Is this the start of a new era of hope?

Mr Boris Johnson fulfilled his lifelong ambition this week to become British Prime Minister. The rogue old Etonian began in his usual breezy style of easy optimism. But however much we may wish him well in tackling the multiple crises in the nation, realistically the challenge facing any new Prime Minister is no different from that which plagued – and overcame - Theresa May’s administration. The question is: can a new government do anything new?

The challenge of which I speak is that we have an elected parliament that defies the electorate. Whatever deal the new PM does with Brussels in order to fulfil his promise to leave the European Union by 31 October 2019, the possibility of getting the approval of this Parliament (without divine intervention!) is virtually nil. He not only faces the opposition of Labour, the LibDems and the Scottish Nationalist Party, but he also faces the threats of rebels on the Tory backbenches who say they are willing to bring down the Government rather than agree to leave the EU without a deal.

Today, Britain is a more divided nation than it has ever been since the days of the Civil War between Cromwell’s Parliament and supporters of Charles I. How should Christians understand what is going on in the nation? And are there any signs of hope?

Reflecting on the Past

In last week’s editorial we were asking “Is there any word from the Lord?” This led us to some of the things Britain has done wrong on the international scene and especially the need to recognise and say we are sorry for the dreadful things we did to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust back in 1947. Recognising that injustice would be an act of righteousness that I believe would be pleasing to the Lord.

I believe there is a real message of hope and good news in the midst of all the doom and gloom we’ve been hearing for a long time. But we ought also to recognise where we have gone wrong: not only abroad, but also in the things we have done at home in Britain. As we have said many times in these editorials – turning away from biblical values has led to the present days of crisis. This era of great cultural change began with a political Act of Parliament in 1951.

Today, Britain is a more divided nation than it has ever been since the days of the Civil War. What is going on – and is there any hope?

Political Decisions, Cultural Consequences

It was the Fraudulent Mediums Act which abolished the Witchcraft Act that had been on the Statute Book of Britain for centuries. In 1951 witchcraft was legalised. All occult activities were made legal, in direct defiance of biblical teaching:

Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or is a medium or spiritist or consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord… (Deut 18:10-12)

This political decision to defy the Bible was taken by the Government led by Clement Attlee, a Jew-hating atheist, and paved the way for other major policy turnarounds which precipitated great cultural changes in the nation.

The first great cultural change was in the 1959 Obscene Publications Act which paved the way for the legalisation of obscenity in publications, film, video and the internet.

The second cultural change was in the Abortion Act (1967) which made it legally acceptable to kill unborn babies. Currently, about 450 babies a day are killed in British hospitals, bringing the total since 1967 to over 9 million. 2018 saw the number of UK abortions reach an all-time high, and our dysfunctional, rebellious Parliament has now ruled to impose abortion on the only part of the British Isles that still upholds biblical values, defying the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland – as we noted last week in an excellent article from our Managing Editor.

These changes follow the classic path to the corruption of civilisation noted by the Apostle Paul in the first chapter of his letter to Rome. He says that once we stop believing in the God of Creation and start suppressing the truth, we believe anything. We “exchange the truth of God for a lie” and then we abandon all restraints upon our behaviour.

The Apostle Paul says that once we stop believing in the God of Creation, we believe anything and abandon all restraints upon our behaviour.

Church Leaders Responsible

But God does not expect an ungodly nation to repent of things that are not even publicly recognised as being wrong! The history of Israel in the Bible teaches us that God holds the religious leaders responsible for the moral and spiritual state of the nation – it was they who had the truth and the responsibility of declaring it to the people, who otherwise remained ignorant.

Applying that teaching today, God holds church leaders responsible for the nation. But can we expect repentance from them? The bishops in the House of Lords didn’t even bother to turn up for the vote on forcing same-sex marriage and abortion upon the people of Northern Ireland last week. If they had been there, they would probably have voted in favour of imposing LGBTQ+ values upon Ulster.

Hope for the Future

Amidst this seemingly lost situation, God is doing two things: he is blessing the many thousands of local fellowships, large and small, where the word of God is faithfully preached and taught. And he is withdrawing his blessing from those churches that have turned away from the word – including churches within the traditional denominations, which are crumbling, losing members and closing buildings as a result.

The hope for the future lies with the faithful remnant in Britain of Bible-believing, praying people who refuse to be driven by the values of the world and are prepared to take a stand for truth whatever the cost. God is faithful to hear and to heed the prayers of the faithful remnant who grieve over the state of the nation; who repent for our silence when ungodly laws were being passed in our Parliament; but who nevertheless cry out to the Lord to have mercy and to bless the new Government.

We should be appealing to God to remember his covenant relationship with our forefathers, who placed the Bible at the centre of the British legal system, governing the nation, and made it part of the Coronation Oath sworn by our Queen, whom God has wonderfully preserved for these perilous times.

We should be appealing to God to remember his covenant relationship with our forefathers.

There is a solid biblical principle for such an appeal to God on behalf of the nation. Paul says that as far as the Gospel is concerned the people of Israel put themselves outside God’s protection, although he himself would never break his covenant promises “on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).

This is undoubtedly a special passage concerning Israel, but it also shows that God respects the spiritual heritage of a nation. As he has blessed Britain in the past, using Britain to get the gospel to many nations, we can call upon him to bring us through this time of trial and to restore faith and belief – especially among young people in the United Kingdom – to give us “a hope and a future” (Jer 29:11) as he promised to the people of Jerusalem enslaved in Babylon at the worst moment in their history.

The laying on of hands (Part 2)

Editorial Comment: Campbell McAlpine was a good Bible teacher from solid Brethren stock. He wrote the little booklet First Principles, which we are serialising today, back in the 1960s. At that time of its publication by PWM Ministries (1992), none of the charismatic phenomena that we saw later in the 1990s had yet been experienced. Today we have a very different view on the laying on of hands. We have therefore carefully revised Campbell’s teaching in line with current biblical scholarship, so that the teaching given below represents that of Prophecy Today UK and Issachar Ministries.

***

We have already seen that the laying on of hands is a practice with significance running right through the whole of Scripture. It was not only used to set people apart for certain ministries, but often as human authority was given to them to fulfil their calling or role within an institution. In this second study, we turn to how the laying on of hands can be important (or misused) in blessing, healing, and receiving the Holy Spirit.

Laying on Hands to Bless

It is important to understand that the act of laying on hands is not a magical formula or ritual to obtain automatic blessing – indeed, it can have rather undesirable results, as we will see. It is, however, a public statement: an act of faith to which God responds when done in line with his word. It is God alone who can bless, heal and fill with the Holy Spirit – and yet, in his grace and mercy, he chooses to allow us, his children, to take part in the process of blessing others with our personal faith.

In the Old Testament we read of fathers laying hands on their sons and blessing them. In ancient times, the practice of fathers blessing sons was part of the procedure through which inheritance was formally transferred. This does not mean that they imparted God’s blessing to them – no-one can give God’s blessing to someone! It is only God who can give his blessing.

Isaac blessed his son Jacob, and he was blessed, but this was Isaac’s own personal blessing upon his son, which God then honoured. Jacob in turn blessed each of his sons, and they were blessed, but again, it was not God’s blessing: it was the personal-yet-prophetic blessing of a father to his sons, which the Lord accepted.

What we learn from these examples is that laying on hands to bless is a practice that must be done with God-given authority and in line with God’s will – but that any resultant blessing comes from God. In the same way, the Apostle Paul talks about spiritual gifts and ministries in his letters but makes it clear that it is God who gives these, not people (see Eph 4:11; 1 Cor 12:28).

Laying on hands to bless is a practice that must be done with God-given authority and in line with God’s will - and any resultant blessing comes from God.

A Word of Caution

But passing on evil spirits is another matter. Although we cannot pass on pure things like the Holy Spirit to others by laying on hands, we can pass on evil spirits. The Prophet Haggai spoke to the Temple priests about passing on things from one body to another by touch. He stated emphatically that we cannot pass on holiness to someone else but we can certainly infect them with defilement (Hag 2:10-14).

This is why we should always be careful about who we allow to lay their hands on us – and this is the sad story of the charismatic movement of the 1990s, which was marked by all sorts of spirits being passed on from one to another, with people barking, laughing uncontrollably and falling around like drunkards. This was wrongly attributed to the Holy Spirit.

Jesus’ Ministry of Blessing

When we read in Matthew 19 of Jesus taking little children and laying his hands on them and blessing them, we are dealing with a different dimension. One thing is sure, these children would have been truly blessed – not least because of Jesus’ direct relationship with the Father.

Jesus said “anyone who has seen me has seen the Father”, but he also acknowledged that he could do nothing on his own initiative: he could only do what he saw the Father doing and what he heard from the Father (John 5:19, 8:28) and he always obeyed the Father’s commands (John 15:10). So a blessing from Jesus was a direct blessing from God the Father.

There is also the wonderful story in Revelation 1 where John, on the island of Patmos, had a sight of the glorified Lord Jesus. So overwhelming was that sight, that he “fell at His feet, as though dead.” Then Jesus laid his right hand on him and said, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades” (Rev 1:17-18). Immediately John was strengthened and enabled to be Jesus’ messenger to the churches in Asia.

A blessing from Jesus was a direct blessing from God the Father.

Healing and the Laying on of Hands

The scriptures give several accounts of people being healed when hands were laid on them. This was evidenced in the ministry of Jesus:

• In Nazareth: “He laid His hands on a few sick people, and healed them” (Mark 6:5).
  
• A blind man: “Jesus put his hands on the man’s eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored and he saw everything clearly” (Mark 8:25).
  
• A disabled woman: “When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, ‘Woman, you are set free from your infirmity’. Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God” (Luke 13:12-13).
  
• A paralytic man: Jesus said “Friend, your sins are forgiven”. In dealing with this man’s sins before his healing, Jesus demonstrated that he was not just a faith healer. His mission set him apart from the rest of humanity. He was “the word made flesh…who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).
  
• After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to the 11 disciples and commissioned them to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature”, giving them this promise, “These signs will accompany those who believe. In my name they will drive out demons, they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well” (Mark 16:17-18).
  
• When the Apostle Paul was shipwrecked on the island of Malta, he laid hands on the father of the chief citizen of the island who was ill with a fever, and he was healed (Acts 28:8).

The question we have to ask is whether ordinary human beings were given the power to heal by laying on their hands. There is no evidence of this in the New Testament. There are instances of the apostles laying hands upon the sick and praying for them and they were healed. But there is no evidence of healing being transmitted from the well person to the sick person through the laying on of hands. The healing was received in answer to prayer.

So again, we have the laying on of hands being an act of faith, done by those with God-given authority and in line with his word; an act to which God responds with power.

The scriptures give several accounts of people being healed when hands were laid on them.

The Holy Spirit and the Laying on of Hands

When Peter and John went down to Samaria, after hearing of the many who were being saved through the ministry of Philip, they ministered to the new converts and, “they placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:17). When Paul was in Ephesus, it is recorded that after baptising some believers, he “placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied” (Acts 19:6).

These verses are often misunderstood as meaning that the Holy Spirit was somehow imparted or transferred to the believers through the laying on of hands. But the Greek does not say that. It simply records that ‘this happened, then that happened’ – without any causative interpretation.

In the teaching of Jesus, the Holy Spirit is the gift of the Father. Jesus said “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor to be with you forever – the Spirit of truth” (John 14:15). It is essential to understand that we cannot impart or pass on the Holy Spirit to anyone. He is entirely in God’s hands to give or to withhold as he chooses. In the Old Testament, Elisha had to learn this. He asked the dying Elijah for a double portion of his spirit - but Elijah made it clear that it was not his to give (2 Kings 2).

A particular passage that needs careful interpretation is Paul’s advice to Timothy: “Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you” (1 Tim 4:14). It is evident that one day while Timothy and the elders were waiting on the Lord, someone prophesied indicating the ministry the Lord desired Timothy to have. In response to this, the elders laid hands on him.

We can be certain that the elders prayed for him; but what is even more significant in the context of Paul’s words was that the elders recognised the ministry Timothy was to exercise in the ‘ekklesia’ – the scattered congregations around the Empire that made up the Church at that time. The laying on of hands was a sign of this recognition. It was not giving the Holy Spirit or any ministry gifts – Timothy had already received these. The laying on of hands was a sign of their blessing - giving Timothy the authority to go and exercise his ministry gifts amongst the various congregations.

This is what happens today in a service of ordination: the elders (or bishops) of the church lay hands on the ordinands and pray for them. Through this act they are not imparting any spiritual blessing upon him or her, but from their position of authority, they recognise the ministry to which the ordinand has been called by God. This recognition gives authority to the ordinand to exercise ministry within the organisation of the church in accordance with its rules. It does not confer blessing or spiritual gifts – it confers institutional authority.

The laying on of hands is an act of faith, to which God responds with power.

Impartation

The whole subject of ‘impartation’ has caused much division and confusion in churches in recent history. In the 1990s there were men who went around laying hands on people and causing them to behave strangely. One man even called himself a ‘Holy Spirit Bartender’ because when he touched people they behaved like drunkards. Clearly, the spirit he was passing on to others was not the Holy Spirit!

We believe that a true interpretation of biblical teaching on this subject is that we human beings can pass on evil spirits, but we cannot pass on the Holy Spirit or any of the spiritual gifts of God by laying hands on people. These gifts are entirely God’s to give.

This does not mean, however, that we shouldn’t lay on hands! It is undoubtedly a practice that God has ordained and to which he responds, when done in accordance with his word and will. As we have seen, laying on hands is an outward act of faith which can be used in certain circumstances to give a personal blessing, or as part of praying for healing or petitioning the Lord to pour out his Holy Spirit.

It is a lack of sound biblical teaching and interpretation of Scripture that has caused so much confusion about this issue in recent years. Further teaching can be found in the book ‘Blessing the Church?’ which we serialised on Prophecy Today earlier this year. The book, written in 1995, is currently out of print but may be digitalised by Issachar Ministries in the near future.

It is always the right time to seek revival among the body of believers.

Clifford Denton continues the study of Acts 15 by considering the context and conclusion of the meeting of apostles and elders in the First Century.

Recap

In the first part of our study, we argued that the Acts 15 meeting of apostles and elders was according to Jewish tradition for settling disputes, whose origin can be traced to the time of Moses. It was perhaps the first council of its kind in the emerging Christian community. We can adopt this view providing we maintain a balanced perspective of continuity from biblical origins rather than a breaking away to form a new religion. The apostles and elders were responsible, as are Church leaders today, to shepherd the body of disciples, including both Jews and Gentiles, to be the authentic manifestation of the covenant community of faith.

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit had begun in the Gentile world and the leaders met in Jerusalem to consider together what the God of Israel was now doing, and what he was expecting of his people.

The apostles and elders met in Jerusalem in accordance with Jewish tradition, to consider what God had begun in the Gentile world and what he was expecting of his people."

All this was happening in the context of the Jewish world of the Sanhedrin and the Rabbis, who to that time had interpreted biblical teaching into a set of rules for living. This was the world into which Jesus came, challenging the Rabbis but recognising their authority – that is until the coming of the Holy Spirit to empower his disciples in a new and living way.

Let us consider a little more of the rabbinical teaching of the day to further understand the need for the council of Acts 15.

Rules and Obligations

Jewish tradition has it that there are two aspects to Torah: the Written Torah, recorded by Moses, and the Oral Torah passed on from Moses through reliable men. The Oral Torah was codified (developed in written form) in the Second Century into what is known as the Mishnah. This was some time after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD when concerns arose as to whether oral traditions would be remembered with the Jewish nation scattered throughout the world. Once the teaching was passed on orally, but now it was codified for fear that the teaching would be lost to future generations.

In our own generation, we can read the Mishnah to study these oral traditions. Here we find much of what was taught by the Rabbis at the time of Jesus and his Apostles. A study of the Mishnah gives us information that helps us to understand the basis of Jesus' challenges to the Rabbis. For example there is an incident recorded in Matthew 12 concerning the rabbinic definition of work and its relationship to the Sabbath Day. The disciples of Jesus, in the eyes of the Pharisees, contravened a number of their definitions of the work of harvesting when they ate grain as they walked through the fields. This incident and others are understood most clearly through reference to the Oral Traditions recorded in the Mishnah.

In Jesus' day, to be a Jew implied obedience to the authority of the oral traditions and extra rulings of the Rabbis."

Jews were expected to govern their lives through obedience to oral traditions and other rulings of the religious leaders. The different schools of Rabbis formulated rules by which their disciples were obliged to live – the legal halakhah of the day. To be a Jew implied that such obligations were authoritative. Circumcision for men was the entry point into the Jewish family and everything else followed. This is the background to Acts 15.

The Perceived Authority of the Mishnah

In the introduction to Danby's translation of the Mishnah (OUP, 1933), there is a passage that relates the chain of the Oral Torah's passage down through the centuries. Because the Oral Torah was considered to go back to Moses it was considered just as authoritative as the written Torah.

Recall that Jesus referred to the teaching of the Rabbis sometimes as, "You have read" and sometimes, "You have heard it said", reflecting both the written and oral nature of rabbinic teaching:

The Mishnah's own account of its origin and history of the Oral Law is given in the tractate Aboth. At the same time that the Written Law was given from Sinai, the Oral Law, too, was delivered to Moses, and handed down (orally) in turn to the leaders of successive generations – to Joshua, to the Elders (Joshua 24:31), to the Prophets, to the 'Men of the Great Synagogue' (the body of teachers who administered and taught the Law after the time of Ezra), to Simeon the Just (c.280 or 200 B.C., one of 'the remnants of the men of the Great Synagogue'), to Antigonus of Soko; then, in turn, to the five 'Pairs of leaders' – Jose ben Joezer and Jose ben Johanan (c.165 B.C.), Joshua ben Perahyah and Nittai the Arbelite, Judah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Shetach, Shemaiah and Abtalion, and Hillel and Shammai. Thus the chain of tradition was brought to the threshold of the Christian era.

On account of this chain of reliable men it is considered that the Oral Torah is of equal authority to the Written Torah in Judaism. As the Introduction to the translation of the Mishnah states, after the above paragraph:

The Mishnah, in other words, maintains that the authority of those rules, customs, and interpretations which had accumulated around the Jewish system of life and religion was equal to the authority of the Written Law itself, even though they had no place in the Written Law.

Students of the Rabbis

Along with the culture of oral traditions went the zeal for the Scriptures of every student from a Jewish background. The abiding issue was to know just what was expected in how to live in every part of life. The Mitzvot (Commandments) were obligatory and binding and it was a person's duty to apply them into his or her life.

Even though both the Written and Oral Torah were assumed to have been passed on flawlessly they still needed to be interpreted in every generation. Hence the Councils of Elders determined halakhah, whether in the Synagogue Bet Din at local level, or through the Sanhedrin, on more weighty matters, at national level. Though the origin of the term halakhah (also spelled halachah) is to walk out one's duty to God, it became a legal term meaning, to a Jew, those things that were legally binding on his life.

As each generation interpreted the Torah into halakhah, to know just how to live, halakhah became less about relationship with God and more an expression of legal duty."

On matters of Torah, a member of the Jewish community should seek guidance from his Rabbi on matters which needed interpretation. There were also rules for whose interpretations were binding. For example, in Popular Halachah: A Guide to Jewish Living (edited by Avnere Tomaschoff and sponsored by the World Conference of Jewish Organisations, 1985) it states:

The halachic decision of a contemporary Rabbi is binding upon the person who poses the question; he may not attempt to receive a more lenient opinion by bringing the same question to another Rabbi unless he advises the second Rabbi of the opinion that he had previously received.

This was the background to the Jewish world of the Apostles in Jerusalem at the meeting recorded in Acts 15. They met as a Bet Din to discuss how the Gentiles coming to faith should be brought into the community where the laws and traditions of Torah were to be interpreted and it was to be discovered what was obligatory and binding.

This was the background of the Bet Din in Jerusalem in Acts 15: how should Gentiles be brought into the community steeped in the interpreted laws and traditions of the Torah?

The most prominent issue was whether circumcision was necessary for Gentile converts, but implicit in the deliberations was every aspect of the Torah, since to be circumcised in the flesh implied coming under the authority of the teachers of Judaism according to the current traditions.

Freedom to Learn

With these thoughts in the background, we realise that the Acts 15 meeting was simply a meeting in Jerusalem of those with authority from Jesus, guided by God's Spirit (in the continuity of Covenant history and Jewish tradition), to see how Gentile converts should approach Torah. Was there a new way or should Gentile converts come under the authority of the rabbis?

An inspired conclusion was reached. A letter was sent out to new believers in the Gentile world, after which the Gospel continued to go out into the Gentile world with spiritual power. The four things that are mentioned in the letter were not binding in the sense of normal Jewish halakhah, but very important and necessary, nevertheless, for the good of every believer:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law" -- to whom we gave no such commandment -- it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth.

For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. (Acts 15:23-29)

Both the content of the letter and the spirit of the letter are important. The four things mentioned are also known as the Noahide Laws, principles traditionally thought to have been given to Noah after the Flood, and so for all mankind. This does not mean that these are the only four things relevant to believers from the Old Testament. Noah was a man of faith and fellowship with God, just as Abraham was; faith was the major principle of the Old Testament as well as the New. Neither Noah nor Abraham knew the Torah ('Law') in the sense that it was given through Moses, but they both had a heart to walk closely with the living God (the true halakhah, one might say).

In all generations, the one thing of which a person must be careful in seeking to walk with the true God is to avoid those things that might be a seduction towards following false gods. The four injunctions contained in the letter were typical of the traps to avoid if one was to not be seduced into idolatry. Thus the letter, the ruling from the Acts 15 meeting (so to speak), warned new believers to beware of following false gods so that they might learn to walk out their faith in fellowship with the One True God of Israel.

Each of the four Noahic principles given to new believers referred to typical traps which might seduce them into following false gods. They were intended to protect and support their faith and fellowship with the One True God."

Secondly, we see in the spirit of the letter that was foreseen by Jeremiah of the New Covenant:

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more. (Jer 31:33-34)

The reason why other aspects of Torah were not specifically mentioned is that the Holy Spirit inspired the elders in Jerusalem to see that, in future, Torah would be studied in terms of New Covenant revelation, in which the Holy Spirit would be the agent of such revelation. The emphasis was to be on teaching those with a heart to learn more than through externally imposed obligations.

The remainder of God's law would not be externally imposed, but written on the hearts of believers through the revelation of the Holy Spirit, as Jeremiah had previously prophesied. "

Relevance Today

It was not that a new religion was beginning, but that the faith and walk of Abraham was to be brought to the Gentile world by the power of the Holy Spirit. This was nevertheless a continuity of Covenant history within the context of the Jewish traditions of authority and searching out the interpretation of Torah for the emerging sect of the Jews into which Gentile converts were grafted.

We continue to live in the flow of Covenant history. We are connected to our history through the Council of Jerusalem of Acts 15. Through this Council, or Bet Din (as we now understand it), we learned not about the departure from the Jewish Roots of our faith but how Torah and halakhah would be taken to the Gentile world by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Through Acts 15, we learn not about departing from the Jewish roots of our faith, but how Torah and halakhah - the faith and walk of Abraham - would be taken to the Gentiles through the power of the Holy Spirit."

With freedom to learn for everyone who is a disciple of Yeshua, our Jewish and Hebraic roots are as secure as for anyone in the Covenant community, right through from Abraham's day to our own.

For Study and Prayer

1. In the light of what we have considered concerning the context and interpretation of Acts 15, how should Christians approach study of the Old Testament?
2. Do you see any parallels with the way the rabbis exercised authority through tradition with what happens in some branches of the Christian Church today?

Next time: Paul and the Torah

These studies are developed from the course Christianity's Relationship with Israel and the Jews, first prepared for Tishrei Bible School.

In the first part of a study of Acts 15, Clifford Denton considers the pivotal moment in the First Century when the apostles and elders met to consider conditions for membership of Gentile converts in the covenant family of Israel.

Acts 15

Acts 15 records a decisive moment in the First Century Church. The gospel was going out into the Gentile world for the first time, and many were coming to faith. The New Covenant ministry of the Holy Spirit was a new experience. These rapid developments were raising many questions amongst Jewish believers in Messiah: how did they relate to the accepted teaching of 'the Law' according to rabbinic tradition? What were the obligations on new believers in Israel's Messiah?

In Jerusalem, the apostles and elders gathered to consider these questions. Not only was this a significant moment for the Christian Church, but it also marked a point of separation between Jews and Christians. But do we have a clear understanding of what was going on at the so-called 'Council of Jerusalem'?

Councils have played a prominent role in Church history, but what was happening in Acts 15? Was this the first Church Council, or was it a typically Jewish way of resolving disputes? Indeed, was it even a biblical way of resolving disputes? Let us consider how the meeting of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem was an application of an already-existing principle, through which those in authority met to consider issues of importance, leading to rulings on behalf of the community.

The 'council' held in Acts 15 was a significant moment for the early Church. But was it a point of separation and departure, or unity and continuity?

A Church Council?

In Our Father Abraham (Eerdmans, 1989), Dr Wilson describes the Council of Jerusalem as "the watershed for the entire book of Acts" (p48). He continues:

The council handed down its decision: Non-Jews entering the Church should not have the Jewish rite of circumcision imposed on them. In its decision the council emphasized the principle of God's free grace in Christ. Gentiles were to know that to stand in the liberty of Christ meant no preconditions or potentially entangling qualifications. So stated, the council ruled out any theological necessity of circumcision for righteousness.

Gentiles should be clear on this point: salvation was a gift of God; one could not procure or obtain it by mere conformity to any ceremonial ritual. [emphasis added]

Separation or Continuity?

What was the background to this meeting of the leaders in Jerusalem? Was this a new thing breaking out to launch the principles by which a fledgling Christian Church was to live? Were the implications that Jewish law was now replaced? It is possible to read this chapter of Acts and filter it through a mind-set that the Christian Church was a completely new thing separate from Judaism. It is therefore possible to fuel the view that grace now replaced law and that the Church replaced Israel.

However, with careful consideration, we see that there is continuity and not separation. Indeed, what was happening goes back to the time of Moses. When we look at it this way we might even challenge the traditional terminology that Acts 15 was a Church Council. This is particularly so when the idea of a 'Church Council' has generally been applied to later meetings of Church leaders which led to much greater and unnecessary separation from Jewish roots. One such council was the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, at the time when Christianity was being merged into the Roman Empire!

It is easy to filter Acts 15 through a mind-set that the Church was a completely new thing, separate from Judaism and replacing Israel. However, more careful consideration shows continuity in Acts 15, not separation."

The Tradition of Elders

It can be argued that the tradition that led to the coming together of apostles and elders in Acts 15 had its origin with Moses. This goes back to the time when Jethro, his father-in-law, gave him some sound advice:

Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God will be with you: stand before God for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God, and you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do.

Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear the burden with you. (Ex 18:19-22)

This appointment of elders is comparable to the instruction that Paul gave to Titus:

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you - if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. (Titus 1:5-9)

From the time of Moses, authority for giving rulings on how to apply Torah was delegated to reliable leaders of the community – the older and wiser men. Up to the time of Jesus this authority was with the Sanhedrin for the major decisions, and the local synagogue would have its own elders who 'sat in Moses' seat'. Thus when Paul instructed Titus to appoint elders it was from this tradition that he was drawing.

The tradition of appointing elders to judge how God's law should be applied in different circumstances goes back to the time of Moses."

In this regard, one of the functions of the elders in the Synagogue was to hold a 'Bet Din' ('House of Ruling') on new issues that came up for decision. This was a place of authority comparable with law courts today. The Bet Din took Torah as the foundation of all ruling and interpreted the principles into 'halakhah' for the people (rulings on the way they should walk/live their lives).

Acts 15: a 'Bet Din'

Thus, when we come to Acts 15, it may be seen as a Bet Din, where those in a position of authority met to discuss a new issue that had arisen among believers. The new issue was that many were becoming believers from among the Gentiles by the power of the Holy Spirit, but without any particular knowledge of the Torah and the way it was being taught by the Rabbis of the day. So a Bet Din was formed in Jerusalem.

The Council of Jerusalem was a 'Bet Din', a traditional meeting of those in authority to discuss a new issue that had arisen among believers. It was not a new thing- simply the first major one since the beginning of the Gentile harvest."

This must be seen as the natural thing for the apostles to do, going back to the time of Moses, rather than as a new thing in the Christian Church. It would not have been the first time these leaders met to discuss matters of Torah and halakhah, but it was the first major meeting regarding the role of Torah among those converted from a Gentile background. Unlike most Church Councils in later centuries, when Christianity had largely separated from its Jewish roots, this Bet Din was embedded in, and flowed out of, its Jewish heritage.

New Authority Structure

Whilst the Bet Din recorded in Acts 15 was not a unique concept, it was unique in its being led by the new Church leaders- the apostles and elders –rather than by the traditional Rabbinical hierarchy of Judaism. As the only 'Church Council' recorded in Scripture, in it we see a new authority structure coming into being for the New Covenant community, instituted by Jesus.

Jesus entered a world in which, through Moses, God had already delegated authority to community leaders. Jesus did not challenge the delegated authority, though he did challenge the leaders' interpretation of the Torah, especially in their own lifestyles:

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. (Matt 23:1-3)

After recognising the delegated authority of the existing leaders, Jesus later confirmed that as the Son of God, all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to him (Matt 28:18). Before his ascension into heaven, he then gave authority to his apostles to minister in his name on earth. He also told them:

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. Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them. (Matt 18:18-20)

"In my name", in this sense, can be understood as being according to Jesus' authority. Jesus confirmed that he would uphold the decisions of those in authority and also be among them, by the presence of his Spirit, as they sought agreement in his name.

The Bet Din in Acts 15 displays the new authority structure of the New Covenant Church, being led by elders and apostles, not the traditional Rabbinic hierarchy.

The Fig Tree: a Symbol of Authority to Interpret Scripture

Another relevant symbol here is the cursing of the fig tree, when Jesus spoke to a fruitless fig tree and caused it to wither (Matt 23:21-23):

And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, "Let no fruit grow on you ever again." Immediately the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, "How did the fig tree wither away so soon?" So Jesus answered and said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain, 'Be removed and be cast into the sea,' it will be done. "And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."

Now when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, "By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?"

Why did Jesus respond in this way towards a fig tree? Under the shade of a fig tree was a common location for Torah students to study and pray. Hence, the fig tree had become symbolic of sitting under the authoritative teaching of the Rabbis, and therefore the authority of the Rabbis to interpret Torah. By cursing the fig tree, Jesus was hinting about the removal of authority to teach from those who were not interpreting God's word correctly. This can be tied in with Matthew 21:43:

Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

Here the word 'nation' is the Greek 'ethnos'. This has a range of meanings but from the context, we can say that it means another group of people, implying that authority would be taken from those presently interpreting Torah to another group whom Jesus would designate.

New Authority Structure

This does not mean that Israel would now be cast out as a whole and the Church in the Gentile world take over with a new plan, but that a new authority structure would be defined among God's people. This authority was given to Jesus' disciples, as already promised in Matthew 16:19:

And 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.

Thus, when the apostles and elders met in Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 15, we see the new authority structure coming into being for the Covenant Community. The Holy Spirit was among them to confirm what Jesus had promised and the phrase, 'it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us' (Acts 15:28), is significant in this respect. It is a confirmation that authority to interpret the teaching of God (Torah) had been passed on to the leaders of the New Covenant community.

At the Jerusalem council, the elders and apostles of the New Covenant community led under the guidance and confirmation of the Holy Spirit."

That new authority structure was operating at the Jewish elders meeting in Jerusalem. It was a continuity of the authority structure first given through Moses by God, now confirmed through Jesus for the new move of his Spirit into the Gentile world.

For Study and Prayer

If the meeting of the apostles and elders in Acts 15 is a continuation of the traditions handed down from the time of Moses, does this have implications for meetings of church elders today, and for the relationship between Jews and Christians in the New Covenant community?

Next time: We will continue to consider the meeting of Acts 15.

These studies are developed from the course 'Christianity's Relationship with Israel and the Jews', first prepared for Tishrei Bible School.