Law of Moses - Acts 15:13-34

The first question about circumcision among the converted gentiles is answered by Peter pointing out that gentiles that had been baptized had been given the gift of the Holy Ghost from God just like the converted Jews had. The other members of the quorum pondered on that and then agreed, and moved on to the second question, just how much, if any, of the law of Moses should be carried forward by the new Christian church. James seems to be the main speaker to this issue, but I thought that James was martyred several years ago. The IM says, “James played an important role at the Jerusalem conference. He was the son of Joseph and Mary and the half-brother of Jesus Christ. At this time he was the leader of the branch of the Church in Jerusalem. Because ofJerusalem’s importance, James’s position in the Church was highly regarded. Paul called him an Apostle. He is the same James mentioned in Acts 12:17; 21:18; and 1 Corinthians 15:7. He is also the probably author of the Epistle of James.” So he had something more than anyone else, a lifetime of knowing the Savior. Jesus would have been his older brother, and even though he didn’t accept the Lord’s divinity during Jesus’ mortal ministry, after his death and the dissemination of the Holy Ghost, James became a believer and a steadfast leader in the early Church.

 
James knew his audience, and instead of expounding his own personal opinion on what Peter had just spoken, he used scriptural evidence to support Peter’s stance. The IM points out that James referenced Amos 9:11-12 which prophesied that the “Gentiles would seek after the Lord. This scripture would have been persuasive to members of the council who were Pharisees, encouraging them to support Peter in accepting Gentile converts.” This is another instance in how knowledge and understanding of the scriptures is so important. The Pharisees knew the scriptures very well, and were open hearted enough to feel the Holy Ghost instruct them further.
 
But James also wasn’t suggesting a total abandonment of Mosaic Law. To say that the Law of Moses was only useful in preparing the people for the coming of the Savior would be to discount the spirit of the law as well. James suggests, “that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.”
 
The purpose of James’s proposal is at least two fold. First is to incorporate the parts of the ancient law with those that are compatible with the new and higher law, for instance fornication, it wasn’t allowed then and it isn’t allowed at any time now. The IM comments, “In short, converts were to avoid becoming entangled with the sexual sin and idolatry that were rampant in the ancient Greco-Roman world.” Christianity was becoming a world-wide movement, the membership was becoming more diverse than just the Jews around Palestine, so the leadership had to figure out how to keep the integrity of the gospel while also making it livable to people with much different customs, cultures, and laws.
 
We see this happening today in the Church. There are many programs and teachings that were applicable 100 or even 30 years ago that are not suited to the generalized membership outside of white, anglo, Utah. For instance, the Boy Scouts, a great organization, but very limited in it’s availability outside of the United States. How would that program work as a requirement for the Young Men’s program in Africa or Asia? What about the Seminary program or 3 hour church or the Young Women’s medallion? It made sense at the time, but we are growing as a Church to the point where adjustments need to be made to accommodate the needs of all members. It wouldn’t be fair or demonstrative or God’s love of all people if programs were required that weren’t available in their area, or that cost more money than the ward has, therefore it is unavailable? There can definitely be an alienating factors in providing different resources to different people in different parts of the world, but all dedicated to the same God.
 
The second purpose of James’s suggestion was in the interest of missionary work. Because it seems that the MO of those early missionaries was to go to the established synagogues and preached among their own people first, it would have been important to have some common ground on which to build. Clearly, Judaism would have been important enough to the people being taught the gospel that they would have been adhering to it for their whole lives. If some foreigners showed up and started telling those Jews that not only did their leaders in Jerusalem kill some guy for blasphemy, but also that all of their previous religion was wrong, that wouldn’t have been well received. It would have been important to recognize the validity and benefits of their religion and beliefs, before expounding on them.
 
It’s really interesting to think about the ban on eating “blood,” even if the missionaries eventually consisted of gentile converts who were used to eating or drinking blood, imagine the awkwardness of that dinner, blood all over the missionary’s face, much to the disgust of the Jewish hosts while they are talking about Jesus. I imagine that all they could think about would have been how gross it is that they are all bloody. It’s really interesting to think about. The IM explains, “Because the Law of Moses prohibited the eating of blood, James’s counsel to abstain from ‘things strangled, and from blood’ may have been meant to avoid giving offense to Jews and thus hindering missionary work among them. James explained, ‘For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him.’ In other words, since there were Jewish communities throughout the Mediterranean world, Gentile converts should avoid offending Jews and dissuading them from embracing the gospel.”
 
After James’s comments, it seems that the council came to a unanimous decision to accept and adopt into practice Peter’s counsel to not require circumcision and to mostly move forward from the Law of Moses. After they all agreed, they sought confirmation from the Holy Ghost that their decision was in line with the will of God, and it came and they implemented. So they sent out letters to their members, by the hands of the Apostles, Paul, Barnabas, Silas, and Judas who were “prophets also themselves” to take the words to the people and to explain them. This is also a patten today that the president of the Church receives revelation, and the apostles take it to the people of the Church. I once heard it explained that, the Apostles purpose is not to represent the people to the prophet, but to represent the prophet to the people. This means that the job of the Apostles is to help people understand and implement the doctrine, not to convince the prophet to change the doctrine based on the will of the people.
 
This Jerusalem council is an example of how councils should be conducted, even now so many thousands of years later. The IM includes a chart that gives the principles of a council and then how it was executed during theJerusalem conference. The principles include “Members of the council were free to voice their opinions,” and referenced the phrase “there had been much disputing,” to demonstrate everyone’s commentary to each other on the subject. Next principle, “The presiding authority explained his thoughts and referred to previous revelation,” and referenced when Peter referred back to his previous vision to include gentiles in the church. Third, continuing discussion on what has been presented, referencing Paul and Barnabas’s missionary debrief and also James’s expounding of scripture and Peter’s words. Fourth, the IM says, “The council came to a united decision, which was confirmed by the Holy Ghost. (The councils decisions ‘seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.’)” And finally, fifth, the decision was recorded and sent out to inform the members of the Church of the decision, and the IM referenced the letters that the Apostles wrote and sent out among the people “inAntioch, Syria, and Cilicia.”