tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-605720789950223521.post3472721731807934210..comments2024-03-11T18:37:29.803-07:00Comments on That Happy Expectation: Peter, Cornelius and the Jerusalem Conference: A Study on Acts 15:1-17 (Part Two)Aaron Welchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11169688326514727094noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-605720789950223521.post-36190893031959691332018-11-12T17:36:19.753-08:002018-11-12T17:36:19.753-08:00Hi Ruth,
Thank you so much for your encouraging c...Hi Ruth,<br /><br />Thank you so much for your encouraging comments and thoughtful questions (and sorry for the delayed response!). I liked your questions so much that I'm devoting an entire blog article to answering them. I'm almost done with the response, so it'll probably be posted before the end of this week.<br /><br />Thanks again for the great questions. <br /><br />AaronAaron Welchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11169688326514727094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-605720789950223521.post-42996411869623014062018-11-09T00:39:00.651-08:002018-11-09T00:39:00.651-08:00Hi Aaron!
Thank you very much for your clear prese...Hi Aaron!<br />Thank you very much for your clear presentation of Peter's position. It makes sense. I had been struggling with the question of how much of the law was still applicable to the Circumcision gospel. I still have some questions, though... <br />(1) Why did Paul say that Peter was "living as the nations" (Gal. 2:14), if he was keeping the law? <br />(2) Did the "sheet vision"'s meaning include that eating "unclean" animals was fine from now on? I know the main meaning of the vision was to say that the Gentiles that were cleansed by God (Cornelius etc) were not to be considered unclean, but did that vision also include changes to food laws? <br />(3) What is your comment on AEK's commentary on Acts 15:19? This is what got me thinking that not all the law was still to be followed (such as food laws), together with the fact that there is (coming to be) a transference of the Law mentioned in Heb. 7:12 (necessitated by "the priesthood being transferred", while it was on the basis of priesthood that "the people have been placed under law" Heb. 7:11). <br />AEK writes: "A Jew, even if a believer, could not eat at the same table with a gentile if he should serve an idol sacrifice, or strangled meat, or blood. Had Peter's advice been followed, they would have cast off the yoke of the law, which they never were able to bear, and so could have had free and joyful fellowship with the Uncircumcision. James' plan keeps the Jews under the divine law and puts the nations under a human law. Instead of loosing all from bondage, he binds both."<br />Now I'm thinking that this is one of the rare times where AEK got things wrong. Thanks for clearing up that the "yoke of the law" actually means the so-called "oral law" of rabbinical tradition. With this understanding, AEK's comment about getting rid of the yoke would make more sense. But on the other hand, James' decree comes from the Mosaic, not oral law (as far as I remember), so though James ought not to have put these laws on the Gentiles, the Jews could not have "cast off the yoke" of those rules without violating their covenant obligation.<br />(4) When Paul tells the Galatians that the law was Israel's guardian until the time of maturity (which happened when God sent His Son), it sounds like he is speaking of the Circumcision, not just about Jewish Uncircumcision believers like himself. Or not?<br />Perhaps you have already written on these things. I would very much appreciate an answer directly or by way of pointing me to a page you already have written. <br />Many blessings,<br />Ruth<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09285776770473551583noreply@blogger.com