The Relationship of Jewish and Gentile Believers to the Law Between A.D. 30 and 70 in the Scripture

123 stood naturally as prohibitions against eating blood and meat which was strangled, not on the basis of Leviticus 17 but because of Genesis 9:3-4. 188 This command given to Noah and thus to both Jew and Gentile is considered binding upon all men regardless of their relationship to the Mosaic covenant. 189 This view honors the wording of the prohibitions, finding support in the generally accepted morality of the Old Testament and provides a basis other than specific Mosaic legislation for the decree. It also, however, harmonizes better with the view that the Law was declared obsolete by the Cornelius incident. Though this view is not preferred by this writer it does seem to be a viable interpretation of the decrees. An important question which is left unanswered by this view, however, is why only these four prohibitions are included. If James' point were simply ethical why could he have not cited the decalogue and more importantly why would James almost apologize with the words, it seemed good to lay upon you "no greater burden than these essentials." Would more "ethical" demands such as J "do not lie" and "do not steal" really have been considered burdensome? The Ceremonial Understanding The ceremonial view sees the four elements of the decree as a "conden ed code of levitical purity, based mainly on chapters xvi, xvii and xviii of Leviticu . " 190 The rea on why this view has become the opinio communis 191 in recent year i probably becau e the 188 Tou aint, "Act ," 395-96. 189 lbid . 190 Marc 1 imon, 'Th Apo toli D ere and It tting in th Bull tin of the John R land Univel ity Library 5 (1 - 70): 4 0 . omm n und r t ndin n int y ar them t m n opmw le , "Paul, J ommuni , " Wil n , uke and the Lm , 7 . Th nd th p t li D r , " n D td P1 chm ( t 1 : l) ," Biblica 7 (1 77 7 hur h," th t it h Jud m nt 1 h rt.L,