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

[Steven Yeadon]

Are the four laws given to the church in Antioch in Acts 15 still in effect?

My answer is a cautious "no," because Acts 15:21 seems to give the reason for these laws to be observed.

A reason that seems no longer applicable in our day when knowledge of the Law of Moses is so rare, and Judaism opposes Christians over theological reasons more than fidelity to the Law. Also, Paul later states that it is for the weak in faith that one is not to eat food sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8).

 

[Yeshua1]

Are the four laws given to the church in Antioch in Acts 15 still in effect?

My answer is a cautious "no," because Acts 15:21 seems to give the reason for these laws to be observed.

A reason that seems no longer applicable in our day when knowledge of the Law of Moses is so rare, and Judaism opposes Christians over theological reasons more than fidelity to the Law. Also, Paul later states that it is for the weak in faith that one is not to eat food sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8).

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!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

 

[HankD]

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

 

[Dan Glass]

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.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

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.

I agree with your sentiment. But blood is dark red, juices are another chemical entirely that is secreted by dead muscles.

 

[Alcott]

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

 

[Dan Glass]

I agree with your sentiment. But blood is dark red, juices are another chemical entirely that is secreted by dead muscles.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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

No Bloody Mary for you!

 

[HankD]

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.

 

[MartyF]

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

 

[HankD]

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.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

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

I understand what you are saying.

The reason we are not to drink blood in the old covenant, before Jesus, is given in Leviticus 17:11-14, and Genesis 9:1-4 (an ancient precedent). That said, it could also be the case God was trying to prevent idolatry.

That said, we are free to eat even meat sacrificed to idols, knowing that such idols are not gods (1 Corinthians 8 (all)).

However, this passage in 1 Corinthians tells us to not do anything that causes a fellow believer to violate their conscience. We are bound by love to never do anything that would cause a violation of conscience in a believer with a weak conscience. Even if doing so causes us to sacrifice something for as long as we sojourn in this world.

Thus, if a fellow believer is tempted into idolatry, we are to help them in not violating their conscience. Then again, I see no command in the bible, that I know of, to do so for unbelievers who have rejected the Gospel.

 

[MartyF]

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.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

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.

What you speak of seems to be the question of how to reach certain groups of people, given their beliefs that conflict with the Gospel. A question of how to win souls, given cultural contexts. I'm not really trained in what amounts to missions and evangelism to those in other religions, so I'll leave this to those who know more than me.

I just haven't found a reason in the bible to lose the freedom I have been given by the Spirit and Christ, because of upsetting those of other religions. I mean Christians were considered atheists in the Roman Empire because by not believing in the gods of the world, and for believing in a God that the Romans rejected, we simply had no daylight with their false religions.

As an example, I wonder what a Hare Krishna would tell me if I told them their beliefs were all superstitious nonsense and that I'm practically an atheist to them? The thing is I believe in a real God that is beyond their superstition.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

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.

 

[HankD]

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]

I need to correct myself, I did find a reason in the bible to forgo the freedom I have from the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ, on behalf of unbelievers. Paul becomes like one under the Law for the salvation of those under the Law. To win souls, if we follow Paul's example, we become all things to all people to save some.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23
19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

 

[rstrats]

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?

 

[Steven Yeadon]

And that would include the sexual immorality burden?

Good point, I don't understand that command really, as the Law makes plain that sexual immorality is wrong. I will have to look into this more.