Bob, that was a lot to chew on. I don't understand your whole bit about taking Genesis 9 in the context of Leviticus 11, but I'll try here.
#1. I applaud your response. I have seen very few people do that. Your response optimizes your own argument because it drops the failing case and moves on to something that has more promise. It also shows that you are willing to consider full details in a specific example and are willing to release a prior position "no matter what the inconvenient facts".
#2. A much more "common" response is simply to throw more good effort on top of a failed idea or to "avoid all questions" that would tend to point to the failing case and bring the flaws up again. All that does is hand out a huge invitation to keep exposing the failed argument in the latter case.
So your response is wise both from the standpoint of "truth" AND from the standpoint of keeping your own argument in the best position possible.
bravo!
Thanks. The best we can do is conform to the Word. I've been mired in false teachings most of my life, and I tell people, "Never let any human change your mind about what you believe; only let the Word change your beliefs."
The context here is not "what do pagan Gentiles with no access to the Word of God or the Gospels do right some times."
The "context" is - Gentile CHRISTIANS that DO have access to the gospels and DO have access to God's word!
Sola scriptura - remember?
In Acts 13 we SEE that EVEN Gentiles who are looking at the God of the Bible meet in the synagogues with the Jews and learn from God's Word about the one true God.
Ok, so they had the Old Testament available to them. So we're not looking at people who were only under the law of conscience that Paul described. Thanks for pointing that out.
So in Acts 15 the point remains - they would NOT dump God's Word "in favor of what pagan gentiles might know by instict when it comes to sin vs obedience".
Paul says in Romans 7 that EVEN in the NT age the Law of God is considered "Holy Just and Good" and in Rom 3:31 "We do not make VOID the Law of God by our faith - rather we ESTABLISH the Law of God".
True.
But even worse - for your argument is the fact that the pagan gentiles WOULD have been mixing in blood with sacrifices and eating things strangled.
I don't see where that hurts my case at all. After all, if they were eating things strangled and eating blood, that means it would've been important for the Apostles to tell them not to do that. Obviously, there's no reason not to tell someone not to do something he's not doing anyway, right?
Actually, I would say the information you presented strengthens my case significantly, because the Apostles didn't just say, "Hey, follow the Levitical guidelines." Instead, they said, "Hey, follow just these specific rules." Remember the purpose of the whole counsel was to decide whether they should make Gentiles be circumcised. And they decided not to force the Gentiles to follow the whole of the Law.
The advice given in Acts 15 from the OT dietary laws WOULD conflict with their normal practices outside of Christianity.
Yep. That's why they gave it.
Furthermore - we know that the Acts 15 councile WOULD have considered the WORD of God (the 39 books of the OT) to be "valid".
As do I. Else, this discussion would have no purpose at all.
WE SEE the Gentiles in Acts 13 IN the Synagogues (on Sabbath after Sabbath) and HEARING the Word of God with the Jews. We have no reason to believe that Christian Gentiles would have been kept in the dark about the Creator of mankind, the fall of man, the flood (2Peter 3 explicitly denies that) and the teachings of Jesus that reference the OT text extensively.
Granted.
Your argument "requires" a kind of "secret club" formed among Jewish Christians in Acts 15 that kept the gentile Christians away from the Word of God - and yet some faction still wanted them to be circumcised according to that Word that they were keeping away from Gentiles. (At least that is where your "argument from instinct" seems to be going)
Eh... I was mistaken about them not knowing the Old Testament, but as I demonstrated above, the fact that they DID know it and were basically told not to worry about any Levitical laws except the ones cited by the Apostles lends credence to my case.
It is a valid argument if we are talking about the unsaved pagan gentile. But "again" the "context" of Acts 15 is NOT in reference to all the unsaved gentiles -- it is specifically about Gentile CHRISTIANS.
The point remains.
I'm not sure what you're saying. You're right about the Gentiles having the Word. Again, as I said, that would seem to strengthen my case even more.
It is for that very REASON that the argument for circumcision had such play with gentiles because the "Bible" had the command right there for them to see!
Hold on a second. Are you saying that you disagree with the Jerusalem Counsel's decision and think the Gentile Christians ought to have been made to be circumcised?
#1. This is a point from "curiosity" but does not form a kind of "proof" simply by asking the question.
#2. The answer is that by INCLUDING the context of Acts 13 (two chapters earlier) the writer is showing that they merely had to "emphasize" the points of Bible-based Christian behavior that would be somewhat challenging to gentiles. Pagans would already be eating both clean and unclean meats so limiting them to the clean meats would not be "eating something new". The bigger issue would be how to prepare the SAME food they were already eating - if clean foods, and to remind them NOT to take those clean meats from idols.
But whatever "reason" you choose - once you admit that "what is not repeated must be deleted" is a bogus basis for doctrine in Acts 15 you are then stuck with "the context" which is stated explicitly - "circumcision".
If we could forge a wooden rule about ONLY obeying 4 verses in Acts 15 then EVEN the writings of Paul and the Gospels could be rejected by Gentiles.
Ok, so they would have been eating unclean animals, too, by your own admission. So the Apostles SHOULD have been emphasizing that, too. But they didn't. Generally, whether by moral conscience or Synagogue teaching, the gentiles already knew right from wrong.
So, again, I don't see where that contradicts my stance.
In other words, the Apostles were saying, "This is what you need to follow from specifically Jewish law."
#1. Moses is "writing" and his readers are his contemporaries.
Yep. But God is speaking, and His audience is Noah.
#2. Exegesis demands that we consider the obvious intended meaning for the first order - primary audience.
And the primary audience for God speaking in Genesis 9 was Noah.
Moses' readers would have access to the writings of Moses (Duh). He is referencing a term for HIS readers in Gen 6-8 that is defined in HIS book - Leviticus in Chapter 11. HIS readers would see that.
Yep.
Your approach requires that we ignore that. It requires that we pretend that Moses would have one meaning for the term in Genesis and ANOTHER one in Lev 11 EVEN though it is the SAME author, the SAME term and he is writing to the SAME audience.
Actually, my approach requires that we look at this in the context of God speaking to Noah, rather than assuming that a Law existed which would not for several centuries. In other words:
Who is speaking? God.
To whom is God speaking? Noah.
Unless, of course, you're arguing that the words attributed to God in that passage are actually Moses' words, but I think I know you better than that.
In other words - your method "requires" that abandon exegesis to "suppose" that some "undefined" and "unclear" context is all we have for the term and all Moses' readers would have had.
Not really, as far as I can see. Moses' readers would have a more extensive understanding of clean/unclean animals than Noah, but my approach requires that we take the exchange in Genesis 6-7 and in Genesis 9 in the context of Noah's day. What God revealed to Noah, the very first time man was told he could eat animals, was that he could eat anything. God later narrowed that to eating only the clean animals.
Such is obviously not the case as a point of fact.
Well, true, but we're not talking about how the Hebrews would have taken the words of Moses, but how Noah would have taken the words of God.
As for HOW Noah came to know What MOSES knew - I would agree with you that God may well have made it known to mankind pre-flood. the first Six chapters of Genesis are not an exhaustive account of all that was said for 15 centuries.
Maybe it was just a really boring 1,500 years.
Which means that the "reader" -- Moses' "reader" to whom and for whom HE is writing the book of Genesis would know the context of Lev 11 for the term "Clean and unclean animal".
Once you accept this obvious fact - your entire case for the terms "Clean" and "unclean" in Gen 7-8 not having the same context as Lev 11 falls apart.
Your fact is true, obviously, but the problem is that Noah could not have interpreted God's command in light of Leviticus 11, since he didn't have Leviticus 11. So we have to take this in the context of Noah.
BTW - Moses is not writing to "Jews" He is writing to "Hebrews" since Israel was comprised at that time of all 12 tribes.
Oh, ok. Thanks.
Here is where it would help to quote my previous post and respond to each point as I am doing with your posts. You simply restate that Gen 9 should be making your case without dealing with the part of my post that shows how such a view does not work.
But you seem to be trying to place a context on Genesis 9 which was not intended, trying to say that Noah would have interpreted the words of God in light of a book that would not be written for centuries. That doesn't hold water with any exegetical or hermeneutical rules of which I'm aware. My view takes the discussion in the context of Noah's day, and, therefore, I think it is a more sound view.
Your argument fails as soon as you admit that the readers know about Lev 11 and as they read the terms "clean and unclean" in Gen 6-8 they "know what they mean" because they have the books of Moses. That means the primary intended audiance will see the Lev 11 Term "Clean and Unclean" used in Gen 6-7 and will take that as the preflood meaning! You needed the preflood case to be totally disconnected from the books of Moses - but that is impossible since the pre-flood story COMES FROM MOSES!
Again, because I view the passage in the context of Noah, my view still works, however the Hebrews would have viewed "clean and unclean." And maybe I'm being nitpicky, but the pre-flood account came from God. Moses was just the guy who reported it.
I agree that the Gen 9 text on "eating all" would open the doors to rats and cats if you could ignore the Gen 6-8 context on clean foods that appear to STILL be used in Gen 8.
Furthermore the future condemnation of those who eat rats and cats as seen in Isaiah 66 is pretty compelling given that NEITHER Isaiah's readers NOR Moses's readers could afford to Ignore Lev 11 when it came to the terms being used.
Well, again, while "clean" and "unclean" were defined in Genesis 6, the command not to eat the "unclean" didn't come about till Leviticus. There is something in common between the readers of Isaiah and the readers of Moses: they were Hebrews. Noah was not.
Dave's comments on Acts 15 are good, I think.
Michael
