The fact that James could give such hearty support to the position taken by Paul and subsequently by Peter, was

a shattering blow to the Judaizing party in the Jerusalem church. A little man might have been content with this

victory and have ignored the susceptibilities of the Jewish believers. Not so, however, the apostle James. He

realizes the feelings of shock and abhorrence which would almost inevitably result from the Jewish Christians

coming into contact with the 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

Jerusalem, and which we must examine before this study is complete.

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).

His 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. If 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 men whose practices

filled the body 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 two-fold 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 a state of affairs was not ideal, and could not last. It was, as the decrees put it, a question of imposing `no

greater burden than these necessary things' - much in the same way as the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 7

enjoined abstinence because of `the present distress' (1 Cor. 7:26).

We must leave the consideration of the letter and of Paul's application of its principle for the next section.

Meanwhile let us learn from Acts 15 to be as inflexible as a rock where vital truth is at stake, but as yielding as grace

will permit, where it is a question of our `rights' and the consciences of others.