Where's The Faith? - Acts 15:28-29
"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these two requirements: You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or eating the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well." Acts 15:28-29
I don't get this -- it seems like a total contradiction of what Peter preached earlier AGAINST the requirement of circumcision. What is the difference between requiring circumcision or any of these other rules?! To me it is either saved by faith and faith alone (Jesus plus nothing), or fall back into a works based mentality: "...a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear..." Acts 15:19 And how did they decide on just these few rules out of the entire Law? Seems rather arbitrary. I do notice that it states the Holy Spirit was involved in all this, so who am I to question? Maybe it was for health/dietary reasons in that culture and for that time; but it still seems to contradict other teachings of Paul that indicate that NOTHING is unclean for a believer. I guess this is where my lack of theology training shows up! Maybe someone more educated than I can comment and help out.
Jesus, I know that your Holy Spirit does not err, so please forgive my inability to comprehend. Thank you for being obedient to the point of death just so I could be saved.
Today's reading: Lev. 7-9; Acts 15
posted by m.remedios @ 10:02 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I agree this is confusing, the blood thing got me. We believe that the Bible was written not only for the folks in Paul’s day but, for us today also. In light of this Paul could have put things in the Bible that perhaps he didn't fully understand himself. We know the Bible was actually written by God and the writers simply conveyed their thoughts.
About the blood, that is confusing to me but Paul however did not write "don't eat or drink blood". Instead, he simply mentioned the taking in of blood. Back in Luke it talks about the parable of the Good Samaritan.
The Jewish men passed the wounded man on the road because of the same taboo against blood. The Samaritan stopped to aid him. So which man do you think Jesus favored? Obviously, the one who showed compassion to a fellow human. But I know that parable doesn’t say that blood was the reason, (though it says he was bloody). These two Jews weren't some cruel anomalies, they didn’t stop to help the man seeing the blood because if they were to touch his blood they would become unclean and have to be perform rituals before they could enter the Temple. That is where they were heading.
Maybe I am still confused. HA! The laws back then was complex. Now sexual immorality is more like our days abstaining blood.
My thoughts and prayers are that I more understand and receive it clearly what Jesus is trying to teach me through the word of GOD. AND to abstain from any sin.
"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known,
to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."
Romans
3:20-24
V
I understand the confusion about the blood, but it any of the specific rules that gets me, it is that there are ANY laws at all that they would add to what is necessary to be saved. How are any of these different from circumcision?!
M, nice question. They probably aren't any different. V
Nice english V ;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home