 |  |
Three times the words "It seemed good" occur. First, "it seemed good to the apostles
and elders, and the whole church". Secondly, "it seemed good unto us, being assembled
with one accord". And thirdly, "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us". To break
this threefold cord, the whole church, with the apostles and elders, together with
Barnabas and Paul, and Silas and Judas, as well as the Holy Spirit Himself, would have to
be regarded as in the wrong. Any system of interpretation necessitating such an
assumption is self-condemned.
It is certainly true that Peter acted hypocritically at Antioch, and was publicly rebuked
for it by Paul (see Gal. 2:), but we are definitely told in this case that Peter was to be
"blamed", and it is in no way to be compared with the solemn agreement manifested in
Acts 15:
We now turn to Paul's application of these decrees, as we find it in his first Epistle to
the Corinthians. In chapter 5:-7: the Apostle reproves the church with regard to
fornication, while in chapters 8: and 10: he deals with the question of meats offered to
idols. It will obviously be profitable to consider the Apostle's own interpretation of the
Jerusalem ordinances as revealed in these chapters.
It appears that the Corinthian conception of morality allowed a man to "have his
father's wife", and not only so, but the offence was made a matter of boasting. The
Apostle had already written to this church, commanding them not to company with men
guilty of such offences, but they had misunderstood him. He takes the opportunity now
of correcting the misunderstanding by saying in effect:
"If I had meant that you were not to company with the fornicators of this world, or
with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters: you would need to go out of the
world. What I enjoin has reference to a brother who practices any of these things--with
such an one no not to eat; but I have no idea of attempting to judge the world or of
setting up a code of morals for the ungodly" (I Cor. 5: 9-12).
He clinches his exhortation by showing that the sin of immorality is a sin against
man's own body, and that that body, if redeemed, should be regarded as a temple of the
Holy Ghost (I Cor. 6: 13-20).
In I Cor. 7: the Apostle deals with the question of marriage, and explains that "for
the present necessity" it would be as well for all to remain unmarried. But these
statements were not to be taken as commandments for all time, nor even for all believers
at that time. It was a counsel of abstinence, because the Lord's coming and the dreadful
prelude of the Day of the Lord were still before the Church. With the passing of Israel a
change came, and the Apostle later encouraged marriage, as we find in his prison epistles.
The fact that Eph. 5: sets aside I Cor. 7: does not make I Cor. 7: untrue for the time
in which was written--any more than the setting aside of the decrees of Acts 15: makes
Acts 15: a compromise or a mistake. Each must be judged according to the dispensation
that obtained at the time. The dispensation of the Mystery had not yet dawned either in
Acts 15: or I Cor. 7: