|
 Bro.
Turner:
Is
the word “repent” ever used in the N. T. to refer to “change”
from right to wrong—— “repent” of good? GL
Reply:
Polycarp,
a disciple of the Apostle John, is reported to have said, “for
us ‘repentance’ from the better to the worse is impossible.”
(Martyrdom of Polycarp, 11:1)
N.
T. usage seems to confirm this, although the word itself bears
no moral identification. It means, literally, “to perceive
afterwards” and Vine says the word implies change. In 2 Cor.
7:10 “repentance to salvation not to be repented of” —
where the second use (KJ) seems to indicate a change for worse
— the AS says with good reason, “which bringeth no regret.”
In the final analysis, a word is a living thing; and its origin
or “classical, literal” meaning is tempered by contextual
usage.
Bro.
Turner:
Acts
15:28-29 names four “necessary” restrictions. Would not it
be as wrong to eat blood today, as to commit fornication? RE
Reply:
The
four items given in the Jerusalem letter were not linked
together on the basis of moral equality. The thing they had in
common was their importance in the Jew — Gentile conflict. In
addition to circumcision, these were the usual points of
conflict in ordinary intercourse between the two groups (because
of vastly different backgrounds) at
|
|
the time this letter was written.
Fornication
is unlawful universally, and is certainly not in the same moral
classification as eating things sacrificed to idols. See 1 Cor.
8:1-f. where Paul makes the eating of such meats a thing
of indifference. Paul did not understand the listing of
“meats” in Acts 15:19-21, 28-29, to make it “necessary to
abstain” under any and all circumstances.
But
Paul does urge brethren to refrain from eating if this would
cause a brother to stumble. (Cf. Rom. 14:14) That is exactly
the point under consideration in Acts 15. It was necessary —
for the Gentiles to whom the Jerusalem letter was directed to
“abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and
from things strangled, and from fornication” for the reason
indicated when the letter was being planned — viz., “For
Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that
preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
This
passage (vs. 21) does not mean that the Law was bound upon
Gentiles. That was the very error they were seeking to correct.
To bind even a small part of the Law would have been an
intolerable compromise. But they remind the Gentiles of the
centuries — old teaching received by Jewish brethren — a
continuing environment — and on this basis urge them to give
up conflicting heathen practices.
I
have no desire to eat blood, but must maintain that there is no
general prohibition of such in Acts 15. It becomes wrong only if
we stifle conscience to eat, or eat without regard for the
conscience of a weak brother.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
