Do You Follow The Covenant Of Noah

[Aloysius]

Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15 (Douay Rheims):
28 For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: 29 That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well.

[indent]The Douay Rheims Bible comments:
29 "From blood, and from things strangled"... The use of these things, though of their own nature indifferent, was here prohibited, to bring the Jews more easily to admit of the society of the Gentiles; and to exercise the latter in obedience. But this prohibition was but temporary, and has long since ceased to oblige; more especially in the western churches. [/indent]

I am undecided on this issue. On the one hand, it seems evident from the text that various things were being done on the sole basis of incorporating Jew and Gentile and with no other reason than that; for instance, when St. Paul circumcised Timothy in Acts 16:1-3, the scriptures say he did it for the express purpose of the places through which they were traveling, "because of the Jews who were in those places."...

however, on the other side of it it seems the decision may have had as its basis the understanding that Noah was not a Jew, and all are descended from Noah and therefore remain bound by that covenant, to not eat the blood of an animal which is the outward symbol of that animal's life force.

if I were to come to a belief that the Council of Jerusalem remained binding, it would be a hard teaching for me, as I do love a good medium rare bloody steak.

[Resurrexi]

I think there were many Popes, Saints, and Pope-Saints who also enjoyed medium rare steaks

[CatherineM]

Don't eat red meat often enough to notice any blood.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1836834' date='Apr 16 2009, 12:04 AM']I think there were many Popes, Saints, and Pope-Saints who also enjoyed medium rare steaks [/quote]
of course, they were not raised to the papacy nor canonized because they ate medium rare steaks, so one cannot infer a lack of scriptural requirement solely on that basis

I see both sides of this... it does seem to fit the context of things the Apostles were doing solely for the sake of integration of Jews and gentiles; but then again, it seems they likely had a motivation in the Covenant of Noah. if their motivation was that the Covenant of Noah is binding upon the descendants of Noah, since it is not a matter of the Mosaic (Jewish) law which existed only as a foreshadowing of Christ and has been fulfilled, but is rather a universal covenant, then this would not be a temporary requirement of the Council of Jerusalem.

anyone know what the Early Church Fathers had to say on the subject?

[Resurrexi]

Who thinks that Christians should not eat blood

[Aloysius]

probably Apotheoun (and the Apostles apparently thought so too, so he's in good company there). I am undecided on the matter and think it should not be dismissed wholesale solely on the basis that the Roman Church has been lax on the issue for so long. This being a clear thing in scripture, I would think the Fathers of the Church would have much to say on it... if a consent of the Fathers could be shown against eating blood, that would be quite an indictment especially because to my knowledge the only thing that exists in the Roman Church is an absence of direction about the issue (unless there is some specific Roman doctrine or discipline I am missing which has permitted the eating of blood)

the theory is that the Apostles were binding all Christians to the covenant of Noah rather than the Mosaic covenant, and that this covenant is not a shadow prefiguring the reality of Christ which is therefore to be abandoned but that this covenant is a natural law request of God to all peoples.

the Fathers of the Church would be an important reference for me.... though I'd also like to see if Aquinas has said anything on the subject... I suppose I should do my own research...

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1836691' date='Apr 16 2009, 02:07 AM']I am undecided on this issue. On the one hand, it seems evident from the text that various things were being done on the sole basis of incorporating Jew and Gentile and with no other reason than that; for instance, when St. Paul circumcised Timothy in Acts 16:1-3, the scriptures say he did it for the express purpose of the places through which they were traveling, "because of the Jews who were in those places."...

however, on the other side of it it seems the decision may have had as its basis the understanding that Noah was not a Jew, and all are descended from Noah and therefore remain bound by that covenant, to not eat the blood of an animal which is the outward symbol of that animal's life force.

if I were to come to a belief that the Council of Jerusalem remained binding, it would be a hard teaching for me, as I do love a good medium rare bloody steak.[/quote]
Hmm, I see what you're saying, and I'll be interested to see what you find. I, too, enjoy a nice medium-rare bloody steak (though I haven't had steak in quite a while).

[Resurrexi]

Here's what St. Thomas says of the matter, BTW:

"We must therefore follow the third opinion, and hold that these foods were forbidden literally, not with the purpose of enforcing compliance with the legal ceremonies, but in order to further the union of Gentiles and Jews living side by side. Because blood and things strangled were loathsome to the Jews by ancient custom; while the Jews might have suspected the Gentiles of relapse into idolatry if the latter had partaken of things offered to idols. Hence these things were prohibited for the time being, during which the Gentiles and Jews were to become united together. But as time went on, with the lapse of the cause, the effect lapsed also, when the truth of the Gospel teaching was divulged, wherein Our Lord taught that "not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man" (Mt. 15:11); and that "nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving" (1 Tim. 4:4). With regard to fornication a special prohibition was made, because the Gentiles did not hold it to be sinful. "
(Summa Theologiae II-I, Q. 103, Art. 4, Rep. to Obj. 3)

I would highly doubt it if St. Thomas' opinion contradicts a consensus of the Fathers.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1836691' date='Apr 16 2009, 02:07 AM']I am undecided on this issue. On the one hand, it seems evident from the text that various things were being done on the sole basis of incorporating Jew and Gentile and with no other reason than that; for instance, when St. Paul circumcised Timothy in Acts 16:1-3, the scriptures say he did it for the express purpose of the places through which they were traveling, "because of the Jews who were in those places."...

however, on the other side of it it seems the decision may have had as its basis the understanding that Noah was not a Jew, and all are descended from Noah and therefore remain bound by that covenant, to not eat the blood of an animal which is the outward symbol of that animal's life force.[/quote]
Question that just came to mind. Noah wasn't a Jew, OK. But Abraham wasn't technically a Jew, either, was he? (My thinking being that they weren't technically Jews until Jacob, but I could be wrong). And it was with him that the covenant of circumcision was created, right? Is my reasoning off?

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1837093' date='Apr 16 2009, 08:22 AM']Here's what St. Thomas says of the matter, BTW:

"We must therefore follow the third opinion, and hold that these foods were forbidden literally, not with the purpose of enforcing compliance with the legal ceremonies, but in order to further the union of Gentiles and Jews living side by side. Because blood and things strangled were loathsome to the Jews by ancient custom; while the Jews might have suspected the Gentiles of relapse into idolatry if the latter had partaken of things offered to idols. Hence these things were prohibited for the time being, during which the Gentiles and Jews were to become united together. But as time went on, with the lapse of the cause, the effect lapsed also, when the truth of the Gospel teaching was divulged, wherein Our Lord taught that "not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man" (Mt. 15:11); and that "nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving" (1 Tim. 4:4). With regard to fornication a special prohibition was made, because the Gentiles did not hold it to be sinful. "
(Summa Theologiae II-I, Q. 103, Art. 4, Rep. to Obj. 3)

I would highly doubt it if St. Thomas' opinion contradicts a consensus of the Fathers.[/quote]
Interesting. Thanks.

[Aloysius]

I think Abraham would be the first Jew in the Hebrew line of thinking, he was the father of the whole people.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1849848' date='Apr 27 2009, 10:59 AM']I think Abraham would be the first Jew in the Hebrew line of thinking, he was the father of the whole people.[/quote]
OK. I was wavering on that point, as to whether he or Jacob would be considered the first Jew. Thanks.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1836691' date='Apr 15 2009, 08:07 PM']if I were to come to a belief that the Council of Jerusalem remained binding, it would be a hard teaching for me, as I do love a good medium rare bloody steak.[/quote]
Oh that's making me hungry

After finals I'm blowing some money on a good steak. Nothing more tragic than a well done steak. "ohno:

[Aloysius]

I was thinking about this earlier and realizing that I had been inadvertently following the Council of Jerusalem just because no good red meat was available.... and then my college went and did some special thing for the end of the year in the cafeteria and... well... sorry Ss. Peter, Paul, and James, but I gotta go with St. Thomas Aquinas on this one.

though I still wonder. As much as I agree with Aquinas (and read the same idea that this was a temporary thing to help converge the Jewish and Gentile factions of the early Church), there is an exegesis to that text which might suggest otherwise, and it's got a strong basis in some Churches of Apostolic Tradition. I still wonder.

But it doesn't quite rise to the level of conscience for me

[afro_john]

St. Paul addresses this problem in 1 Corinthians 8, he speaks about how those with "knowledge" understand that there are no idols and that eating the food which is offered (consequently, bloody) is okay because now all things are lawful in the New Covenant in regards to dietary laws. St. Paul says that, "Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak."

Also, according to the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible commentary on 1 Corinthians it says that, "The Council of Florence declared that the Apostolic Decree of Acts was only a temporary restriction placed upon the Gentiles to encourage fellowship between Jewish and Gentile converts in the early Church. This restriction was lifted once these ethnic circumstances had changed."