Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 4

The teacher points out there’s no New Testament story of a convert being told to leave the army, and explains historically why the issue didn’t arise until later; how persuasive do you find that explanation, and what does it imply about how the church should handle modern ethical issues not explicitly narrated in Acts?

Another way to ask: How convincing is the idea that Acts doesn’t mention converts leaving the army because the issue didn’t really come up yet? What does that mean for how the church should handle modern moral questions the Bible doesn’t describe in a story?

Direct Answer Bercot’s explanation is that the lack of a narrated case in Acts is not evidence of approval, but evidence the question rarely arose because early converts were mostly Jews who couldn’t serve anyway. The implication is that the church must apply clear teachings of Jesus and the apostles even when Acts doesn’t give a case study.

Support from Transcript:

He says the teachings are “quite clear,” but “nowhere in the New Testament do we read about a specific application” (no story of leaving the army, no apostolic letter about excommunicating soldiers).
His historical reason: Jesus taught Jews who “were not allowed to have their own national army,” and Romans also “would not let them join the Roman army.”
Early church in Acts: “initially…all of the Christian converts were Jews,” so the issue “wasn’t an issue.”
The issue becomes real “after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD” when the church becomes mostly Gentile and Rome recognizes Christianity as a separate religion.
He argues silence can’t overturn explicit teaching: regarding Cornelius, “You can’t prove something from silence.”

Discussion Follow-ups When Scripture gives clear principles but not a narrated example, how do we decide what “faithful application” looks like today?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 4 of 10