Acts 15

[Solly]

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Act 15:3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
Act 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and [of] the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.
Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us;
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Act 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me:
Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Act 15:23 And they wrote [letters] by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren [send] greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:
Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell [you] the same things by mouth.
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Act 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
Act 15:31 [Which] when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
Act 15:32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed [them].
Act 15:33 And after they had tarried [there] a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles.
Act 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
Act 15:35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

These are the questions. If Acts 9/12 out theology is accepted, then:

1. Why is James (who is out) legislating for the Church, since surely Paul would tell him, you have no part nor lot in this matter. In fact, what does the "council of Jerusalem" have to do with the Church at all?

2. Why is he likening the bringing in of the Gentiles in this "church" time to the building of David's tabernacle?

[Darth Xena]

I just hit "subscribe to thread"

[Act9_12Out]

solly,

You ask,1. Why is James (who is out) legislating for the Church, since surely Paul would tell him, you have no part nor lot in this matter. In fact, what does the "council of Jerusalem" have to do with the Church at all?You have helped to prove my point. What was the purpose of the Jerusalem Council? Paul and Barnabas had been in Galatia preaching the gospel of the grace of God that was given to Paul exclusively (Eph 3:1-9). After they left, certain men came down from James and taught the Galatians that they needed to be circumcised (Acts 15:1,2). Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to settle the dispute. This gets very interesting when you compare Luke's account of the events in Acts contrasted with Paul's account in Galatians (When Paul writes back to the Galatians after the Council).Acts 15
15:1
And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
15:2
Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.
15:3
So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren.
15:4
And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them.
15:5
But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."When Paul and Barnabus convey the message they had been preaching, the sect of the pharisees who believed rose up and commanded circumcision for these new gentile converts. There is much dissention, so Peter conveys his account as to what he saw at Cornelius' household. James, being the leader of the Jerusalem church, decides how to handle the situation.Acts 15
15:13
And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me:
15:14
Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.
15:15
And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
15:16
'After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up;
15:17
So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the Lord who does all these things.'
15:18
"Known to God from eternity are all His works.
15:19
Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,
15:20
but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
15:21
For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."A couple of questions here... Who are the "we" contrasted with "the gentiles who are turning to God," in verse 19? Secondly, did Paul ever convey the command that James set forth in verse 20? Let's read Paul's account of what happened.Galatians 2
2:1
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
2:2
And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.Why did Paul need to communicate his message privately to the Apostles and Elders? Let's continue,2:3
Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.Remember, the sect of the pharisees demanded circumcision for salvation.2:4
And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),
2:5
to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. Paul says Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, even though Judiazers from James came down to Galatia to pervert the gospel Paul had preached there. Paul did not submit to their requests so that the truth of his gospel would continue in Galatia.
2:6
But from those who seemed to be something--whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man--for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.Those who "seemed to be something" were James, Peter , John and the Jewish believers in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9).2:7
But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision had been committed to me, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter
2:8
(for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),
2:9
and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.Jmaes, Peter and John "seemed to be pillars?" Paul shows his apparent disregard for James' commandments in Acts 15:19,20. That's why James said "we" should not trouble "the gentiles who are turning to God." James, Peter and John give Paul the right hand of fellowship and command him to continue going to the gentiles. One interesting question here... Many have argued that the message that Paul preached was the same message that Peter, James, John, etc... had been preaching. Why did Paul need to communicate privately to them, and why would James tell Paul to go to the majority of the world (gentiles) while the majority of the Apostles limited their ministry to the smaller world (Jews)?
2:10
They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.That's all Paul remembers from the Council? Interesting that Paul never refers to or follows through with what James commanded him to do.Remember, James told Paul to...

Acts
15:19
Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,
15:20
but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.Paul must have forgotten something... Or, it was of no importance to him. Your second question...2. Why is he likening the bringing in of the Gentiles in this "church" time to the building of David's tabernacle?As I have just shown, God confirmed Paul's gospel for the body of Christ to James, Peter and John. They did not understand the mystery (Eph 3:1-9), nor were they intended to.

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Solly]

Today @ 06:43 AM
Act9_12Out:

solly,

You ask,You have helped to prove my point. What was the purpose of the Jerusalem Council? Paul and Barnabas had been in Galatia preaching the gospel of the grace of God that was given to Paul exclusively (Eph 3:1-9).

-Not exclusively, as the passage points out.
Acts 15.7 Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

This quite clearly shows that the Gospel came to the Gentiles by Peter first, and that Paul does not claim exclusivity, unless you are going to claim the the apostles referred to here do not mean the 11 the Lord called.
It is to be noted, as Jamieson Fausset Brown point out, that this is the last appearance of peter in Acts, and it bears the marks of a torch passing situation. he concludes his presenation by saying:

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

After they left, certain men came down from James and taught the Galatians that they needed to be circumcised (Acts 15:1,2).
Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to settle the dispute. This gets very interesting when you compare Luke's account of the events in Acts contrasted with Paul's account in Galatians (When Paul writes back to the Galatians after the Council).When Paul and Barnabus convey the message they had been preaching, the sect of the pharisees who believed rose up and commanded circumcision for these new gentile converts. There is much dissention, so Peter conveys his account as to what he saw at Cornelius' household. James, being the leader of the Jerusalem church, decides how to handle the situation.A couple of questions here... Who are the "we" contrasted with "the gentiles who are turning to God," in verse 19?

One interesting question here... Many have argued that the message that Paul preached was the same message that Peter, James, John, etc... had been preaching. Why did Paul need to communicate privately to them, and why would James tell Paul to go to the majority of the world (gentiles) while the majority of the Apostles limited their ministry to the smaller world (Jews)?That's all Paul remembers from the Council? Interesting that Paul never refers to or follows through with what James commanded him to do.Paul must have forgotten something... Or, it was of no importance to him.
seems to
--The situation at Jerusalem show the failure of the Jerusalme church to fully implement the implications gospel, but rather to seek to place it within a Jewish framework under the influence of the pharisaic party. That is probably why the Jerusalem church did not survive in the long run. But it doesn't mean they had two Gospels; it is somewhat like the difference between REformed Presbyterians and Baptists (the Baptists being right of course). I think Peter was well enough informed, that he realised he did not have to impose circumcision on Cornelius etc, but baptism, and that is exactly what he did, and there is no account that he was reprimanded by james for it. The fact that there was a party of the pharisees who were zealous for the law doesn't mean that they represented the orthodox position.

Secondly, did Paul ever convey the command that James set forth in verse 20?... Paul did not submit to their requests so that the truth of his gospel would continue in Galatia.

--Manifestly untrue:
Act 15:23 And they wrote [letters] by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren [send] greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:
Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell [you] the same things by mouth.
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Act 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
Act 15:31 [Which] when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
Act 15:32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed [them].
Act 15:33 And after they had tarried [there] a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles.
Act 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
Act 15:35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

I think you have to reach a long way to come up with the idea that Paul did not accept that which was written from the Apostles in Jerusalem to the "Gentile churches". Why is there no record of Paul playing down the teaching, or at least absenting himself from connection with it while at Antioch? Why did he not distance himself from Judas Barnabas and Silas who were chief men amongst the brethren? You are also conflating texts here, since the letter was written to Antioch, where this particular trouble arose, not Galatia, which even the best of scholars cannot date accurately as to whether it was before or after the meeting in Jerusalem. so, it is no wonder you fail to find in Galatians the answer to your question.

Did Paul teach it or not?
Acts 15.20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.
Fornication
1Th 4:3 For this is the will of God, [even] your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
Idolatry
1Co 10:20 But I [say], that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
1Co 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
Blood and Strangling (ie Unclean)
Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean.
Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

Did James really send the others to Galatia, or did they just come from Jerusalem, claiming authority from James?
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:
Either this is dishonest backtracking, or the Judaizers did not really have James' authority for what they did, but were deceivers, who even managed to bamboozle Peter.

Why did Paul need to communicate his message privately to the Apostles and Elders?

The question is answered in Gal 2.4.

I think I have addressed all, but let me know if I missed anything.

----
I submit that my second question still stands:
2. Why is James likening the bringing in of the Gentiles in this "church" time to the building of David's tabernacle?

[Darth Xena]

Solly :thumb:

[joelkaki]

REformed Presbyterians and Baptists (the Baptists being right of course)

I think not. Presbyterians being right of course.:smile:

Joel

[Solly]

...and he withstood him to his face.

[joelkaki]

:help:

:smile:

Joel

[Solly]

Bump, for Monday.

[Act9_12Out]

Solly,

Peter is referring specifically to his visit to Cornelius in Acts 10-11. I believe that God opened the door to the Gentiles using Peter rather than Paul in order to make it unmistakable that He was in fact behind the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles despite the absence of the wholesale conversion of Israel leading into it. You can see the practical outworking of this in Acts 15. If only Paul had testimony to God's outreach to the Gentiles, he, as a former arch-enemy of Messiah's church, could be dismissed as either a plotter or a lunatic. God's having used Peter to open this door established its pedigree without contradiction. Now, this is no way implies that the body of Christ started with Peter. Now, on to some of the aspects of what I was trying to say concerning the Jerusalem Council...

Everything that's determined at the Jerusalem Council is done in unison: "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders and all the congregation..." (Acts 15:22). It wasn't just James, or even just the leadership; it was "the whole congregation" -- no doubt including Paul and his contingent --who participated in the decision, by the explicit guidance of the Holy Spirit (v.28). So I don't see James wielding authority over the body of Christ. As to the relevance of the Jerusalem Council to the body overall, that's hard to say. One of the specifics of the Council's decision had the Gentiles abstaining from things offered to idols. When Paul writes 1 Corinthians 8, it's hard to see any influence from this Jerusalem Council decision at all. Paul tells the Corinthians it's purely a function of their conscience. The only ways I can see to harmonize Paul's instructions to the Corinthians with the Acts 15 decision are
(A) to understand the Acts 15 decision as applying only specifically in situations where eating idol offerings would offend the consciences of Jewish believers or
(B) to understand "idol-offerings" in Acts as referring specifically to eating such meats in the context of a pagan ritual and understanding the same term more broadly in Corinthians to refer to eating meats purchased in the marketplace which had previously been involved in such rituals but were now for general sale or
(C) to understand the Acts 15 decision as binding only on existing Gentile churches but not on future ones. In any event, it seems that Paul does not take the Acts 15 decision into consideration in his teaching to the Corinthians.

Solly, I asked you,Why did Paul need to communicate his message privately to the Apostles and Elders?To which you answered,The question is answered in Gal 2.4.Are you satisfied with your answer? I'm sorry, but I don't think that cuts it. Galatians 2:4 is in response to Galatians 2:3, not Galatians 2:2...Galatians 2
2:2
And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.
2:3
Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
2:4
And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),"And this occurred" refers to Titus not being compelled to be circumcised, not Paul's private communication. Again, the context of Acts 15 shows that Judaizers (either from James or otherwise...) came to Galatia to pervert the gospel of Grace that Paul had preached. They were telling the Galatians that they needed to be circumcised (Acts 15:1). Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, and would not be brought under the bondage of the law. So, I ask my unaddressed questions again...Many have argued that the message that Paul preached was the same message that Peter, James, John, etc... had been preaching. Why did Paul need to communicate privately to them, and why would James tell Paul to go to the majority of the world (gentiles) while the majority of the Apostles limited their ministry to the smaller world (Jews)?To address your final question,2. Why is James likening the bringing in of the Gentiles in this "church" time to the building of David's tabernacle?Here is an interesting article by my good frien Tim McMahon.Tim McMahon writes: I discuss James' citation of Amos (http://bibleconcordances.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000009.html) in Acts 15 on another thread. Please read it over and let me know what you think.In short, along with my points above, many NT citations of OT material apply the OT material to entirely new circumstances which are not necessarily reflective of the original OT context. Paul himself cites quite a bit of OT material on God's intentions to offer salvation to the Gentiles (which, in their original context, consistently describe the Gentiles coming to salvation through Israel) and applies it to his own ministry of proclaiming the mystery among the Gentiles. Best example: the citations of Psalm 18:49, Deuteronomy 32:43, Psalm 117:1 and Isaiah 11:10 in Romans 15:9-12.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss solly...

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

[Jaltus]

But Paul explicitly says in Galatians 3 that the Gentiles DID come to faith through Israel.

Romans 11 is wonderful for Paul is talking about how the gentiles came to Christ because of Israel, and now he is hoping to bring Israel to repentance because of the gentiles.

Quite a wonderful bit of irony.

[Act9_12Out]

Jaltus,

Please feel free to elaborate... Popping in and making a statement without Scriptural evidence does not make anything true...

--Jeremy

[Solly]

acts9--Peter is referring specifically to his visit to Cornelius in Acts 10-11. I believe that God opened the door to the Gentiles using Peter rather than Paul in order to make it unmistakable that He was in fact behind the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles despite the absence of the wholesale conversion of Israel leading into it. You can see the practical outworking of this in Acts 15. If only Paul had testimony to God's outreach to the Gentiles, he, as a former arch-enemy of Messiah's church, could be dismissed as either a plotter or a lunatic. God's having used Peter to open this door established its pedigree without contradiction. Now, this is no way implies that the body of Christ started with Peter.

Okay, apart from the last line. You and I differ about what "The Body" means, and i wasn't going into that here. For me, the issue is the Church, and they are one and the same. If james et al, are out, because they are not the church, then it does NOT need their input, because Paul can just stand on the Gospel he received, and in which he consulted with no man, and say, this is nothing to do with you. That is the emphasis of Gal 1,2. But he went to jerusalem and found them holding the same Gospel, and the right hand was extended.

acts9--Everything that's determined at the Jerusalem Council is done in unison: "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders and all the congregation..." (Acts 15:22). It wasn't just James, or even just the leadership; it was "the whole congregation" -- no doubt including Paul and his contingent --who participated in the decision, by the explicit guidance of the Holy Spirit (v.28). So I don't see James wielding authority over the body of Christ."

Again, the trouble is the disp definition of what constitutes the Body of Christ.
If being an apostle doesn't carry some weight, then nothing does, and then Paul had no reason to see the apostles. They were the chosen of the Lord. They had authority. They exercised it. They were called the Church.

acts9--One of the specifics of the Council's decision had the Gentiles abstaining from things offered to idols. When Paul writes 1 Corinthians 8, it's hard to see any influence from this Jerusalem Council decision at all. Paul tells the Corinthians it's purely a function of their conscience. The only ways I can see to harmonize Paul's instructions to the Corinthians with the Acts 15 decision are
(A) to understand the Acts 15 decision as applying only specifically in situations where eating idol offerings would offend the consciences of Jewish believers or
(B) to understand "idol-offerings" in Acts as referring specifically to eating such meats in the context of a pagan ritual and understanding the same term more broadly in Corinthians to refer to eating meats purchased in the marketplace which had previously been involved in such rituals but were now for general sale or
(C) to understand the Acts 15 decision as binding only on existing Gentile churches but not on future ones. In any event, it seems that Paul does not take the Acts 15 decision into consideration in his teaching to the Corinthians."

I think he does, just as much as he does in Rom 13,14. it is not a matter of the FACT of being eating in a certain way, it is the FACT of the offense caused. That makes it a conscience issue, not a legalistic one. Paul was supremely conscious of the troubles that came with Jews and Gentiles coming together in the church. For the corinhtians, a predominantly Gentile origin church, then it was a matter of conscience - what's all the fuss, they said, we have knowledge. But Paul says knowledge is not enough, and others, Jews or Gentiles, might stumble. The issue is not the means by which the meat came to pass, but the fact that to those of jewish background, there was still the element of "uncleanness" attached to it. Strangled meat, or meat with the blood was unclean.

acts9--Many have argued that the message that Paul preached was the same message that Peter, James, John, etc... had been preaching. Why did Paul need to communicate privately to them, and why would James tell Paul to go to the majority of the world (gentiles) while the majority of the Apostles limited their ministry to the smaller world (Jews)?"

There doesn't seem to be any great mystery here (pun intended), since there were factions seeking to overthrow Paul's ministry. Paul went to the Elders and Apostles to get their opinion. Why did they separate? Becasue that is what God ahd called Paul to do; the Apostles, presumbably through the HSp, confirmed this. When our managers get together to discuss policiy, they don't invite one and all to take part. I think maybe you are reading too much into this.
Besides, you wrote: You can see the practical outworking of this in Acts 15. If only Paul had testimony to God's outreach to the Gentiles, he, as a former arch-enemy of Messiah's church, could be dismissed as either a plotter or a lunatic. God's having used Peter to open this door established its pedigree without contradiction. which seems to say it all.

acts9--In short, along with my points above, many NT citations of OT material apply the OT material to entirely new circumstances which are not necessarily reflective of the original OT context. Paul himself cites quite a bit of OT material on God's intentions to offer salvation to the Gentiles (which, in their original context, consistently describe the Gentiles coming to salvation through Israel) and applies it to his own ministry of proclaiming the mystery among the Gentiles. Best example: the citations of Psalm 18:49, Deuteronomy 32:43, Psalm 117:1 and Isaiah 11:10 in Romans 15:9-12. "

Exactly. Yet you would then go back and say, but there is a primary meaning apart from this which we hold to, rather than following the equally inspired use of the apostles. We should pay more heed to what they do with scripure, they know more about it than we do, and esp if it needs using in a way we did not foresee.

the reference to the article requires more time to digest, as it is rather concentrated.

editted

[Act9_12Out]

Solly,

Thanks for the discussion. You say,

Okay, apart from the last line. You and I differ about what "The Body" means, and i wasn't going into that here. For me, the issue is the Church, and they are one and the same. If james et al, are out, because they are not the church, then it does NOT need their input, because Paul can just stand on the Gospel he received, and in which he consulted with no man, and say, this is nothing to do with you. That is the emphasis of Gal 1,2. But he went to jerusalem and found them holding the same Gospel, and the right hand was extended.

Then we are at an impasse. My interpretation of Acts 15 rests on my belief of what Scripture teaches concerning the body of Christ and the mystery revealed to the Apostle Paul. Your interpretation will also be biased because of your beliefs on the body. This opens many more cans of worms... You say that Paul went to Jerusalem and "found them holding the same Gospel." I have already shown this to be untrue. James does not correct the "sect of the pharisees who believed," when they commanded circumcision for the new gentile converts in Galatia. Paul communicated his Gospel privately to those of reputation because it was so dramatically different. The Holy Spirit confirmed Paul's gospel to James et al, and they gave Paul the right hand of fellowship. There were still believing Jews on the earth saved under the circumcision gospel, so James et al were still ministering to them. To say that Paul's gospel was the same message as Peter, James and John is untrue. I may have to start a thread addressing the differences in Paul's gospel contrasted with Peter, James, John, etc... You continue,

Again, the trouble is the disp definition of what constitutes the Body of Christ.
If being an apostle doesn't carry some weight, then nothing does, and then Paul had no reason to see the apostles. They were the chosen of the Lord. They had authority. They exercised it. They were called the Church.

From my point of view, the trouble is the covenant / reformed definition of what constitutes the Body of Christ. Paul went to the Apostles in Jerusalem because there was contention over what he had been preaching in Galatia. He went to Jerusalem to convey the mystery to those of reputation. Again, there were two groups of believers co-existing, and James, Peter and John still had Apostolic authority for their group of believers. You continue,

I think he does, just as much as he does in Rom 13,14. it is not a matter of the FACT of being eating in a certain way, it is the FACT of the offense caused. That makes it a conscience issue, not a legalistic one. Paul was supremely conscious of the troubles that came with Jews and Gentiles coming together in the church. For the corinhtians, a predominantly Gentile origin church, then it was a matter of conscience - what's all the fuss, they said, we have knowledge. But Paul says knowledge is not enough, and others, Jews or Gentiles, might stumble. The issue is not the means by which the meat came to pass, but the fact that to those of jewish background, there was still the element of "uncleanness" attached to it. Strangled meat, or meat with the blood was unclean.

That was my point. From Paul's perspective, for the Body of Christ, it is most definitely a conscience issue. For Peter, James and John, it was a legalism issue. The point is, Jesus Christ (Peter, James, John, etc...) was a minister of the circumcision, and Paul is a minister of the Body of Christ.

Romans 15
15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers,

15:16
that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ's earthly ministry was for the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). God was dealing with His special, chosen and sanctified people, Israel. If a person wanted to become a religious Jew, he needed to proselyte to Judaism. He was under the dietary law. He was a religious Jew. However, in the body, there is no Jew nor Greek, nor slave nor free, nor male nor female. You continue,

There doesn't seem to be any great mystery here (pun intended), since there were factions seeking to overthrow Paul's ministry. Paul went to the Elders and Apostles to get their opinion. Why did they separate? Becasue that is what God ahd called Paul to do; the Apostles, presumbably through the HSp, confirmed this. When our managers get together to discuss policiy, they don't invite one and all to take part. I think maybe you are reading too much into this.

I have addressed much of this above. However, the original point still stands. If Paul is preaching the same message as James et al, why would Paul go to the majority, and the majority of the Apostles be limited to the minority? You continue,

Exactly. Yet you would then go back and say, but there is a primary meaning apart from this which we hold to, rather than following the equally inspired use of the apostles. We should pay more heed to what they do with scripure, they know more about it than we do, and esp if it needs using in a way we did not foresee.

Agreed... However, the point was, many times NT authors use OT references as illustrations and even call them "fulfillments" when they are not actual "fulfillments" of prophecy.

Thanks again for this great discussion..

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

[Solly]

Hello again A9.
I must say I am enjoying this!!

A9--You say that Paul went to Jerusalem and "found them holding the same Gospel." I have already shown this to be untrue. James does not correct the "sect of the pharisees who believed," when they commanded circumcision for the new gentile converts in Galatia.

Solly--I really think this couldn't have been clearer A9: Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment. If thsat isn't "owning the problem" I don't know what is.

A9--Paul communicated his Gospel privately to those of reputation because it was so dramatically different.

Solly--There is nothing to back up this interpretation, other than the previously held idea that Paul had another Gospel. It is rather circular I think. The problem was not with the Gospel, but with the Pharisaic sect who were causing trouble. As mentioned, there was no reason to have an open meeting, and every reason to have a closed one. Are you invited to ministerial strategy meetings (assuming you are not a minister)?

A9--There were still believing Jews on the earth saved under the circumcision gospel, so James et al were still ministering to them.

Solly--Again, I can't really answer this, because it is part of the A9 schema; suffice to say I deny such a different Gospel. How was Cornelius saved then, if he believed the Gospel Peter spoke? Either he had to be circumcised, or it was accepted even then that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. qv Acts 11.2-18 Granted repentance unto life, by faith, with Baptism, without circumcision. That is the essence of Paul's Gospel; it IS Paul's Gospel, and it is Peter's Gospel. either Cornelius had to be circumcised, since that is what James, or at least the Pharisaic party, were alledgedly teaching, or he didn't, and that was also accepted by James and Peter. Which is it. Did James teach it - why wasn't Cornelius done; did James not teach it - why the Gospel to the circumcision then?

A9--Paul went to the Apostles in Jerusalem because there was contention over what he had been preaching in Galatia.

Solly--Please note, that there is NO consesnsus on whether Acts 15 is before or after the Galatian incident:
The Council of Jerusalem and the letter to the Galatians.
Working out a chronology of Paul’s life from the letters and Acts is not as simple as one would think. It has been compounded by nineteenth and twentieth century scholars who have come to doubt Luke’s reliability, and who therefore try to construct a framework purely from the letters (which of course were never intended to provide a Pauline biography). Information from Acts is then fitted into that preconstructed frame. Thus, Acts 15 has frequently been thought to be Luke’s fanciful elaboration of Gal. 2:1–10, the rather significant differences between the reports being explained by a combination of Luke’s ignorance of the real events and his desire to portray the church as united on the matter.
The most satisfactory solution is to identify Gal. 2:1–10 with the visit mentioned in Acts 11:30, and the incident in Gal. 2:11–14 as being part of the reason for the meeting recorded in Acts 15. This meeting, had, of course, not yet taken place when Paul wrote Galatians (and therefore he could not solve that church’s problem by referring them to the letter and decision). This solution is not without its own difficulties, but these can be more readily explained without resorting to accusing either Paul or Luke of falsehoods. For a more detailed discussion see I. H. Marshall, Acts, pp. 244–247, and C. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Mohr, 1989), chs. 6 and 7.
Carson, D.A.; et al., The New Bible Commentary, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press) 1994.

A9--For Peter, James and John, it was a legalism issue.

Solly--A point of view I consider rendered impotent by Peter's vision, regardless of whether the Jerusalem church fully implemented the implications of it.

A9--If Paul is preaching the same message as James et al, why would Paul go to the majority, and the majority of the Apostles be limited to the minority?

Solly--Cos that's the way God did it!! Remember, Paul was ALSO a pharisiac Jew, no less zealous for the law than the others. Why is a Jew taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, when he himself should be under the circumcision Gospel.
Secondly, (caveat lector) tradition says the other Apostles DID go elsewhere: Thomas to India, Mark to Egypt, etc.

A9--However, the point was, many times NT authors use OT references as illustrations and even call them "fulfillments" when they are not actual "fulfillments" of prophecy.

Solly--Rather, there are many "fulfillments" that we did not realise would be fulfillments, and that our "literal" point for point view of fulfillment is not in accord with scripture use of the NT writers themselves. Sensus Plenior/Typological fulfillment and all that. "Out of Egypt I have called my Son." Would we have seen that as a prohopecy of Christ, rather than a retrospective statement about Israel, if not for Matthew?
This is the overall typology of Scripture that get's missed so often, espicially when you have a schema that separates the Church and Israel. Israel is typical of fallen humanity, and of saved humanity. Of fallen, because we see that they, with all their privileges, will still be judged - just as humanity will be judged, despite the knowledge of God Rom 1 & 3. Of saved, because we see a picture of what God is doing - seeking to dwell with men - the ruins of the tabernacle of David being rebuilt again. The tabernacle, the place of meeting, where dwelt the Ark of the Covenant, the place where God would meet with men.
Christ signifies the Ark itself with the mercy seat - the fact of restored communion between man and God through the mediator; the Church is the Temple built with living stones, also the Kings and Priests who worship and serve God, the household of God, the Body of Christ, rebuilt out of the ruin of the fall. When the believers at jerusalem rejouiced that repentance unto life had been granted to the Gentiles Acts 11.18, it was not on their minds that God was doing a separate work, but that it was all the same work; the Gentiles were brought in as well.

best regards

[Act9_12Out]

Solly,

I too am enjoying this discussion. I appreciate the fact that we can both accept the presuppositions we bring to this passage and are still willing to discuss. You said,

I really think this couldn't have been clearer A9: Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment. If thsat isn't "owning the problem" I don't know what is.

I think it is fair to mention that this was not brought up until they decided to write the infamous letter Paul was to carry to the churches. However, would you agree that the idea of circumcision was prevelent in Jewish thought in light of the children of Abraham being "cut off" in Genesis 17 if they were not circumcised? You continue,

There is nothing to back up this interpretation, other than the previously held idea that Paul had another Gospel. It is rather circular I think. The problem was not with the Gospel, but with the Pharisaic sect who were causing trouble. As mentioned, there was no reason to have an open meeting, and every reason to have a closed one. Are you invited to ministerial strategy meetings (assuming you are not a minister)?

I see your point, however, the differences between the messages contained in Paul's epistles contrasted with the general epistles are great. Sadly, that is for another discussion... I agree in light of this discussion, it is circular. I still think that the fact that Paul mentions he "communicated privately" is a strong point. You continue,

Solly--Again, I can't really answer this, because it is part of the A9 schema; suffice to say I deny such a different Gospel. How was Cornelius saved then, if he believed the Gospel Peter spoke? Either he had to be circumcised, or it was accepted even then that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. qv Acts 11.2-18 Granted repentance unto life, by faith, with Baptism, without circumcision. That is the essence of Paul's Gospel; it IS Paul's Gospel, and it is Peter's Gospel. either Cornelius had to be circumcised, since that is what James, or at least the Pharisaic party, were alledgedly teaching, or he didn't, and that was also accepted by James and Peter. Which is it. Did James teach it - why wasn't Cornelius done; did James not teach it - why the Gospel to the circumcision then?

Yes, let's look at the words Peter spoke when he addressed Cornelius. Suffice to say that circumcision does not stand alone as a "faith requirement" for salvation to the circumcision believers. Law works by faith are also implied (James 1:8-2:26). Now, on to Peter and Cornelius...

Acts 10
10:20
Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them."

*The Holy Spirit sends Peter to Cornelius telling Him to "doubt nothing." This is key...

10:27
And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come together.
10:28
Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Why does Peter say it is unlawful for him to be there? Especially in light of the Great Commission... Aren't they supposed to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature?" (Mark 16:15) Interesting... Sadly, yet another discussion... Peter is preaching a very legalistic message here. Now Solly, when we look at the words Peter spoke, please examine your own salvation experience to see if you believed what Peter was preaching.

10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.
10:35
But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

Now Solly, did you need to "fear God and do works of righteousness" to be accepted by Him? I didn't either. Peter is preaching the only message that He knows. The circumcison gospel. Peter is preaching a similar message to what he preached on the day of Pentecost. Peter begins by conveying the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

10:36
The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ--He is Lord of all--
10:37
that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached:
10:38
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.
10:39
And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree.
10:40
Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly,
10:41
not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.
10:42
And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead.
10:43
To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."

Now, something interesting happens... Before Peter can convey the same message he preached on the day of Pentecost...

Acts 2
2:38
Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

...the Holy Spirit interrupts. Peter's message on the day of Pentecost required baptism by faith for salvation (Please see my discussion with Jaltus for details). Yes, the Holy Spirit interrupts Peter...

10:44
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
10:45
And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

Why were the circumcision believer who were there with Peter astonished because these Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit? Not only because they were Gentiles (for many Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost), but because these Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit before being water baptized. Let's read it... Peter goes on with the only message he knows...

10:46
For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,
10:47
"Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
10:48
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

You see Solly, God had changed the requirements for salvation for the body of Christ. God had asked the circumcision believers to by faith go out to John's baptism for the remission of sins (Mark 1:1-4, etc...). Now don't get me wrong... I don't believe that the water was in any way magical. The water itself did not save, but rather, God asks man to show faith in certain ways (For example - Noah built an ark for the saving of his soul). He asked the Jewish believers in the beginning of the NT to show their faith by being baptized, circumcised, keeping the law, etc... Today, God asks man to show faith by believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). You see, Peter went to Cornelius against what he had been taught (Acts 10:28). The Holy Spirit told him to go and doubt nothing. Peter preaches the only message he knows... The Holy Spirit interrupted him and saved those Gentlies into the body of Christ because they believed what Peter told them concerning the death, burial and resurrection. You continue,

Solly--Please note, that there is NO consesnsus on whether Acts 15 is before or after the Galatian incident:

I apologize. I am not at home. I will post my resoning for the timing of Galatians when I get home. You continue,

A point of view I consider rendered impotent by Peter's vision, regardless of whether the Jerusalem church fully implemented the implications of it.

I agree. However, Peter's vision showed that the dietary laws were being set aside for Israel. On a larger note, God was showing Israel that they had been set aside as His special, chosen, sanctified people. He does this progressively throughout the book of Acts (Acts 13:46, 18:6, 28:28). The point is, the body of Christ started in Acts 9 at the conversion of Paul. The "house rules" for Israel were no longer in effect (as is shown in Peter's interaction with Cornelius). You continue,

Cos that's the way God did it!! Remember, Paul was ALSO a pharisiac Jew, no less zealous for the law than the others. Why is a Jew taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, when he himself should be under the circumcision Gospel.

Actually, it's because God was sending Paul to the unbelieving world to get them saved into the body of Christ (Acts 26). The circumcision apostles were to continue strengthening the believing Jewish dispersion (James 1:1). Concerning what Paul thinks about his Jewishness...

Philippians 3
3:8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ.

You continue,

Rather, there are many "fulfillments" that we did not realise would be fulfillments, and that our "literal" point for point view of fulfillment is not in accord with scripture use of the NT writers themselves. Sensus Plenior/Typological fulfillment and all that. "Out of Egypt I have called my Son." Would we have seen that as a prohopecy of Christ, rather than a retrospective statement about Israel, if not for Matthew?

You must have read my mind. You agree that the "fulfillment" stated in Matthew is not a literal fulfillment. Good... That's what I think too...

Again, thank you for your Christian willingness to discuss. You don't meet many people who are as kind as you, and who are willing to discuss without ad-hominem attacks. Thank you.

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

[Act9_12Out]

Solly,

I have done much study concerning the chronology of Paul's pre-prison epistles. Here are my thoughts on Galatians...

Even though many statements may sound dogmatic, remember, there is much controversy on the chronology of the N.T. and the dates of each book. The historical background of this epistle is easy to discover once we determine which churches are the Galatian churches. I believe they are Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and Pisidian Antioch, the churches of the southern part of the Roman province of Galatia. Judaizers had gone to Galatia and subverted these churches. Paul was amazed that his converts had turned so quickly from his gospel to a different heteros one which was not in the same allos rank as his (Gal. 1:6,7). He had preached a gospel which was not connected to circumcision and the Mosaic law (Acts 13:38,39; Gal. 5:2-4). Although some able scholars believe it was written before, I believe the epistle was written after the Jerusalem council of Acts 15.[*1] According to Acts 16:4, Paul and Silas delivered the council’s decrees not only to the churches in Syria and Cilicia but also to the Galatian churches. That they also warned them at this time about the potential troublemakers, may be inferred from Paul’s statement in Galatians one. “As we [Paul and Silas] have said before, even now I say again, if anyone preaches a gospel to you [different-heteros] from what you received, let him be accursed.” So, the historical setting shows there is conflict between the Judaizers with their circumcision and law gospel and Paul and his gospel which he was commissioned to preach to the Gentiles, kings and Israel.

C.H. Welch holds to an early date for Galatians but believes it was written before the council of Acts 15. He wrote, “It is strange that Paul makes no reference to the ‘Decrees’ in Galatians, and this silence is taken as an indication that the epistle was written before Acts fifteen.” I believe Paul does not mention the decrees for a number of reasons:
(1) He was establishing his complete independence from the apostles in Jerusalem. Instead of receiving anything from them, he added to their understanding and enlightened them with the new gospel which Paul preached among the Gentiles.
(2) Paul had already delivered the decrees earlier. Acts 16:4 “And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.” They had departed from them. Why should he appeal to the decrees again? Would they listen now when they didn’t before? He doesn’t appeal to the decrees in any subsequent epistle, even though he dealt with the same subject repeatedly.
(3) Galatians 1:9, “As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed,” appears to be referring to the second missionary journey when he and Silas delivered the decrees and warned them about receiving a different gospel. Notice the change from we to I.

Welch stated further, “The Judaizers could hardly ‘compel’ circumcision (6:12) after the decision at Jerusalem (Acts 15)." But many strange things were done after Acts 15. Paul was constrained to pay charges for four men and purify himself according to the Jewish law. This was done to change the opinion of those that were “informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs” (Acts 21:21). He was rightly accused of teaching these things when we consider Romans 3:19-31 and Galatians 5:2-6. Therefore, if Paul could be compelled to do what he did in Acts 21, surely weaker brethren could be constrained to be circumcised even after they heard the decrees. From Acts 15:40-16:5, we see that these decrees were delivered on the second missionary journey, and “the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.” This is why Paul was so amazed that they had departed from the gospel so soon.

Another interesting note, Paul used the word proteron in Galatians 4:13,

“You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first.”

This word is translated “before, previously, formerly, and former 7 of the 10 times it is used in the NKJV. In Hebrews 4:6 it is “those to whom it was first [could be formerly] preached did not enter because of disobedience.” In Hebrews 7:27 it is translated, “as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s.” Galatians 4:13 should be translated either:

“I preached the gospel to you the first (time)

euengelisamen umin to proteron, or,

“I preached the gospel to you formerly” (on the first missionary journey).

So, Paul wrote Galatians in Acts 18:1-4 when he was alone – none of his close friends were with him.

[*1] I believe Paul's conversion took place in 32 AD. Herod Agrippa's death happened in 44 AD. The first missionary journey took place in 47 AD. The Council of Jerusalem occurred in 49 AD.

I consulted Guthrie, New Testament Introduction

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Solly]

Acts, there's lots here, I will get to it. Hope you don't mind a slow discussion.

[Solly]

Firstly, there is quite a lot of stuff here, so apologies if I haven't addressed all points.

Solly--I really think this couldn't have been clearer A9: Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment. If thsat isn't "owning the problem" I don't know what is.
X9--I think it is fair to mention that this was not brought up until they decided to write the infamous letter Paul was to carry to the churches. However, would you agree that the idea of circumcision was prevelent in Jewish thought in light of the children of Abraham being "cut off" in Genesis 17 if they were not circumcised?

I think we will have to agree to differ on this one. To my mind, your way of putting it seems to imply that james made a volte face under pressure from Paul, whereas I am inclined to think that it reaffirmed what they knew already, but had difficulty with in jerusalem, what with the Pharisees converting. Yes circumcision was prevalent, it was commanded, but it can be difficult to let go our cultural identities when we become Christians, qv Messianic Jews today, and other ethnic minorites who convert; indeed, even we have the trouble of distinguishing what is and isn't part of Christianity

Solly--There is nothing to back up this interpretation, other than the previously held idea that Paul had another Gospel. It is rather circular I think. The problem was not with the Gospel, but with the Pharisaic sect who were causing trouble. As mentioned, there was no reason to have an open meeting, and every reason to have a closed one. Are you invited to ministerial strategy meetings (assuming you are not a minister)?
X9--I see your point, however, the differences between the messages contained in Paul's epistles contrasted with the general epistles are great. Sadly, that is for another discussion... I agree in light of this discussion, it is circular. I still think that the fact that Paul mentions he "communicated privately" is a strong point. You continue,

Again, agree to differ

Solly--Again, I can't really answer this, because it is part of the A9 schema; suffice to say I deny such a different Gospel. How was Cornelius saved then, if he believed the Gospel Peter spoke? Either he had to be circumcised, or it was accepted even then that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. qv Acts 11.2-18 Granted repentance unto life, by faith, with Baptism, without circumcision. That is the essence of Paul's Gospel; it IS Paul's Gospel, and it is Peter's Gospel. either Cornelius had to be circumcised, since that is what James, or at least the Pharisaic party, were alledgedly teaching, or he didn't, and that was also accepted by James and Peter. Which is it. Did James teach it - why wasn't Cornelius done; did James not teach it - why the Gospel to the circumcision then?

X9--Yes, let's look at the words Peter spoke when he addressed Cornelius. Suffice to say that circumcision does not stand alone as a "faith requirement" for salvation to the circumcision believers. Law works by faith are also implied (James 1:8-2:26).

But it should follow pretty soon after, or at least get a mention. why baptism and circumcision? The Reformed lot around here are stating that Baptism is the new circumcision.

X9--Now, on to Peter and Cornelius...

1. Why does Peter say it is unlawful for him to be there?

2. Peter is preaching a very legalistic message here. Now Solly, when we look at the words Peter spoke, please examine your own salvation experience to see if you believed what Peter was preaching.
10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 10:35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. ”
Now Solly, did you need to "fear God and do works of righteousness" to be accepted by Him? I didn't either. Peter is preaching the only message that He knows. The circumcison gospel. Peter is preaching a similar message to what he preached on the day of Pentecost. Peter begins by conveying the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

1. It was unlawful for Peter to be there under the terms of their understanding of the law, however

"How that it is an unlawful thing (hōs athemiton estin). The conjunction hōs is sometimes equivalent to hoti (that). The old form of athemitos was athemistos from themisto (themizō, themis, law custom) and a privative. In the N.T. only here and 1Pe_4:3 (Peter both times). But there is no O.T. regulation forbidding such social contact with Gentiles, though the rabbis had added it and had made it binding by custom. There is nothing more binding on the average person than social custom. On coming from the market an orthodox Jew was expected to immerse to avoid defilement (Edersheim, Jewish Social Life, pp. 26-28; Taylor’s Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, pp. 15, 26, 137, second edition). See also Act 11:3; Gal 2:12. It is that middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14) which Jesus broke down. Robertson, Word Pictures of the NT."

"There was no express prohibition to this effect, and to a Certain extent intercourse was certainly kept up. (See the Gospel history, towards the end). But intimate social fellowship was not practiced, as being adverse to the spirit of the law. Jamieson Fausset Brown Commentary on NT."
That is why it took a vision from God to break through Peter's programming.

2. A Different Gospel? Joh 6:28,29 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
I submit that it is your understanding that the Jews had a legalistic gospel that is changing your views of what happened here. Also, you have perhaps missed the flow of the Book of Acts, which went from converted Jews, to converted diaspora Jews, to Samaritans, to God fearers such as Cornelius, and then Gentiles per se. Each group was received by the Apostles in Jerusalem, for it had been given to them to have the "keys of the kingdom", opening the door for each group as guided by God.

Heb 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Cornelius was on the road, but needed to be brought fully in to the new church state that already contained Jews, Diaspora Jews, & Samaritans, as did the people who had only received John's baptism, but yet believed on Jesus.

X9--Now, something interesting happens... Before Peter can convey the same message he preached on the day of Pentecost...the Holy Spirit interrupts Peter...
Why were the circumcision believer who were there with Peter astonished because these Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit? Not only because they were Gentiles (for many Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost), but because these Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit before being water baptized.

You see Solly, God had changed the requirements for salvation for the body of Christ. God had asked the circumcision believers to by faith go out to John's baptism for the remission of sins (Mark 1:1-4, etc...). Now don't get me wrong... I don't believe that the water was in any way magical. The water itself did not save, but rather, God asks man to show faith in certain ways (For example - Noah built an ark for the saving of his soul). He asked the Jewish believers in the beginning of the NT to show their faith by being baptized, circumcised, keeping the law, etc... Today, God asks man to show faith by believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). You see, Peter went to Cornelius against what he had been taught (Acts 10:28). The Holy Spirit told him to go and doubt nothing. Peter preaches the only message he knows... The Holy Spirit interrupted him and saved those Gentlies into the body of Christ because they believed what Peter told them concerning the death, burial and resurrection.

Closely reasoned, but ultimately wrong, IMHO, X9. There is nothing to say that Cornelius was not saved already, by being a God fearer, and believing in God. What he has is a fuller revelation of the truth. What we have is a "typical" moment in the history of the Church (Acts is not a casual history, but as much a theological book as the rest of scripture), whereby things get a lot bigger than any of them realised. The Holy spirit fell, before baptism, to show that entrance requirements were not the central thing, that rites and rituals only figured the work of God by the Spirit. But they were still baptised, and not circumcised (hence being God fearers, not proselytes). And Paul went on to baptise at times, and never spoke against it.

I am aware that the examples you give are part of the Disp scheme about different ways of salvation, and therefore "seem" to show that it was by legalistic methods, whereas the Gentiles are saved solely by faith; but I think that shows how unEvangelical dispensationalism is at heart, in setting up different ways of salvation, instead of just one: faith in God's Grace - he believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. James clearly shows that works follow faith, but are not part of it; they are the outcome of faith, that we might serve him in holiness and righteousness, and no mainstream Christian, would say different. Disp's confuse the issue.

regards

[Darth Xena]

Has this been dropped?

[Solly]

DD, I don't know. X9 is engaged in some other discussions, but I am not sure if there is anything else to discuss here.
Does anyone have a comment to make, since we both might have missed something.

[Act9_12Out]

It seems that Solly and I have agreed to disagree on most points here. I would like to address a couple of Solly's previous points, and see if the discussion takes off again...

Solly said concerning Peter's "unlawful" statement at Cornelius' houisehold (Acts 10:28),

But there is no O.T. regulation forbidding such social contact with Gentiles, though the rabbis had added it and had made it binding by custom.

I think there is...

Matthew 10
10:5
These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.
10:6
But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
10:7
And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

Peter said it was unlawful to be there because that's what Christ commanded. Solly continues,

Closely reasoned, but ultimately wrong, IMHO, X9. There is nothing to say that Cornelius was not saved already, by being a God fearer, and believing in God. What he has is a fuller revelation of the truth.

Conjecture. The reason those of the circumcision who came with Peter were "astonished" was because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out prior to water baptism. This had never happened before. This is contradictory to the formula Peter presents in Acts 2:38. Again, God started a new dispensation with the conversion of Paul and no longer required water baptism for salvation. Solly continues,

And Paul went on to baptise at times, and never spoke against it.

Another false statement...

1 Corinthians 1
1:13
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1:14
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
1:15
lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.
1:16
Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Isn't it interesting that Peter commands water baptism for the "remission of sins," and Paul thanks God he baptized none other than Crispus, Gaius, etc... Paul did indeed speak against water baptism. Concerning your closing paragraph, that's an entire discussion in itself. We can discuss those issues if you would like.

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Darth Xena]

Okay thanks, I had wanted to save this thread, but wanted to make sure it was done first... I am glad I revived it.