revolting customs of the Gentiles, and he therefore gives a double sentence:

With regard to the immediate question, as to whether believing

Gentiles must submit to circumcision and the law of Moses before

they can be sure of salvation, my answer is `No'.  `My sentence is,

that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned

to God'.

In the body of the letter sent to the Gentiles it is categorically stated

that such teaching was a `subverting of souls', and that no such commandment had

been given by the leaders at Jerusalem (Acts 15:24):

My sentence is not, however, harsh or mechanical.  I am by nature

and upbringing a Jew, and I know the horror that seizes the mind at

the bare possibility of contact with those who have partaken of meat

offered to idols, or with those who have not been particular about

the question of blood.  While we yield no ground with regard to

justification by faith, we must not forget that we are called upon

to walk in love, to remember the weaker brethren, and to be willing

to yield our rights if need be.  My sentence therefore is that we

write to the Gentiles that believe `that they abstain from

pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things

strangled, and from blood' (Acts 15:20).

Three of these items we can readily understand as being offensive to a

Jewish believer, though inoffensive to a Gentile.  One, however, is a grossly

immoral act and cannot be classed as in the same category.  The reason for its

inclusion here is not that James meant for a moment

to suggest that sexual immorality was a matter of indifference, but rather that,

knowing how the Gentile throughout his unregenerate days looked upon this sin as

of no consequence, James realized that he was likely, even after conversion, to

offend by taking too lenient a view.  This is brought out most vividly in 1

Corinthians, an epistle that deals with the application of the decrees sent from

James follows his counsel of abstinence by a reference to Moses:

`For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read

in the synagogues every sabbath day' (Acts 15:21).

This meaning appears to be that there was no need to fear that, by

reducing the appeal to only four points, the scruples of the more rigid Jewish

believer would be invaded.  Moses was preached every sabbath day in the

synagogue, and the synagogue was the nursery of the Church.  lf we will but put

ourselves in the position of the early Church we shall see the wisdom of this

decision.  The coming into the synagogue of the men whose practices filled the

majority of the people with horror, would be a serious hindrance to the advance

of the gospel.  It might even mean the destroying, for the sake of `meat', of

one for whom Christ died.  We shall see presently that Paul's spiritual

application of the decrees of Jerusalem went much further than James' four

items.  He would not eat meat, or drink wine, or do anything that would cause

his brother to stumble.

Such then was the twofold decision of the Church at Jerusalem, a decision

which, taking the state of affairs at that time into account, must commend

itself to all who have any sympathy with the teaching of the apostle Paul.  Such