General • 44 members • 7669 followers
About this group
Grow in the Light!Follow
- I realize that in the relative brevity of this article, one cannot unpack arguments in great detail. But on the discussion of Acts 15 there are problems with the argumentation. If Spencer is right concerning the Council then any implication drawn concerning Jewish believers is tenuous at best. He notes that, “the possibility of nullifying this covenantal duty for Jewish disciples was never considered.” Not considering something is not the same as affirming it (or denying it). The statement, “Moreover, if the Jerusalem leadership had viewed circumcision as optional for Jesus-believing Jews, there would have been no point in debating the question of exemption for Jesus-believing gentiles or delivering a letter specifically addressed to these gentiles.” This seems unpersuasive. It has already been noted that Jewish circumcision was not the issue at hand. Life is replete with examples where a discussion involving one group/situation is not nullified because one is not addressing another group/situation. A recent example can help illustrate this. Could one not have a discussion of how “Black Lives Matter” without saying there really would be no point in discussing it because all lives matter? So, it seems that Wyschogrod’s assertion that “both sides agreed that Jewish believers in Jesus remained obligated to circumcision and the Mosaic Law” is going beyond what the text actually states. I have not read Wyschogrod’s work but at least the conclusion drawn from it here seems much less certain.