|
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004
1:38
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Early Jewish
Chrisitan Church
In a message dated
10/27/2004 10:17:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John wrote:
>I don't believe that there was any Gentile
membership
>in the Jerusalem Church except for those who were
first
>converted to Judaism.
Why would you think that after
what happened with Peter in Acts 10?
Although this event happened in
Caesarea, it was Peter who experienced this
and he was very involved in
the Jerusalem Church. Considering that Greeks
were allowed in the
Jewish synagogue, isn't it conceiveable that some of
them would believe
in Christ and yet not be expected to convert to
Judaism?
Anything is possible. But Peter comes to Cornelius
in the company of representatives from the Jerusalem Church -- alll
Jews -- none Gentile. When they return to the Jerusalem
Church, Peter is confronted from preaching to the Gentiles.
I think the context offers am[le evidence to believe that the Jerusalem Church
was Jewish. the letter in Acts 15 was sent to the Gentile Church
meeting in places other than Jerusalem. No mention of a
Gentile Christian population in Jerusalem. The incident in Acts
21, again, pictures a Jewish Church in Jerusalem.
John wrote:
>For my
thinking, a "Judaizer" is one who is busy converting
>others to the
keeping of the Law.
I think that definition is way too broad.
Surely this would make all the
apostles Judaizers, since they kept the
law and encouraged others to walk
this way also. Don't you think
that by this definition, it might be argued
that Paul was a Judaizer
when he circumcised Timothy? I would define a
Judaizer as someone
who believes that salvation cannot come except through
observing the
deeds of the law.
I wish that you had given
the entire post. I am pretty sure I said more than what is
recorded. At any rate, what I do believe about the "Judaizer" is
that he was one who converted others to the keeping of the Law as an act of
saving obedience and as a "test" of fellowship. The apostles did
not do this.
John wrote:
>That
there were Judaizers among the crowd is a fact,
>as well......not
something I can "prove" but a crowd
>without leadership is not
possible in this case and IMO.
>That they were zealous for the law
does put them in
>error --- you probably know my
argumentation on this
>point before I lay it out.
No, I don't
know your argumentation. How can being zealous for the law be
an
error? Was Jesus in error because he was zealous for the law?
Was his
blood brother James in error because he was zealous for the
law?
Sorry -- I omitted "not." We agree on
this.
I think it is important to
define Judaizer as someone who believes that
without keeping the law,
one cannot be saved. On the other hand, someone
who believes that
salvation is through the grace of Jesus Christ and that
salvation comes
to those who simply believe in Christ, they can be very
zealous of the
law without being in error. In my opinion, to think that a
Judaizer is anyone who is zealous for keeping Torah and that such a
person
is in error even though he believes salvation is through faith in
Christ,
well, this would be analogous to believing a person is in error
for
celebrating Christmas or Passover even though he believes that
salvation
comes through faith in Christ. Is there any chance you
could change your
definition of Judaizer to correspond with my
definition?
The distinction as I see it concerns salvation, not one's
continued walk in
Christ after salvation. A person is saved apart
from the law, but he may
then be zealous of observing the law after he
has been saved. A person who
thinks that without observing the law
a person cannot be saved would be a
Judaizer, whereas someone would not
be a Judaizer if they believed that
faith in Christ saves someone apart
from the works of the law, but then
afterward it is a good thing to be
zealous of the law.
Well written.
I agree. But I don't see the point of one's continued observance
of the Law in view of the New Law of Inwardness. Slade and Jeff
are respected by me and accepted as brothers.
Jeff here: That is the purpose of Acts 15:21. This verse is not just
casually thrown into scripture. It is there for the express purpose of letting
everyone know how to learn to apply Torah. When one went to worship on the
Sabbath, they would hear Torah, as God work's on an individual they begin to
follow God's Commandments more and more. In fact, I think all of you would be
suprised at how many of the 613 you keep already!
David Miller
wrote:
>>Acts 15:24 shows that James considered the
Judaizers
>>to be "subverting the souls" of the saints in Antioch,
Syria,
>>and Cilicia. This is strong language indicating that
he
>>disapproved of them, unlike the thousands of
Jewish
>>Christians he mentions in Acts 21:20. Keep in mind
that
>>James was the best example of a Torah Observant
Jewish
>>Christian that the Jerusalem church ever had. It is
very
>>important for us to understand and agree that the
Jewish
>>Christians of Acts 21:20 were NOT Judaizers.
John
wrote:
>Using my definition of "Judaizer," I agree.
Ok.
Good. But even with my definition of Judaizer, I think we are still in
agreement then. Being zealous of the law is not error and does not
make one
a Judaizer. Are we in agreement?
Yes.
John wrote:
>But I do
not think this puts us in agreement, here.
>I do not believe the "New
Covenant" saints are
>required to observe any part of the Old or
Mosaical
>law. If you agree with that notion, then we
have
>some sort of mutual foundation upon which to build.
Yes,
I agree with that notion, but I also believe that saints who walk in
the
"New Covenant" will walk in the righteousness of the law as they walk in
Christ. I don't believe that such righteousness equates with
eating pork or
not, but rather I believe that the law is spiritual and
was never meant to
be taken in carnal ways.
Well, I have turned into
quite the "yes" man.
David Miller
wrote:
>>Acts 15:22 makes it clear that the judgment rendered in
Acts 15
>>pleased not only the leadership of the Jerusalem
Church
>(the apostles and elders), but also THE WHOLE
CHURCH.
>In other words, the Judaizers who would not repent of
their
>Judaizing were not truly considered part of the
Jewish
>Christian Church by the Holy Ghost. Else, how could
the
>Holy Spirit tell us that the WHOLE CHURCH was pleased?
>Do
you agree?
John wrote:
>No I don't. The "whole
church" in Acts 15:22 is expecially those
>who were a part of the
decision making process. You are aware
>that "entire
gathering" is proper interpretation of the Greek wording.
>There is
nothing in the Gk wording that requires one to believe that
>the
entire church, numbering in the tens of thousands, is in view in
>this
context --- nothin in the Gk wording.
Please
exegete the Greek that would lead you to this kind of thinking. I
think the Greek very much does suggest that the decision of the apostles
and
elders pleased the whole church.
"sun hole te ekklesia" means
"together with / in union with the whole
ecclesia (church /
assembly).
Note that there were only apostles and elders who met
about the matter (Acts
15:6), but when they reached their decision, they
involved the whole church
(Acts 15:22), and the whole church was pleased
with their judgment.
Actually, all that pleased
the "whole assembly" (whatever or whoever that was) was the selection of
those who would administer the letter. The decisions made for the
Gentile Church were made by Apostles and Elders of the Jewish Church
(15:23) --- exclusive of the "whole church." I am sorry, DavidM
but I have forgotten why we are having this particular discussion.
John wrote:
>And when
one turns to the Letter -- what does it offer in
>terms of who
is involved with what? The letter speaks
>of "apostles and
the brethren (all of them) who were elders
>(15:23).
I think
the Textus Receptus reads correctly here, "apostles and elders and
brethren..."
Nestles is my
choice. But, be that as it may, in the actual Gk text, the word
"and" is not in the text before the word translated brothers or
brethren. The literal translation is this: "...the apostles
and elders brethren
......" In view of that very literal translation, I have gone with
what I have written before.
John wrote:
>In verse 24, the Letter makes reference
to "some
>of our number." What should we receive from this
reference?
>I believe the implications are thus and so:
that Judaizers existed
>within the demographics of the Churched
Population, that they
>continued to exist within the church (no
mention of discipline),
>that they were accepted as brethren, that
their teaching to the
>Gentiles was in error.
Again, the textus
receptus reads better here,
Not sure why you say this,
but I do not agree that it is "better." That it is different, is
certainly the case. That such is the preferred reading may be the
case. But it is certainly not something that is the most popular
view. I have confidence in the Nestles text, supported by a number
of scholars for whom I have a great deal of respect (Baure, Arnt, Geingrich,
Dunker, Metzger, Aland). I don't wish to discuss this on this
forum. Maybe a personal one on one --- but those on this
forum, for the most part, what scholarship we prefer - some even
disposed to the belief that scholarship is not important .
saying,
"certain went out from
us"
rather than "of our number." Certainly there were Judaizers who
existed
among the church, but I do not believe that the Holy Ghost would
consider
them part of the church. I agree with you when you say
they existed "among
the demographics of the Churched Population," but
that is not the same as
saying that they were accepted and respected
participants of the church (the
ekklesia of God). I do not believe
that they were subjected to discipline,
but their teachings of salvation
through Torah observance was rejected by
the whole Jerusalem
Church. I don't know how you can get around this.
I agree with all of the above except for last two
sentences. Acts 21 is how I "get around this."
Human nature being the way it is, the Jewish population converted to Christ
and visible in the courtyard of the Temple in Acts 21 is one which did not
realize that the Old Law was of no effect in terms of salvation.
It is obvious that they continued in all of the Law's
requirements. I do not believe that they would have understood
that what they had believed all of their lives was somehow different with the
coming and fulfillment of the Christ. The church's leadership was
much more advanced in its thinking. That leadership included the
apostles, men who had experienced the incarnate presense and counsel of the
Lord along with continued revelations.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????
It
seems
clear to me that their rejection by the Jerusalem church was part of
their motivation to leave Jersusalem and try and prosyletize elsewhere,
pretending to others that the Jerusalem church sent them out. That
is why
this Acts 15 situation was so important. It clarified to
everyone that
these false teachers were NOT sent out by the Jerusalem
church, and that the
Jerusalem church as a whole did not believe that
Gentile believers had to
become Torah observant to be saved.
It
seems to me that you do not divide between the idea of salvation through
observing the law and the idea that those who are already saved can
rightly
become zealous of keeping the law. What do you think about
the importance
of this distinction to promote harmony in the body of
Christ?
Peace be with you.
David
Miller.
|
