comes to supporting their soteriology and they are the ones who inserted his epistle into the Bible which may end up being a subject of another thread.

Negligence and Hypocrisy in the church at Jerusalem

How was it that the leadership team at the church of Jerusalem included those of this heretical sect of the Circumcision? And that in light of the fact that Peter sided with Paul with regards to the gospel. Peter was not as respected in the church there as some make him out to be. Notice James' statement previously "It is my judgment". James had such a dominant role in that church that others, even the apostles were mere rubber stampers in comparison. Perhaps Peter had a misconception of humility being a trait in which you allow others to walk all over you.

Furthermore consider in Acts 11 when he returned preaching to the Gentile Cornelius, and that even reluctantly. This is how he was welcomed in his own church, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them." Acts 11:3,4 Note the prejudice. Obviously if even an apostle has to come up with an excuse to preach to the Gentiles, Gentile Christians were not welcomed in that church. This despite the fact that James himself hypocritically writes, "My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality." James 2:1 Paul writes, "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile" Rom 10:12 and he preaches the same gospel to both. But in the church of Jerusalem there was reckoned a difference between Jew and Gentile. James even made a distinction between the two in his tinkering with the gospel. And then Peter abandons his responsibility to the Gentile Christians, abandoning the Great Commission given him, abandoning the fact that he himself admitted that Christ had called him to preach to the Gentiles, and decided to make his ministry exclusively to the Jews, along with John and James. "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews." Gal 2:9 Though while they (James, Peter and John) agreed to this, Paul apparently didn't agree. For he continued to minister to both Jew and Gentile alike and never even mentioned the decree in any of his epistles even though in Galatians he spoke of the meeting.

Peter Rebuked for Fear and Hypocrisy

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group." Gal 2:11,12

Likely what happened here is that James wanted to make sure that the regulations he had imposed on the Gentile Christians were being observed. Interesting to note, first of all, who did James send? He sent the very category of people who had been preaching a false gospel to begin with - the group of the circumcision. Likely the same false pharisaical brothers among the leadership in Jerusalem who had insisted, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." Acts 15:5 (Kind of an - in your face Paul - moment) Paul noticed that Peter was apparently afraid of these guys. Doesn't say why he was afraid, but it appears that through James' influence and his circumcision cronies, and Peter's fear and insecurity lead to the rise of Catholicism. If Paul had taken a more direct approach from the start in dealing with that sect, rebuking James directly for what he explicitly said in tinkering with the gospel, as he had publicly rebuked Peter for what Peter only implied by his actions, Catholicism and the rise of other Neo-Circumcision sects, may have been rooted out from the start. Nonetheless in his battle against the Circumcision Paul has left us with ammunition in his epistles against such sects.

This is one of the best examples of us lacking context. This wasn't a new decree... what happened in Acts 15 was a reversal of a 50 year old decision.

Interesting aside though... I do find it odd that many Christians see this as the only decree like this that applies to them... and then they still ingest blood and don't find out how their meat was slaughtered to make sure it wasn't strangled.