|
 Brother
Turner:
How
does one harmonize Acts 15:19-21; 28-29; 21:25; with 1 Cor.
10:25-f? Are not blood, fornication, things strangled and meats
offered to idols all equally sinful? What about J.W.’s issue
on blood: transfusions?
E.H.
Reply:
During
the time of animal sacrifice blood had a special significance
because “the life is in the blood and I have given it to you
upon the altar to make atonement for your souls” Lev. 17:11.
It was typical of Christ’s blood (life) given for our
salvation. But types lose their significance when the real
thing arrives. Thus, Paul could say “Whatsoever is sold in
the shambles (meat markets) eat, asking no questions.. .“ The eidolothutos
(things sacrificed unto idols, named in Acts l5:29) were not
wrong of themselves. They were forbidden only when a weak
brother’s conscience was at stake (1 Cor. 8), or when a pagan
sought to “make a point” of it — as though one sanctioned
the idol.
The
four items given in the Jerusalem letter (Acts 15) are not of
the same moral quality, as is obvious from the fact that Paul
makes the eating of meats a matter of indifference while
fornication is unlawful universally. But these four items do
have something in common — and that serves to explain this
situation. They were the usual points of conflict in
day-by-day relationships between Jews and Gentiles at the time
this was written.
Note
the reason given for listing these things (Acts 15:21). “For
Moses of old time hath in every city them that
preach him,
|
|
being read in the
synagogues every sabbath day.” This does not mean that the Law
was bound upon the Gentiles. That was the very error they sought
to correct; and to bind even a small part of the Law was an
intolerable compromise. Instead, they are reminding the Gentiles
of the centuries-old teaching received by their Jewish brethren
— a continuing environment — and on this basis urge
them to give up conflicting heathen practices. (The fornication
is mentioned because it was peculiarly associated with pagan
worship.)
These
were “necessary things” to the Gentiles of that day, under
the circumstances of that day. That they were not of universal
application is evident from the exceptions shown.
It
is practically impossible to eat meat without eating blood. As
meat was allowed in O.T. times, the “pouring out” of the
blood was of ceremonial significance — because it
typified the sacrifice of Christ. But with the coming of the
Christian system, the real thing; types and ceremonial
significances are removed. (See Acts 10:11-15; 1 Tim. 4:3-5) The
New Covenant is not a “touch not, taste not, handle not”
covenant. We abstain from some things on the basis of how they
affect our body and service to the Lord, not on a ceremonial
basis. There is nothing to indicate, scripturally or
scientifically, that the eating of blood is harmful.
J.W.s,
like other cults, follow headquarters lead and build their cause
around a few bizarre doctrines. Few are interested in objective
study.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
