Posts by Giles Gray

35

An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.

by Giles Gray in

i recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.

he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.

i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.

Giles Gray

Thanks Neat Blue Dog.

Those points stood out to me too. It's so obvious when examined objectively.

The most profound point for me was the fact that there was no mandate specified when the calling went out to the Gentiles. It took God 13 years to inform the Gentile Christians that they were subject to part of the law.

Why on earth would God wait all those years?

Think how much time & effort that it took to inform all the Gentiles who had been converted in the mean time. All of that work could have been avoided by informing the Gentiles of God's wishes right from the start.

Makes no logical sense.

35

An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.

by Giles Gray in

i recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.

he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.

i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.

Giles Gray

@ Vidiot

You are absolutely right. My writing is far too long and I’m sure this JW was overwhelmed. I just found his attitude patronising. He just couldn’t let it go and seemed compelled to air his ‘superior’ position.

I thought I would give him something to think about.

35

An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.

by Giles Gray in

i recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.

he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.

i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.

Giles Gray

Part 5

“Abstain from blood”?

Taking a balanced view, it would in all honesty be presumptuous to conclude that Paul’s attitude towards food sacrificed to idols was necessarily equally applicable to the other requirements listed in Acts 15:29. After all, abstaining from fornication was upheld in Paul’s council to the congregations. (1 Corinthians 6:18) Jesus also reflected this position. (Matthew 5:32 ; 19:18)

Consequently, it would not be even-handed to automatically assume that abstaining from blood must be considered in the same vein as food sacrificed to idols, and rationally, it can only be concluded that there is no definitive answer either way, as the bible leaves its readers with a degree of doubt about the matter.

Depending on one’s hermeneutics, it could be considered that the bible’s ambiguity is evidence that Christians are still under obligation to follow the direction at Acts 15:29.

However, an alternative conclusion could be to reason that as modern-day Christians no longer find themselves in a position where Jews or Gentiles could be easily offended or stumbled, there is consequently now no valid reason to abstain from blood.

Considering that…

—God accepted and anointed with Holy Spirit the People of the Nations for thirteen years without ordering them to observe the Law, and did not even mention it…

--It was acceptable even according to God’s Law for the Israelites to sell un-bled meet to unconverted Gentiles who lived in their cities (Deuteronomy 14:21)…

—The only reason that the subject of the Law regarding Gentiles was raised was because of the presumptuousness of Jewish brothers who were not approved, and it was not because God had required it…

—Paul, Barnabas, Peter and James all argued that the Gentiles were not under obligation to the Law…

—The reason given for the direction of the Council of Jerusalem was because on every Sabbath, the part of the Law in question was read out and would have been familiar to the Jews and proselytes who attended the synagogues in every city…

—Food sacrificed to idols was permissible unless it was a cause for stumbling…

…then the more logical conclusion is that the prohibitions in Acts 15:29 were only promoted to maintain harmony and avoid giving offence to delicate Jewish sensibilities at that time, and consequently were never considered to be permanently binding for future Christians.

The question remains… if Christians are no longer in a position where they are required to consider those bound by the Law, are they still obligated to respect the decisions made at the Council of Jerusalem? If they are not, there would be no necessity for Christians to follow a blood prohibition mandate, such as that observed by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

With no definitive answers, this topic remains highly debatable, leaving the acceptance of blood as a matter of conscience.

35

An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.

by Giles Gray in

i recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.

he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.

i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.

Giles Gray

Part 4

“Abstain from food sacrificed to idols” (Act 15:29)

Around the year 55 C.E., the issue of eating food sacrificed to idols was specifically addressed by Paul in his letter to the Corinthian congregation.

1 Corinthians 8:4,7-13:-

“4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.”…

7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.” (NIV)

Another translation paraphrases verse 8 as:-

“Just remember that God doesn’t care whether we eat it or not. We are no worse off if we don’t eat it, and no better off if we do.” TLB

It is clear from the verses above that Paul, writing to the brothers in Corinth, did not in fact consider it mandatory to abstain from ‘food sacrificed to idols’. In fact, the only reason why Paul recommended that someone forfeit their right to eat meat that had been offered up to an idol was purely in order to avoid stumbling the sensibilities of a fellow Christian, a recurring theme with regards to what is deemed lawful and not stumbling one’s ‘brother’.

This is reiterated later on in Paul’s letter:-

“I have the right to do anything”, you say – but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything” – but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others. Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”

If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

So whatever you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God…” (1 Corinthians 10:23-32) NIV

The verses above indicate that Paul was stating that eating the food sacrificed to idols was perfectly acceptable. However, he specifically forbade the eating of those foods when it would stumble a fellow believer whose receptivity to change had been weakened due to their past when they worshipped such idols by eating those food offerings. Paul also cautioned against stumbling Jews and Gentiles, harmonising perfectly with the decision made at the Council of Jerusalem.

This again demonstrates that in context with Acts 15:29, those requirements were only a concession made for functional reasons. Abstaining from food sacrificed to idols was purely to give an appearance of compliance with the Law. It was not a Christian law of itself and was never binding on the Gentile Christians.

Had the decisions made at the Council of Jerusalem been mandatory, Paul would have simply rebuked the Corinthian brothers who were eating the meat offered up to idols. Instead, Paul makes no such admonition, a fact which contradicts the understanding that the Council’s decisions were compulsory.

Paul’s letter to the Romans conforms with 1 Corinthians 8,10 in its counsel about food sacrificed to idols.

It says in Romans 14:1-4:-

“Accept the person whose faith is weak. Don’t argue with them where you have differences of opinion. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything. But another person eats only vegetables because their faith is weak. The person who eats everything must not look down on the one who does not. And the one who doesn’t eat everything must not judge the person who does. That’s because God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? Whether they are faithful or not is their own master’s concern. And they will be faithful, because the Lord has the power to make them faithful.” NIRV

It is again important to acknowledge the attitudes of the people involved.

Similar to the division between the Christians in Jerusalem, the Gentile brothers who abstained from eating meat which had been offered to idols, resented the brothers who did eat it. And similar to Peter’s words at the Jerusalem Council, Paul explained that the brothers who ate meat had already been ‘accepted’ by God through Holy Spirit.

However, Paul later wrote:-

“Let us stop judging one another. Instead, decide not to put anything in the way of a brother of sister. Don’t put anything in their way that would make them trip and fall. I am absolutely sure that nothing is “unclean” in itself. The Lord Jesus has convinced me of this. But someone may consider a thing to be “unclean.” If they do, it is “unclean” for them. Your brother or sister may be upset by what you eat. If they are, you are no longer acting as though you love them. So don’t destroy them by what you eat. Remember that Christ died for them.” NIRV (Romans 14:13-15)

Here once again we can see that even though Christians were free to eat the meat offered to idols, they were to abstain from it for the sake of the brothers who would be easily upset, for fear these brothers would ‘trip and fall’ from the faith.

This is exactly the same remedy decided on in Acts 15:20-21. In order to avoid offending the Jews, the Gentile brothers would do what was necessary to not stumble the Jews. This theme recurs time and time again in Paul’s letters.

Paul finishes this section of his letter by saying:-

“So let us do all we can to live in peace. And let us work hard to build up one another. Don’t destroy the work of God because of food. All food is “clean”. But it’s wrong to eat anything that might cause problems for someone else’s faith. Don’t eat meat if it causes your brother or sister to sin. Don’t drink wine or do anything else that will make them sin.” NIRV (Romans 14:19-21)

In other words… because your brother will be stumbled if you do, ‘abstain from things sacrificed to idols’… which is exactly the same conclusion arrived at by James in Jerusalem.

The rule was not that you can’t eat meat. The rule was to not stumble your brother.

(It is interesting to note that the counsel from Paul in both passages - 1 Corinthians 8,10 and Romans 14, slants away from predominantly addressing issues with the Jewish sensitivities, and focuses more on the fragility of the Gentile brothers in those congregations, though both letters do give a token mention to the Jewish brothers. This could be a result of the fact that both Corinth and Rome were predominantly populated by Gentiles, as they were on the other side of the Macedonian/Galatian border. However, the intention of Paul’s counsel to avoid stumbling one’s brother remains, and when read in context, it parallels the account in Acts 15:29 regarding the easily stumbled Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.)

The scriptures considered above heavily suggests that the list of prohibitions in Acts 15:29 were compromises implemented uniquely and specifically for that time, to keep the congregations strong. They strongly imply that these prohibitions were never intended as strict rules to be imposed on all Christians in future times when the issue of stumbling Jewish brothers would become irrelevant.

35

An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.

by Giles Gray in

i recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.

he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.

i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.

Giles Gray

Part 3

The controversial verses of Acts 15

Acts 15:20 is of great importance to Jehovah’s Witnesses, because their policy on blood was established on the basis of their interpretation of this verse:-

“Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.” NIV (Acts 15:20)

These instructions were based on the list of requirements stipulated in the Mosaic Law and were to be obeyed by the Gentile converts to Judaism…see: Leviticus 17:7-18:30. (A religious proselyte was also required to follow the rest of the Law, including circumcision).

Acts 15:20 is one of the most quoted in JW apologetics. It is used to assert that all true Christians are under obligation from God to obey the four listed requirements.

However, this verse appears to fly in the face of all of the preceding evidence that indicates the contrary position. It doesn’t fit with the fact that God had openly demonstrated His acceptance and approval of Gentiles without expecting them to be bound to the Law and that He had allowed this to continue with no objection for 13 years.

The reason for requiring Gentiles to “abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood”

Does verse 20 necessarily say what Jehovah’s Witnesses claim it does?

The verse that follows it says:-

“For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”” NIV (Acts 15:21)

Another translation puts it:-

“For the Law of Moses has been read for a very long time in the synagogues every Sabbath, and his words are preached in every town.” GNT

Yet another paraphrases it this way:-

“For these things have been preached against in Jewish synagogues in every city on every Sabbath for many generations.” TLB

The reason these requirements were given to the Gentile brothers was not because they were under obligation to observe any part of the Law. By tradition, the Law was preached in every Jewish synagogue in every town every week, reinforcing the importance of abstaining from the proscribed items in the eyes of the Jews. So if a Gentile did not observe those parts of the Law, or more importantly, was publicly seen to be ignoring them, Jewish sensibilities would be highly offended and upset.

The Gentiles were instructed to follow those aspects of the Law only to facilitate their acceptance into the Christian community, so they could avoid upsetting long held Jewish sensitivities and integrate more smoothly. It was a compromise for the sake of the Jewish Christians who were protesting at the Council of Jerusalem, and was advised in order to aid the smooth running of the congregations.

Deferring to the sensibilities of the Jews

Is there any biblical evidence to back up this rendition of Acts 15?

We have already seen how problematic it was for the Jewish brothers after the People of the Nations were incorporated into the church. But there are also several other examples that harmonise with the idea that Acts 15:28,29 was merely a concession made at the time for the sake of the Jews.

Directly after the Council of Jerusalem it says in Acts 16:1-3:-

“16 So he arrived at Derbe and also at Lystra. 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 Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul expressed the desire for this man to go out with him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for one and all knew that his father was a Greek.”

There are parallels in these scriptures with the circumstances in Acts 15. Even though it had very recently been established that it would be perfectly acceptable for Timothy to accompany Paul despite being uncircumcised, nevertheless Paul carried out the ritual procedure on Timothy in compliance with the Law. It was entirely unnecessary but the reason was… because of the opinion of the Jews.

Ironically, the very message Timothy was about to deliver to the congregations, was the decisions made at the Council of Jerusalem about the lack of necessity for Gentiles to be circumcised.

So again we have a situation where a Gentile needlessly defers to a certain aspect of the Law, out of consideration for the Jews, despite there being no obligation to do so.

Deference to the Jews during another trip to Jerusalem

In Acts 21:18-26 we find yet another revealing example that took place in 56 C.E.

“18 But on the following [day] Paul went in with us to James; and all the older men were present. 19 And he greeted them and began giving in detail, an account of the things God did among the nations through his ministry.

20 After hearing this they began to glorify God, and they said to him: “You behold, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews; and they are all zealous for the Law. 21 But they have heard it rumoured about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them neither to circumcise their children nor to walk in the [solemn] customs.” (Acts 21:18-21)

Paul related his experiences regarding the Gentiles, which prompted the elders in Jerusalem to express their concerns over the Jewish brothers and their over-zealousness for the Law. This zeal caused them to take issue with what Paul preached in his ministry and view him in a bad light.

It is odd that the rumours about Paul which concerned the elders, although embellished, were not far from the truth. (1 Corinthians 7:18,19 ; Romans 7:6 ; 10:4 ; Galatians 5:1-3,6,11)

So why were the elders apprehensive concerning the opinions that the Jewish brothers were expressing about Paul?

Acts 21:22-24 says:-

“ 22 What, then, is to be done about it? In any case they are going to hear you have arrived. 23 Therefore do this which we tell you: We have four men with a vow upon themselves. 24 Take these men along and cleanse yourself ceremonially with them and take care of their expenses, that they may have their heads shaved. And so everybody will know that there is nothing to the rumours they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly, you yourself also keeping the Law.”

The elders in Jerusalem were worried about upsetting the sensibilities of the Jewish Christians, whose zealous passion for the Law caused them to be easily offended.

So they asked Paul and his companions to make an ostentatious display of complying with the Law as a pragmatic means to appease the Jews who were still under a misapprehension about God’s requirements. Paul complied and made a purposeful and conspicuous display of compliance so as to reassure and not stumble the Jewish brothers.

However, it was not only Paul and his companions who had been asked to follow the Law for the sake of the Jewish brothers. Acts continues:-

“25 As for the believers from among the nations, we have sent out, rendering our decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.””

…or as another translation paraphrases:-

“As for the Gentile Christians, we aren’t asking them to follow these Jewish customs at all – except for the ones we wrote to them about: not to eat food offered to idols, not to eat unbled meat from strangled animals, and not to commit fornication.” TLB

The scriptures in Acts 21:18-26 reveal the true nature behind the decisions made at the Council of Jerusalem. In context, it becomes evident that the ‘People of the Nations’ were only being asked to observe part of the Law again so as not to offend the Jews and the Jewish brothers.

This understanding is confirmed by what happens next.

“. . .“Men of Israel, help! This is the man that teaches everybody everywhere against the people and the Law and this place and, what is more, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”” (Acts 21:28)

The plot devised by the elders to appease the Jews had failed. Even though Paul, his companions and the Gentiles had all made a token gesture of following the Law, the people were still offended. Paul’s presence in Jerusalem riled the Jews.

But it is interesting to note that the accusation against Paul, among other things, was that he ‘brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled’ their place of worship.

The fact that the Jews were seeking to kill Paul shows just how volatile the situation was, and explains precisely why the Gentiles were asked to observe parts of the Law at the Council of Jerusalem. It was not because they were under obligation to follow any part of the Law. It was to ensure the Jews were not offended by their presence, as demonstrated in Acts 16 and 21.

Complying with those parts of the Law created the outward impression that the Gentile brothers were proselyte converts, when it truth they were not. (Compare Deuteronomy 14:21 against Leviticus 17:10) The decision made at the Council of Jerusalem overcame the religious objections made by the Jewish brothers, who held the false belief that the Gentile brothers could only be saved by following the Law.

The decision also meant that the ‘zealous’ Jewish brothers no longer brought the Mosaic Law into disrepute by associating with ‘unclean’ Gentiles, appeasing their fragile sensibilities.

However, all the evidence above raises the question: were the rules determined at the Council of Jerusalem considered permanent?

35

An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.

by Giles Gray in

i recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.

he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.

i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.

Giles Gray

Part 2

Issues raised at the Council of Jerusalem

For around thirteen years following Peter’s visit to Cornelius, Jewish and Gentile Christians worshipped together with God’s approval. However, the Jewish concerns regarding the issue of circumcision, though previously officially resolved, hadn’t gone away.

Around 49 C.E. the subject was raised once again by Jewish brothers who had travelled to Antioch, and they were demanding that the Gentiles must be circumcised. (Acts 15:1)

As unreasonable as it initially sounds, the reason why the Jewish brothers expressed their concerns is understandable, considering that circumcision had been a major factor of their theology for hundreds of years (see: Genesis 17:9-14), and also bearing in mind the complications and difficulties that came from associating with the Gentile brothers.

For the Jews, the ritual of religious circumcision had always been of great importance and significance, and they were highly sensitive about the issue. The tension created by having to tolerate the ruling that fellow Gentile Christians were not obligated to follow the Law in this respect, placed the Jews under heavy pressure. They found themselves in an uneasy and awkward situation, so much so, that even some of the apostles and those taking the lead succumbed under the strain and objected. (Galatians 2:11-13)

The following explains the background of events that had taken place just prior to the journey to Jerusalem.

Acts 14:27-15:2 says:-

“27 When they had arrived and had gathered the congregation together, they proceeded to relate the many things God had done by means of them, and that he had opened to the nations the door to faith. 28 So they spent not a little time with the disciples.

15 And certain men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers: “Unless YOU get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, YOU cannot be saved.” 2 But when there had occurred no little dissension and disputing by Paul and Barnabas with them, they arranged for Paul and Barnabas and some others of them to go up to the apostles and older men in Jerusalem regarding this dispute.”

It is important to identify the status of the individuals involved. Paul and Barnabas were approved missionaries, whereas the ‘men from Judea’ had not been ‘appointed’. (Acts 15:24)

Having seen all the things that ‘God had done among the Gentiles through them’ in their missionary work, both Paul and Barnabas were arguing against the Jewish brothers in the debate about the requirement for the Gentile’s to observe the Law.

To resolve the issue it was decided to hold the Council of Jerusalem, in order to once again consider this matter.

Acts 15:3-5 says:-

“3 Accordingly, after being conducted partway by the congregation, these men continued on their way through both Phoenicia and Samaria, relating in detail the conversion of people of the nations, and they were causing great joy to all the brothers. 4 On arriving in Jerusalem they were kindly received by the congregation and the apostles and the older men, and they recounted the many things God had done by means of them. 5 Yet, some of those of the sect of the Pharisees that had believed rose up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and charge them to observe the law of Moses.””

Amongst the gathering of apostles and elders at the Jerusalem Council, the former Pharisees, who had not been approved, were on one side, demanding the Gentiles become circumcised and ‘observe the law of Moses’. On the other side were Paul and Barnabas, the approved brothers, arguing that the Gentiles were not obligated to follow the Law. Paul and Barnabas had witnessed God’s decisions first hand and were able to testify to the fact that God had accepted the Gentiles.

After much discussion, Peter, whom God had originally used to convey His decisions regarding the Law, gave his opinion:-

“Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Acts 15:6-11) NIV

Peter’s conviction was firm and he was in full agreement with Paul and Barnabas that the Gentiles had no obligation to observe the Law. Peter unequivocally stated that ‘God made a choice’ to use him, and had considered the Gentiles’ hearts and ‘accepted’ them. God no longer made a distinction between Jew or Gentile because He had ‘purified their hearts by faith’, indicating that He no longer considered them ‘unclean’. (Acts 10:15) Peter then went on to rebuke the Jews for testing God by trying to impose the Law on the Gentile brothers.

Another translation of the bible puts verses 10 and 11 this way:-

“So now why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are.” NET

Of interest is verse 11. Peter used the words ‘we believe’.

This implies that what Peter announced in verse 11 was a collective decision made by the ‘apostles and the elders’ referred to in verse 6, who had gathered to deliberate. It was concluded by these brothers that the Gentiles were not under any obligation to follow the Law because God had already demonstrated acceptance of the Gentiles, thirteen years previously.

After Peter’s address to the brothers, Paul and Barnabas reaffirmed the Council’s decision by further expounding on the way God’s spirit had given clear indications that the Gentiles were already accepted by Him. (Acts 15:12)

James then addressed the congregation:-

“… “Brothers” he said, “ listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

“After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things” - things known from long ago.

‘It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”” NIV (Acts 15:13-19)

In this passage James acknowledged the evidence from Paul and Barnabas along with Peter’s reiteration of his experiences in 36 C.E. James also presented the prophesy that affirms that God always intended to accept the Gentiles into the church.

Therefore, the issue was settled. The Council found that there was no obligation for the Gentiles to submit to the Law. Instead they were to be accepted because of the grace of God.

35

An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.

by Giles Gray in

i recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.

he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.

i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.

Giles Gray

Part 1

An in-depth examination of events that occurred in the 1st Century after the inclusion of Gentiles into the Christian congregation reveals an alternative understanding to the Watchtower’s teachings on the meaning of Acts 15:28-29.

Around 36 C.E, the Roman centurion Cornelius who was stationed in Caesarea, became the first of the Gentile Christians. He experienced a Divine vision and was instructed by an angel to send his men on a journey to find Peter (Acts 10:5).

A day later, in Joppa, the apostle Peter also had a Divine revelation involving four-footed creatures, reptiles and birds. The voice in his vision said:-

“13 …“Rise, Peter, slaughter and eat!” 14 But Peter said: “Not at all, Lord, because never have I eaten anything defiled and unclean.” 15 And the voice [spoke] again to him, the second time: “You stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed.”” (Acts 10:13-15)

Noteworthy is the part highlighted in bold. Peter was commanded to ‘stop calling defiled the things GOD has cleansed’.

After this puzzling vision, the Holy Spirit commanded Peter to go to the house of Cornelius. Accompanied by some Jewish believers from Joppa, he departed with the men who were sent to find him, and on reaching Caesarea, they entered the home of Cornelius. In the house, Peter was greeted by Cornelius and a group of his Gentile friends and relatives, and his words to them are of interest.

In Acts 10:28 Peter says:-

“YOU well know how unlawful it is for a Jew to join himself to or approach a man of another race; and yet God has shown me I should call no man defiled or unclean.”

Even though Peter was breaking the Jewish Law by entering the home of a Gentile and ignoring the long-held beliefs of his people, he was emboldened to do so as a direct result of the instructions he was given by the voice in the vision. He now understood that God had decided to end the separation between ‘clean and unclean’ and the purpose of his vision had been to demonstrate that God now accepted Gentiles as ‘cleansed’, and that salvation was not only for Jews but also for Gentiles, even though at that time, the latter were uncircumcised, and therefore not following the Law.

Note also that having now become acquainted with the Gentiles, Peter begins his speech by saying:-

“For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, 35 but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.” (Acts 10: 34-35)

Conspicuous by its absence was any mention of communication from God commanding that Gentiles must adhere to the Law. Instead, Peter pronounced that these people were acceptable to God because of their fear for Him and because their works were righteous.

It is also significant that even though the Gentiles were devout and feared God, they were not proselytes (converts to Judaism) and would have been completely at liberty, according to the Law, to eat meat that contained blood if they so chose. (Deuteronomy 14:21)

If it had been God’s purpose for the Gentile converts to Christianity to follow any aspect of the Law of Moses, this occasion would have been an appropriate time for Him to make known His commands. God was in direct communication with Peter at that very moment, so the conveyance of any directions or commandments to the Gentiles would have been straightforward. But nothing was forthcoming.

The pouring out of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius and his household, and their speaking in tongues further confirmed God’s approval of the Gentiles. This was regardless of their lack of observance of the Law, a fact that caused the Jewish brothers who were present to be astounded (Acts 10:45).

As Peter had explained to Cornelius, it was ‘unlawful’ for a Jew to associate with the ‘People of the Nations’. The integration of the Gentiles into the Christian congregation, although meeting Divine approval, would soon prove to be a serious matter for the Jews and the Jewish Christians.

After a brief stay with Cornelius and his household, during which the Gentiles were baptised, Peter travelled to Jerusalem and was immediately confronted there by the Jewish brothers who were ‘supporters of circumcision’, and keen followers of the Law. (Acts 11:2). These brothers did not raise any objections to the ground-breaking news of the baptism of Gentiles, but they were seriously troubled to hear that Peter had disobeyed the Law by entering the house of someone uncircumcised and had eaten at his table, and they began to accuse him and contend with him over his actions. (Acts 11:2,3).

After explaining all the events that led up to his meeting with Cornelius, Peter said:-

“So If God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?

When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying ‘So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life’” NIV (Acts 11:17-18)

The Jewish brothers who were scrupulous about the Law, accepted Peter’s testimony. Noteworthy is fact that they had ‘no further objections’.

At stake in the discussions about the Gentile converts was how the Jewish Christians could continue to honour the Law which was given to their ancestors by God and was recorded in their scriptures, whilst at the same time having fellowship with Gentile Christians, without insisting the Gentiles keep the Jewish religious laws.

There was clearly no Divine obligation for Gentiles to adhere to the Law because both Peter and the Holy Spirit had confirmed God’s approval, as well as the fact that God didn’t intervene at that moment when the brothers were gathered in Jerusalem. This juncture would have been the ideal opportunity, should God have ordained that Gentiles must obey parts of the Law, for Him to inform the brothers in Jerusalem that the Gentiles must also ‘abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood’. And yet God said nothing whatsoever.

It would have been the optimum time for God to speak because the good news was just about to be spread far and wide to the ‘People of the Nations’. (Acts 11:20-21) In that scenario, God’s requirements would have been passed on to the newly converted Christians as part and parcel of their faith and they would have then been aware that they must adjust their daily lives to live in harmony with His will. But this did not occur.

If the issue had been crucial to God, it would be absurd to suggest that He would have omitted to say anything at this point in time, as clarifying his wishes would have avoided future complications in the relationship between Jewish and Gentile Christians.

35

An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.

by Giles Gray in

i recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.

he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.

i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.

Giles Gray

I recently had an online exchange with an active JW about the blood issue. He originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but I pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that JWs reject blood, and therefore I didn’t see any value in debating that topic.

Not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting Acts 15:29.

It’s been a while since I looked into the subject, and I admit I’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but I remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the Watchtower’s rendition of Acts 15:29.

I offered to do some bible research and get back to the JW, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas. I reassured him that I was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact I was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong. He said he awaited my response with interest.

I resolved to be strict about using only the bible in my response, and I refrained from researching on the internet or elsewhere for information because I wanted to be as objective as possible and present what I found without being influenced by the opinions of others.

It took about a week to do some bible reading and compose my thoughts before writing them down, but in the process of researching, I unearthed some information that was new and surprising to me, and which I haven’t seen discussed elsewhere.

I posted my alternative understanding of the proceedings of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, looking forward to seeing what the JW came back with, but a few weeks have now passed and disappointingly he has not responded. A couple of other JWs showed an interest, but none took on the challenge of discussing my points. It seems to be par for the course that they don’t engage when they are unable to defend their beliefs.

So I thought I would post my thoughts here for JWN members to critique, as I know there are some deep thinkers here who will comment if I have missed something important or if there are further implications to draw out from my ideas. It would be interesting and helpful to be given some feed back from former members of the Watchtower, now it's clear that no current JWs are prepared to respond.

As my explanation is relatively lengthy, I know some here won't have the time or patience to read it, but if anyone who enjoys biblical exegesis is willing to consider my points, I would be very pleased to hear from you.

I have broken my thoughts into five sections for ease of reference, and will add them in separate posts to follow…...

25

Genesis 1:16 and apologists- vegetation before the Sun?

by joey jojo in

gen 1: 11 says: .

11 then god said, “let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so.

12 the earth produced [n]vegetation, [o]plants yielding seed according to [p]their kind, and trees bearing fruit [q]with seed in them, according to [r]their kind; and god saw that it was good.

Giles Gray

A few years ago I had a couple of JWs call. Not wanting to frighten them off with ‘apostate’ arguments, I decided to question them about the order of creation in the bible. I pointed out the problem of the fourth creative day being out of sequence.

They came back with the Watchtower’s apologetics about the atmosphere clearing and the sun, moon and stars becoming visible from a perspective of how it would have been seen from earth.

So I asked them what God actually did on the fourth creative day, apart from watching dust settle. I pointed out that God didn’t actually ‘create’ anything.

The chap who was accompanying the young man I was conversing with burst out in laughter. This seemed to undermine the confidence of the young man whose call it was and he slightly blushed and looked a bit under pressure.

He promised me that he would go away and see if there was any information on the subject and get back to me. He said it was important to have these kind of questions answered.

He never returned.

77

A question about the contemporary generation teaching following a conversation with a JW apologist

by Giles Gray in

i would like to ask the ex-jws on this site to put their ‘apologists hat’ back on for a moment, so that i can go through the overlapping generation teaching in an attempt to make sense of it.

i apologise if these points have already been addressed on this site.a quick background for the reason for my request… having never confronted a jw apologist on the topic, i recently engaged with a jw regarding the official understanding of a ‘generation’ and unfortunately he didn’t have an answer to the points i was making.

i was left a little confused as to what the official jw response would/should be.so i was hoping that my thoughts below might be considered from an apologist’s perspective.the point in question relates to this section of the watchtower article below from 2008, as well as the jw.org video explanation of the overlapping generation:---:w08 2/15[box on page 25] can we calculate the length of “this generation”?the word “generation” usually refers to people of various ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period or event.

Giles Gray

Waton:-

“For wt weiters, any pre -1914 characters are an embarrassment, and not even part of their 1919 F&DS. Forward overlap is bad enough, why add the backfilp overlap too?”

That was the part of the video that I found the most confusing. I have no idea why Splane bothered to even mention what a contemporary generation was from Joseph’s perspective. Why explain that someone who died just a few hours before Joseph was born would not be considered as overlapping, which I assume draws the conclusion that someone who died just a few minutes after Joseph’s birth would be viewed as a contemporary, and then omit to represent that statement on the chart?

They would have been better off ignoring a backwards time projection altogether and only focus on a forward time projection.

However, I don’t see how they can equate their explanation to the contemporary generation depicted in Exodus 1:6. The bible’s example includes the slight overlap due to the fact that the brothers were all born over a period of time. Whereas the WTs depiction is just about anybody who lived within Joseph’s entire lifespan up to a few seconds before his birth and a few seconds after his death.

I think ‘embarrassment’ is an understatement.

OnTheWayOut:-

“The short story- There was a group of JW’s alive in 1914 whose lives significantly overlapped with JW’s later, and without any reason whatsoever (other than that time is up on their old doctrines), they are saying the two groups are one big overlapping generation, and the end will come before the second group passes away.”

I have to confess that this nearly made me spit my tea out.

I love your lacklustre approach to honorary apologetics.

Basically, you are saying that it is almost impossible to defend. It must be so embarrassing for JWs who have the task of defending this teaching in their ministry.

joey jojo:

“Trying to reason with a jw will leave you frustrated and unsatisfied.”

In my exchange I found it was the opposite. This chap was debating on a public forum and so the questions I asked him, which he was unable to answer, helped highlight just how ludicrous and out of context the Watchtower’s definition really is.

He gave up a little too easily which left me wondering if there was anything more that he failed to disclose.

dozy:-

“But to be honest – why bother trying to convince an active JW? It’s a pointless exercise.”

My objective wasn’t to convince anyone out of their faith. It was more to question them on their belief in order to highlight where their beliefs breakdown. By doing so, any rational person reading the exchange for themselves will be able to see the glaring flaw.

I have no interest in engaging with JWs for my own amusement, although I do enjoy it when they knock on my door… which is not very often these days.

Vidiot:-

“Other than servitude to an authoritarian high control group, there’s not much of an agenda… The real reason the majority of ‘apologists’ stay is because they know what kind of draconian consequences they’ll experience if they don’t.”

I’m not sure that the ‘majority’ are in it for that reason. My guess would be that most are in the religion because they fear their own mortality and struggle to cope with the realities of life.

However, I’m sure there are a good portion of them that remain among the ranks for fear of what they will lose.