Featured Are the Four Laws Given to the Church in Antioch in Acts 15 Still in Effect?

Some jews were really upset that Gentiles were allowed to get saved with coming under circumcision and keeping diet laws, so this was done to not fuel the fires hotter!

 

The 'four laws' were instituted to allow table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians.
Jews generally believed that Gentiles were idolaters and fornicators, drank blood and ate animals with the blood still in them (i.e. strangled). Jewish Christians at this time were 'zealous for the Law' (Acts 21:20), meaning circumcision and the dietary laws. The aim was to get fellowship between Jews and Gentiles without requiring the latter to be circumcised.

Whilst obviously Christians today should not have Christian fellowship with active idolaters and fornicators, 'whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him' (Mark 7:18), so black pudding eaters are acceptable. The blood has been shed once and for all at Calvary, so the dietary and ceremonial aspects of the law are fulfilled.

 

No problem for me anyway, I don't particularly like drinking fresh blood or eating coagulated blood

 

This is the proof text JWs use in their prohibition against blood transfusions. I asked one once if he ate steak. He said "yes" so I asked him how he liked it. "Medium rare," he responded. "OK then, so what do you do with the remaining blood in your steak?" He had no answer, so I assumed he ate animal blood, yet was dead set against blood transfusions to save the life of a loved one.

 

If transubstantiation is true and the communion wine is literally the blood of Christ, then it is forbidden to drink it.

 

Steve -- Thank you for this clarification, but it was my understanding that some residue of blood remains in meat tissue -- not the red juice itself, but perhaps I have been mistaken. In any case, this prohibition against consumption of blood equalling a refusal to save lives via transfusion because of an eccentric reading of Acts 15 seems pharasaical -- (1 Sam 21:6): Orthodox Jews today do not even view this as problematic, (I can't think of any other group that does) and the four laws given to the Church at Antioch were intended to placate the Jewish Christians who were concerned about the dietary practices of the gentile church. I guess my JW acquaintance can eat his steak in good conscience after all.

 

No Bloody Mary for you!

 

I have a friend of Polish inheritance tried to get me to try blood soup.

Sorry, Acts 15 had nothing to do with it.

 

Animism is a religion which is still quite common and was very common in Paul's time. No one here seems to know what it is.

Basically, Animism believes that each object and living thing has a "power" or spirit to it. So, drinking blood is not so much a dietary restriction in Act 15 as it is a religious idolatry restriction. Drinking the blood of a bull to gain it's strength or similar things was quite common. There are numerous other examples.

Similar to eating ritual meat. What some people were arguing at the time was that sometimes ritual meat was for sale and it may be cheaper or better than other meat. Why can't we eat it too? Since, I'm not really eating it as part of a worship. Paul said that you still don't and I would take Paul's advice. Unless you're desperate.

Imagine serving blood pudding and a former animist happens to be visiting or watching. In new multicultural US, its not uncommon and its best to avoid doing something that may cause others to sin.

Similarly imbibing in Native American hallucinogens to find your spirit animal would also be idolatry.

So, its up to you. I won't be facing God and judgement in your place. Acts 15 says don't do it and Paul suggests that you don't do it. I think you are on shaky ground - especially with all the other food Americans get to eat. But, it's your choice.

Marty

 

Animism is nonsense and superstition.

Many drugs used in modern medicine are derived from substances used by shamans in an idolatrous way.

 

Let's take a modern day example. The Hare Krishna's serve food as a part of their religion. It tends to be a form of vegetarian fare. However, if you enter their establishment, you are considered to be worshipping as they do because simply looking at or being in the presence of their idol is considered worship.

As a Christian I know their idol is not a part of my religion. Should I go to their place of worship to eat their food? (Assume I like vegetarian.)

Let's say it doesn't affect me or my soul. Should I still do it? This might better explain what Paul was running into.

You are right about the blood. Although Animism is also a good reason in my opinion.

 

I always thought the reason why the blood was not be eaten by was because God knew in the future that the blood of Christ would atone for man’s sin and God wanted men to have more respect for blood. But that’s just my opinion.

 

That may have to do with it as the blood of a living being carries all its disease pathogens.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

Steven Yeadon,
re: "Are the four laws given to the church in Antioch in Acts 15 still in effect? My answer is a cautious 'no'..."


And that would include the sexual immorality burden?