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

I 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:

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

I Cor. 7: enjoined abstinence "because of the present distress" (I Cor. 7: 26).

We must leave the consideration of the letter and of Paul's application of its principle

for the next article. 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.