Acts 15: a brief overview

Acts 15 discusses the council at Jerusalem with Paul, Barnabas, Peter and James along with other apostles. There were those who were teaching the brothers “unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses you cannot be saved (v1.)” Upon hearing this Paul and Barnabas were appointed to go to Jerusalem to explore this question with the elders and apostles. Once they came to Jerusalem they were welcomed by the elders, apostles, and the church (v4.) Before the debate begins in verse five it is interesting to note the unity within the church. In verse five and six we read that that the question was put forth and the elders and apostles met to consider this question. In the church today do we allow for this type of healthy debate and dialogue?

It appears from the context as a whole, and specifically verses 6, 12, and 22, that the unity of the church was never a question. There was an issue raised, the church discussed it, and there was resolution; in this case by a letter sent to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. The question being debated in this passage climaxes in verse 11 which states: No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that we are saved just they [Gentiles] are. This comes after Peter has said that God knows the heart, and He has purified them by giving the Holy Spirit and cleansing their hearts. After Peter finishes speaking Paul and Barnabas tell of the miraculous signs and wonders God has done among the Gentiles through them and the whole assembly listened very intently (v 12.) James now stands up and addresses the assembly referencing the Old Testament. The specific context of the Old Testament quote is James using the Amos passage as support for what Peter said in verses 6-11. This is seen in verse 15 which reads: “The words of the prophets are in agreement with this” [this referring back to what Peter has said; see also verse 14.] After he quotes the Amos passage James suggests a solution to this issue of required circumcision by the Gentiles. He proposes that “we [the assembly] should write to them;” which is exactly what is done in verses 23 and following.

Seminary Notes: Preterism

Something grabbed my attention last week. Preterism. I had never heard of preterism before last week. A preterist believes that the second coming of Christ has already happened; it took place in 70AD at the destruction of Jerusalem. A preterist would say all the verses speaking of the coming of Christ have already been fulfilled. For more information on what a preterist believes click here.

Apparently Preterism is rapidly growing throughout church. It seems clear however that this view is completely unfounded from scripture. While I don't know exactly how the second coming of Christ will play out, I do know that there are some serious ramifications in believing the second coming of Christ has already occurred. This would mean that we have no future hope; this is all there is and ever will be.

If I were discussing Preterism with a Preterist the first question I would ask comes from 1 Cor 11:26 dealing with the Lords Super. It says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup you proclaim the Lords death until He comes." By partaking of communion you are proclaiming the Lords death until He return again. If He has already returned then why do you (Preterists) take the Lords Super?

It is astounding to me the views of Preterists as portrayed on the above mentioned webpage. If one truly studies the Word of God how can he or she come to the conclusion that Christs second coming has already taken place? It almost seems to question the inerrancy of the Scriptures

What question(s) would you ask and what Scriptures would you take a Preterist to?

Seminary class

Last night I attended my second seminary class. I'm taking BT308(The New Testament Use of the Old Testament) through Providence Theological Seminary which meets at FRAC. So far it has been exceptional. One thing we discussed last night I thought was interesting is the linguistic forms of the OT existing during the first century. I had heard of these but really didn't know much about them. They are:

1) The Masoretic Text
-Written in Hebrew
-NASB is mainly related to the MT
-Matthew used often
-Earliest of all three

2) The Septuangint
-Written in Greek
-Most of the NT authors used the Septuangint
-250-275 BC

3) The Targums
-Oral translations of the Hebrew Bible
-Also includes non-biblical notes