(removed--my point was covered by someone else)
Romans 14 describes law on blood as "conscience matter"?
by M.J. 16 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
Frank75
It seems very clear that either Paul had never heard of the so-called "apostles' decree" or he didn't regard its contents as authoritative.
Was it a decree? Well Paul was there according to the narrative and it can be easily proved that he did not think so. Perhaps there is still a little Dub earwax blocking a proper hearing of the message.
Could the concluding comments on blood better be described as a footnote to a lengthy debate about the Jewish custom of circumcision? That was the purpose of the gathering to begin with.
Take a look at what Paul did in the very next chapter 16:1
So he arrived at Der´be and also at Lys´tra. And, look! a certain disciple was there by the name of Timothy, the son of a believing Jewish woman but of a Greek father, 2 and he was well reported on by the brothers in Lys´tra and I·co´ni·um. 3 Paul expressed the desire for this man to go out with him, and he took him and circumcised himbecause of the Jews that were in those places,
They had just determined, and Paul had argued for, that this practice wasn't necessary. But yet he goes out and does it to Timothy what seems like the next day. Decree? I would argue not. But that is my opinion.
Look at why he did so, goes back to what James said to the gathering in Jerusalem.
So as to not offend the Jewish majority, both inside and outside of the Christian community.
Advice was take it or leave it opinion.
Frank75
-
M.J.
Just to play devil's advocate...
What prevents blood removal from an animal that is already dead? Does the blood coagulate and prevent a real draining of the blood from such an animal? I believe I read that somewhere but I never came across any confirmation. (I ain't in Arkansas--I don't make a habit of picking up road kill--j/k to those in Arkansas)
Does the meat end up with more blood in it?
-
Narkissos
A comparison of Acts 15 and Galatians shows, imo, that the former misrepresents James' stance on circumcision. If Galatians (2:12) is to be taken seriously, James sent envoys to Antioch in order to make sure that no "communion" would exist between Jewish and uncircumcised "Christians". This (in addition to the inner inconsistencies of Acts as I pointed out before) strongly suggests that, in Acts 15, James is made to appear more lenient to the Gentile "believers" than he really was. Another divergence is that the conflict between Paul and Barnabas is given a rather petty explanation in Acts 15 (v. 36ff), while in Galatians they are opposed on the very issue of communion between Jews and Gentiles (2:11ff).
One additional word on Romans 14 and M.J.'s initial post: while there is a strong argument that "abstaining from meat" can be traced back to the difficulty of observing the Torah's dietary laws (including the prohibition of blood) in a diaspora situation, it must be pointed out that full-fledged vegetarianism is also an important religious feature of several "Jewish-Christian" groups such as the Ebionites. So there may have been more positive reasons than the uncertainty about ceremonial cleanness (by common Jewish standards) behind that stance -- even though Paul construes it as "weakness".
-
M.J.
Good point, Narkissos. But there's also lexical evidence in Romans 14:14, in favor of abstinence of meat as motivated by Jewish concerns:
I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
According to something I came across:
In Hellenistic Judaism, unclean--M.J.] came to designate those items which were cultically impure. As mentioned above, Paul's use of it in Rom. 14.14 is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for tracing the "weak" abstinence to a Jewish background. It is difficult to know what significance
Mark Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14.1-15.13 in Context (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series), 1999, p. 131.
-
Narkissos
M.J.
I do believe you have a fairly good point here; I'm not attacking it, just pointing to another possible angle.
That there may be more than ceremonial cleanness (in the usual sense, because some vegetarians among early Jewish Christians may have construed all meat as "unclean" from a hyper-righteous perspective) is apparent from two other Pauline references to meat:
1 Corinthians 8:13: Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall. Here the context is not about dietary laws per se, rather about "food sacrificed to idols" which the "weak" might construe as "idolatry" (i.e., something more serious than ceremonial uncleanness)
Romans 14:20f, Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for you to make others fall by what you eat; it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother or sister stumble. Wine is never regarded as "unclean" in the Torah -- yet it is included in what Daniel and his friends abstain from in Daniel 1:8ff.
Iow, the prohibition on blood may be one possible factor among many leading some Jewish Christians to abstain from meat altogether -- other Torah dietary laws (unclean animals, or separation of meat from milk as in later rabbinical kashruth), and complete vegetarianism (along with rejection of alcohol) might also be taken into account.
-
M.J.
Thanks Narkissos. Good points. I didn't mean to seem defensive, if I did. On the contrary, I want to understand all possible angles on this. That's why I put it out there.