The story is that in the great city of Antioch, the (Gentile) church is growing fast. Some Judaizers from Jerusalem arrive and begin to tell everyone that in order to be saved, the believers must be circumcized and subject themselves to the Law of Moses. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the church send Paul and Barnabus to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders. When they arrive there is a great debate, and the Judaizers have a chance to put forth their theory. (They are associated with the Pharisee party.) After they get their hearing, the apostles retire and consult among themselves. Peter stands up and does a great job defending the truth.
But then James takes the podium. This is the part I have trouble with. He seems to be searching for a compromise and gives what comes across as a half-hearted response. We will not force circumcision on the Gentiles, but we will tell them to avoid meat offered to idols, blood, strangled meat, and sexual immorality. Having formed a consensus around this platform, they fire off a letter to Antioch and send it with two prophets, Judas and Silas.
The letter is peculiar to me, because it seems dry and uninspiring. It doesn't say anything about "grace and peace". It mentions Christ once. It doesn't celebrate the growth of the church in Antioch. It simply says that we will lay no greater burden on you than these things--and then lists the James compromise. The letter claims that the Holy Spirit was part of this decision making.
Obviously (from a reading of the rest of the NT), this proclamation did not solve the problem. The Judaizers continued to plague the churches in Asia and Europe. Not only that, but the issue of meat offered to idols reared its ugly head again, and Paul had to deal with it.
So the question I'm left with is this: does Acts 15 reflect what God really wanted the apostles to do? Is it possible that this chapter instead documents a serious failure on the part of the Jerusalem leadership, and that as a result God decides to commission Paul to write his epistles and set the proper tone for the church?
Must meditate on this.
6 comments:
It is my understanding, that Paul moved on from that initial list of stipulations, the only one Paul reinforces in the Churches is to avoid sexual immorality (which is a moral absolute - appropriate to follow in any dispensation). The other rules, may have been what Paul referred to in Romans 14, as things to follow when around the weaker brother, to avoid causing them to stumble.
Paul to the gentile believers, says an idol is nothing. That eating meat sacrificed to idols (and they did not prepare them Kosher - avoiding the blood, either), was a matter of freedom. However, we see in Revelation, another viewpoint presented by Jesus to the Churches. Then, eating meat sacrificed to idols is forbidden.
So, my conclusion, is that for the church age, it is a non-issue (like circumcision). But when the Kingdom program is reinstituted in the eschaton, those on earth will have to follow certain guidlines again, as in former times.
I'm not sure why He chose to do this, except that God seems to use feasts/ceremonies/laws as reminders of the redemption story... which otherwise may be forgotten. Just my opinion, though...
Post a Comment