I have a thought experiment of sorts on a critical point in Acts at the Council of Jerusalem. If you were there and wanted to argue from scripture that was available, how would you argue that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised? By this point it is very possible that what was written was only Matthew, Hebrews, James and both Thessalonians. Could that primary point be made from the OT and those 5 NT books? I am aware that after Peter spoke James gave additional directives that were pastoral on executing the first declaration but what about before?
Discussion
6 comments
-
Jerimiah 31, hebrews would seal the deal for sure, but I would say that acts was before hebrews
-
He did teach the whole council of God from house to house. Lots taughtbthere before being inscripturated.
-
Cornelius and other (uncircumcised ) gentile converts had received the Holy Spirit. It was clear that they had become Christians. I think this is part of why James and the council agree with Paul against the judaisers.
-
They would not have regarded the NT as scripture if indeed it was written at that point.
Deuteronomy 10:16 speaks of the circumcision of the heart.
“16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.”
Jeremiah 31 speaks of a new covenant which would be written on our hearts.
-
Though the rest of the New Testament had not yet been written, the principles of the rest of the New Testament were already there in the Old Testament. The Old Testament was the New Testament concealed, the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.
-
[…] I have a thought experiment of sorts on a critical… […]
Comments