Changes in Biblical Morality II

[micatala]

In order to narrow the focus a bit from the other Changes in Biblical Morality thread, this thread will focus on what major event in the early church, described in Acts Ch. 15

1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
18that have been known for ages.[c]

19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead 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. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

In this passage, Peter convinces the other early church leaders to change Biblical morality and centuries of tradition. No longer were believers required to follow all of the Mosaic law, particularly the law related to circumcision.

Notice all the reasons for allowing the change, two of which I have bolded.

Questions for debate are:

What does this instance tell us about the appropriateness of changing 'moral law' for believers?

Does this passage allow today's Christians the freedom to change moral law with respect to current controversial practices, like homosexuality?

Under what circumstances?

[Confused]

In order to narrow the focus a bit from the other Changes in Biblical Morality thread, this thread will focus on what major event in the early church, described in Acts Ch. 15

1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
18that have been known for ages.[c]

19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead 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. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

In this passage, Peter convinces the other early church leaders to change Biblical morality and centuries of tradition. No longer were believers required to follow all of the Mosaic law, particularly the law related to circumcision.

Notice all the reasons for allowing the change, two of which I have bolded.

Questions for debate are:

What does this instance tell us about the appropriateness of changing 'moral law' for believers?

Does this passage allow today's Christians the freedom to change moral law with respect to current controversial practices, like homosexuality?

Under what circumstances?

To quote on this I had to read the entire ACTS 15. Before I could actually answer your debate questions I need to know who defined the sexual immorality? There is no clear reference to sexual immorality and what it means. ACTS is my weakest gospel, so does it say elsewhere what was to be considered sexual immorality at the time and what was now to be considered sexual morality?

[micatala]

Before I could actually answer your debate questions I need to know who defined the sexual immorality? There is no clear reference to sexual immorality and what it means. ACTS is my weakest gospel, so does it say elsewhere what was to be considered sexual immorality at the time and what was now to be considered sexual morality?

My understanding is that sexual immorality would include adultery, homosexuality, and possibly other sex acts between heterosexuals.

It is true that Peter's solution includes forbidding 'sexual morality'. However, I am bringing up the passage not only because of what the 'new rule' says in particular, but more because of the actual act of making a new rule, any kind of new rule.

James is arguing that we should not place an 'undue burden' on the Gentiles, and ask them to follow all the rules that Jews typically followed. These rules, including the rule regarding circumcision, were centuries old, holy laws given to the Israelites by God through Moses. James seems to be implying that not only the circumcision rule, but also other rules that are not specifically mentioned, need not be followed by the Gentiles in order to be believers.

Whatever the new rule is, it does not change that they decided that it was OK to change a centuries old rule given to them by God. My question is, given this precedent, should Christians today also feel free to 'change the rules' under analogous circumstances.



If we want to consider the particulars of the new rule, that is OK. However, I wold argue against the idea that this particular new rule must be set in stone forever and ever. If we can change Moses, why can we not change the Apostles?

In fact, Christians arguably already have, as no one today would let the rule written here prevent them from eating blood or meat from stangled animals.

[Confused]

Before I could actually answer your debate questions I need to know who defined the sexual immorality? There is no clear reference to sexual immorality and what it means. ACTS is my weakest gospel, so does it say elsewhere what was to be considered sexual immorality at the time and what was now to be considered sexual morality?

My understanding is that sexual immorality would include adultery, homosexuality, and possibly other sex acts between heterosexuals.

It is true that Peter's solution includes forbidding 'sexual morality'. However, I am bringing up the passage not only because of what the 'new rule' says in particular, but more because of the actual act of making a new rule, any kind of new rule.

James is arguing that we should not place an 'undue burden' on the Gentiles, and ask them to follow all the rules that Jews typically followed. These rules, including the rule regarding circumcision, were centuries old, holy laws given to the Israelites by God through Moses. James seems to be implying that not only the circumcision rule, but also other rules that are not specifically mentioned, need not be followed by the Gentiles in order to be believers.

Whatever the new rule is, it does not change that they decided that it was OK to change a centuries old rule given to them by God. My question is, given this precedent, should Christians today also feel free to 'change the rules' under analogous circumstances.



If we want to consider the particulars of the new rule, that is OK. However, I wold argue against the idea that this particular new rule must be set in stone forever and ever. If we can change Moses, why can we not change the Apostles?

In fact, Christians arguably already have, as no one today would let the rule written here prevent them from eating blood or meat from stangled animals.

So what your asking is if Christianity can adapt again to todays societal values? Brilliant. Now all we need is for another Messiah to come along to give us the approval to adapt. These laws noted were adaptations by Moses, then again by peter, paul, etc..... now I don't know that Christ sanctified these changes since none of Acts actually contains the words of Christ except maybe 3-4 paragraphs. None of which address this. Though I know they were addressed in previous books such as Mark and Matthew, but what Christ preached in these weren't really adaptations to the new society. Rather than they were reinforcements for Gods 10 previous commandments. So I dont' see how it would be possible for adapting to todays society as a "true Chrisitian" without having Christ himself give the dictation to do so.

[micatala]

So what your asking is if Christianity can adapt again to todays societal values? Brilliant. Now all we need is for another Messiah to come along to give us the approval to adapt.

I don't see that the second coming is necessary. The early church leaders, including some who we do not today consider Apostles, changed the rules without any prior approval from Jesus. It is clear from the passage that experiences which the Apostles had after Jesus' crucifixion were at least part of what led them to make the rule change.

Did the Apostles have the authority to do this?

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

This is the verse that Catholics point to to justify the authority of the pope. Protestants, of course, take a different view. Some hold that it applies to all believers. I could see others believing it applies more narrowly only the these particular Apostles, although I can't recall hearing anyone take this position. I believe most Protestants would interpret this to be a fairly wide authority given to all followers of Jesus.

As an example of what I think you are referring to with respect to Jesus actually taking the Mosaic law further, there is:

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus certainly seems to be reinforcing the idea of the importance of the law. However, he does not say that anyone who breaks the least of these commandments will not enter the kingdom, only that they will be least in the kingdom. Even here, it does not seem Jesus is saying that all of the law must be followed in order to be saved.

The implication is that the Pharisees must be lacking in righteousness in a different way or through different acts than by not following the law. In fact, they arguably are the ones the followed the law the best in that society.

What could Jesus have been expecting of the Pharisees in terms of righteousness that they were not fulfilling??!!?


Here is one other example from later in the chapter.

31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[f] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Yes, it is fair to say that Jesus was making a higher standard than that given in Mosaic Law.

Currently, most Christian churches do not prohibit divorce, and even those married in church are divorced via the court system with the church having usually no say in the matter at all. Christians who have been divorced are married again within churches all the time. Christians are not following this direct teaching of Jesus. This is another example pretty clearly showing that Christians feel free to change, or at least ignore, the rules of Biblical morality.

[Confused]

So what your asking is if Christianity can adapt again to todays societal values? Brilliant. Now all we need is for another Messiah to come along to give us the approval to adapt.

I don't see that the second coming is necessary. The early church leaders, including some who we do not today consider Apostles, changed the rules without any prior approval from Jesus. It is clear from the passage that experiences which the Apostles had after Jesus' crucifixion were at least part of what led them to make the rule change.

Did the Apostles have the authority to do this?

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

This is the verse that Catholics point to to justify the authority of the pope. Protestants, of course, take a different view. Some hold that it applies to all believers. I could see others believing it applies more narrowly only the these particular Apostles, although I can't recall hearing anyone take this position. I believe most Protestants would interpret this to be a fairly wide authority given to all followers of Jesus.

As an example of what I think you are referring to with respect to Jesus actually taking the Mosaic law further, there is:

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus certainly seems to be reinforcing the idea of the importance of the law. However, he does not say that anyone who breaks the least of these commandments will not enter the kingdom, only that they will be least in the kingdom. Even here, it does not seem Jesus is saying that all of the law must be followed in order to be saved.

The implication is that the Pharisees must be lacking in righteousness in a different way or through different acts than by not following the law. In fact, they arguably are the ones the followed the law the best in that society.

What could Jesus have been expecting of the Pharisees in terms of righteousness that they were not fulfilling??!!?


Here is one other example from later in the chapter.

31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[f] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Yes, it is fair to say that Jesus was making a higher standard than that given in Mosaic Law.

Currently, most Christian churches do not prohibit divorce, and even those married in church are divorced via the court system with the church having usually no say in the matter at all. Christians who have been divorced are married again within churches all the time. Christians are not following this direct teaching of Jesus. This is another example pretty clearly showing that Christians feel free to change, or at least ignore, the rules of Biblical morality.

Now these are passages I am more familiar with. It is true that Christian morals have changed with the times. Many Christians will look you in the face and say they are devout Christians while having an affair on their spouse that same night (or something similiar). But that doesn't make it right. Nowhere in Acts does it imply that Christ approved of the adaptations made and the references you pointed to that the Catholics used to justify a pope etc are the same ones they twisted to justify the Holy Wars. I see it one way: If you accept Christ, you accept his dictations period. It isn't for you or anyone else to adapt them to todays society. Unfortunately, this is why many of us are confused. Because a scripture written 2006 years ago (approx) does little to address todays society. It is why I remain confused. But if you figure it out, let me know. I grow weary of being confused.

[McCulloch]

I don't see that the second coming is necessary. The early church leaders, including some who we do not today consider Apostles, changed the rules without any prior approval from Jesus. It is clear from the passage that experiences which the Apostles had after Jesus' crucifixion were at least part of what led them to make the rule change.

Did the Apostles have the authority to do this?

[Jesus said,] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

This is the verse that Catholics point to to justify the authority of the pope. Protestants, of course, take a different view. Some hold that it applies to all believers. I could see others believing it applies more narrowly only the these particular Apostles, although I can't recall hearing anyone take this position. I believe most Protestants would interpret this to be a fairly wide authority given to all followers of Jesus.

Here is an example of one who believes that it was the Apostles and not the Christians in general who were given this authority.

What is the apostles' doctrine? It is what the apostles taught by the authority of Christ through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as recorded in the New Testament.

Jesus said to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19).

To the twelve He said: "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 18:18). The apostles' doctrine is not something they invented themselves. It is in complete agreement with the determination of God.

cf Binding and Loosing

Currently, most Christian churches do not prohibit divorce, and even those married in church are divorced via the court system with the church having usually no say in the matter at all. Christians who have been divorced are married again within churches all the time. Christians are not following this direct teaching of Jesus. This is another example pretty clearly showing that Christians feel free to change, or at least ignore, the rules of Biblical morality.

But the question is, are they authorized to do so? I see nowhere in the New Testament where even the apostles are granted the right to say, "Jesus was wrong about this, ignore what he said."

[micatala]

But the question is, are they authorized to do so? I see nowhere in the New Testament where even the apostles are granted the right to say, "Jesus was wrong about this, ignore what he said."

Two points.

Whether are not all or some of us who are Christians today are authorized to change moral law, the fact is, we have done it. We have taken the authority to ignore certain aspects of Biblical teachings, laws, admonitions, etc. Any denomination that performs a marriage between a divorced woman and a man has de facto given their approval to ignoring Jesus' direct teaching. Any denomination that ordains women is going against a direct teaching of Paul.

Secondly, in some cases the changes are not so much going directly against a Biblical teaching, but in responding to situations that are not directly addressed, or in trying to reconcile a perceived conflict between two different teachings.

For example, abortion is no where mentioned in the Bible. Those today who equate abortion with murder can make a reasonably coherent Biblical case that abortion should be considered immoral, but they are extrapolating from what is actually written. The technical means to safely perform abortions was not available in Biblical times, and thus the world presents us with a new situation. Many Christians respond by interpreting scripture as best they can to apply to this new situation, creating a new rule "thou shalt not commit abortion." The new rule goes with a new legal doctrine that "human life as early as conception enjoys the full right to existence that born people have."

I consider myself 'modified pro-life' in that, though I do not equate abortion with murder, I do consider it violence, and I am OK with severe restrictions, even amounting to 'close to a ban', if there are reasonable allowances for exceptional circumstances.

As another example, Exodus says that a person should not lend money at interest to a poor person. At that time, banking as we know it did not exist. The economy had no significant role for financial institutions. Today, financial institutions are an essential part of any modern economy. Credit at interest is a practice that nearly everyone participates in. I am sure many bankers are Christians, and that they are involved in lending money to poor people at interest. In fact, I was involved in assisting a local bank with a project related to a credit business they conducted focused mostly on 'relatively poor people' who presented relatively high credit risks. Obviously interest is involved. Very few Christians today would say that this bank is acting imorally.

[McCulloch]

But the question is, are they authorized to do so [change, or at least ignore, the rules of Biblical morality]? I see nowhere in the New Testament where even the apostles are granted the right to say, "Jesus was wrong about this, ignore what he said."

Whether are not all or some of us who are Christians today are authorized to change moral law, the fact is, we have done it. We have taken the authority to ignore certain aspects of Biblical teachings, laws, admonitions, etc. Any denomination that performs a marriage between a divorced woman and a man has de facto given their approval to ignoring Jesus' direct teaching. Any denomination that ordains women is going against a direct teaching of Paul.

Agreed. But you have not answered the question, are they authorized to do so. Some would say that any denomination or church or individual Christian that performs a marriage between a divorced woman and a man has apostatized. So, before going much further, you must address the issue of whether this is progress or heresy.

Secondly, in some cases the changes are not so much going directly against a Biblical teaching, but in responding to situations that are not directly addressed, or in trying to reconcile a perceived conflict between two different teachings.

This is a different thing altogether. Not a change in Biblical morality per se but application of biblical moral principles to unforeseen circumstances.

As another example, Exodus says that a person should not lend money at interest to a poor person. At that time, banking as we know it did not exist. The economy had no significant role for financial institutions. Today, financial institutions are an essential part of any modern economy. Credit at interest is a practice that nearly everyone participates in. I am sure many bankers are Christians, and that they are involved in lending money to poor people at interest. In fact, I was involved in assisting a local bank with a project related to a credit business they conducted focused mostly on 'relatively poor people' who presented relatively high credit risks. Obviously interest is involved. Very few Christians today would say that this bank is acting immorally.

I did not know that biblical morality was defined by what the majority of those who call themselves Christian would say. There is a common Christian theology which uses a the idea of different dispensations to minimize the importance of Mosaic law to the Christian. If you were to argue that the prohibition of lending money at interest to the poor is no longer binding on Christians because Christians are not under the Law, then do so. But if you are saying that God's rules as laid out in Exodus no longer applies because we now have banks, you might have a problem. But if I read the New Testament correctly, Christians are supposed to give to those who ask, without expecting anything (not just interest) in return. That would not be practical, but I'm not the one who believes that Christianity is practical.

[Confused]

But the question is, are they authorized to do so? I see nowhere in the New Testament where even the apostles are granted the right to say, "Jesus was wrong about this, ignore what he said."

Two points.

Whether are not all or some of us who are Christians today are authorized to change moral law, the fact is, we have done it. We have taken the authority to ignore certain aspects of Biblical teachings, laws, admonitions, etc. Any denomination that performs a marriage between a divorced woman and a man has de facto given their approval to ignoring Jesus' direct teaching. Any denomination that ordains women is going against a direct teaching of Paul.

Secondly, in some cases the changes are not so much going directly against a Biblical teaching, but in responding to situations that are not directly addressed, or in trying to reconcile a perceived conflict between two different teachings.

For example, abortion is no where mentioned in the Bible. Those today who equate abortion with murder can make a reasonably coherent Biblical case that abortion should be considered immoral, but they are extrapolating from what is actually written. The technical means to safely perform abortions was not available in Biblical times, and thus the world presents us with a new situation. Many Christians respond by interpreting scripture as best they can to apply to this new situation, creating a new rule "thou shalt not commit abortion." The new rule goes with a new legal doctrine that "human life as early as conception enjoys the full right to existence that born people have."

I consider myself 'modified pro-life' in that, though I do not equate abortion with murder, I do consider it violence, and I am OK with severe restrictions, even amounting to 'close to a ban', if there are reasonable allowances for exceptional circumstances.

As another example, Exodus says that a person should not lend money at interest to a poor person. At that time, banking as we know it did not exist. The economy had no significant role for financial institutions. Today, financial institutions are an essential part of any modern economy. Credit at interest is a practice that nearly everyone participates in. I am sure many bankers are Christians, and that they are involved in lending money to poor people at interest. In fact, I was involved in assisting a local bank with a project related to a credit business they conducted focused mostly on 'relatively poor people' who presented relatively high credit risks. Obviously interest is involved. Very few Christians today would say that this bank is acting imorally.

Just because they are doing it, doesn't make it right. Nor do they have the authority to change scripture any more than the Catholics did to justify their Holy wars. Once again, the problem is that the Bible is outdated and almost impossible to apply to todays society. How can one be a Christian, follow scripture and still live in todays world. They cant'.