+- Radix Fidem (https://radixfidem.org)
+-- Forum: About Radix Fidem (https://radixfidem.org/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: Sermons, Teachings, Blog Posts (https://radixfidem.org/forum-13.html)
+--- Thread: NT Doctrine -- Acts 15 (/thread-1250.html)
NT Doctrine -- Acts 15 - Ed Hurst - 03-25-2023
In theory, the Covenant of Moses could have worked, had Israel been faithful. But it failed, and not because God didn't invest enough effort. He gave far more than He promised. That covenant died on the Cross; its time on Earth was gone. The New Covenant had come. The Twelve were there in person when Jesus announced it. Still, it was a divine covenant, and that means it had a law code of sorts. That law code reverted to the original, the Code of Noah. The surviving Apostles made it clear that this was the Father's will.
At some point after the First Missionary Journey of Paul and Barnabas, some zealous former Pharisees came to visit from Jerusalem. They surely understood that their Messiah had rejected the Talmud, and taught the Covenant of Moses as it was written by Moses himself. They brought to their new faith the same enthusiasm and drive they once wasted on the Talmud. They insisted that Jesus was the Messiah under the Covenant of Moses, not the Messiah of Gentiles. Thus, anyone claiming to follow Jesus must follow Him back into Moses. Their demands created quite a disturbance in the church at Antioch. The church elders decided they needed to send a delegation back to the Apostles in Jerusalem to see if this was really what they taught.
Paul in particular knew all about Pharisaism. He had also spent time with Jesus in his own wilderness experience, having to completely tear down his Talmudic training and replace it with the gospel. He had joined Barnabas in resisting this new wave of legalism, so these two were sent back as representatives of the Antioch church. On the way, the shared with the churches in Phoenicia and Samaria how the Lord had called the Gentiles into His Kingdom, to much rejoicing. Those churches didn't support the Judaizers.
Thus, Paul and Barnabas arrived to see the Apostles in Jerusalem. Then began the debate. We get the sense it would have gone on forever had not Peter rose up for is last recorded act in Luke's account here. We have no idea where he had been hiding, but he came back for this council meeting. He recounted his experience on the tanner's rooftop several years before and the visit with Cornelius and his folks. If God still wanted people under the Law of Moses, why did He grant His Spirit to these Gentiles? At their best, the nation of Israel was never able to live up to that Covenant after they got it first hand from Jehovah at Mount Sinai, with miracles aplenty. Why would He require it of Gentiles who had never known any of those miracles, nor had they any of the advantages of a long history with it?
No, it was not the Covenant code that saved souls. Even Jews needed the grace of the Messiah to see redemption, and that is what saved Gentiles, too. As the folks present went silent, Paul and Barnabas added their testimony of the miracles -- miracles previously noted only under the Covenant -- now granted to Gentiles as Gentiles, under the New Covenant of the Messiah.
When they finished, James rose to speak. As the oldest surviving brother of Jesus, he had already several years been the senior elder of the Christian community in Jerusalem. He noted the testimony of Peter. This was precisely what the prophet Amos foretold (Amos 9:11-12). Israel would abandon His revelation and leave it in ruins. God would rebuild that testimony using Gentiles "called by His name" -- an expression referring to His glorious reputation going out into the whole world. Not with the testimony of a renewed or larger Israel, but He would use Gentiles as Gentiles. This was what Jehovah had planned before Creation.
Instead of harassing Gentiles about conforming to Moses, it was enough if they just kept the simpler requirements of Noah. This had always been appropriate for Gentiles since before there was a Nation of Israel. We note that James didn't recite the whole code, only those commandments not already included under the civil laws everyone obeyed under Rome. Gentiles would likely be unfamiliar with the items he listed. If anyone wanted a Jewish identity, it was easy enough to find a synagogue and convert. His words implied it had not done anyone much good; the Lord still had to send His Messiah to accomplish what Israel had refused to do.
The whole church got the message. The only thing left to do was appoint a delegation from the Apostles to return with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch with a signed letter declaring this answer. They appointed Judas Barsabbas ("Son of Longing") and Silas to carry the letter, but we can be sure there was an entourage supporting them. The text rebuked the Judaizers as doing their own thing without commission from the Apostles. It praised Paul and Barnabas as heroes of the gospel, and mentioned the delegates by name. Then the commandments unique to Noah were listed briefly to avoid being defiled in God's eyes, issues that Jesus Himself had taught: abstain from buying surplus pagan ritual offerings (thus funding pagan temples), avoid blood or strangled animals as food, and avoid sexual immorality.
Silas and Judas presented the letter and the church leaders rejoiced that this controversy was dead. The delegates were also prophets and offered words of encouragement. The entourage eventually headed back to Jerusalem, but Silas decided to stay. That was a good move, because when Paul felt moved to return to the churches they had planted, Barnabas insisted on taking along John Mark, who had bailed out on them. The disagreement between Paul and Barnabas was intractable, so Barnabas took John with him to Cyprus, and Paul took Silas overland to visit the churches on the mainland.
We note historically that by this time, the independent kings of western Cilicia had been corralled under a Roman procurator, and so it was now safe for Paul and Silas to pass through the Cilician Gates to the churches in Asia Minor.
RE: NT Doctrine -- Acts 15 - jaybreak - 03-28-2023
Curious to know what was considered "signing" a letter in those days. Was it a signature like what we have today, or was there more to it?
RE: NT Doctrine -- Acts 15 - Ed Hurst - 03-29-2023
It was the same as what we have today. If it was a government official, there might be a stamp of some kind.