THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM.
By John Nevins Andrews
[Translated from Les Signes Des Temps.] In the year 52 A. D. the apostles assembled at Jerusalem to consider the question of circumcision. Many churches had been established among the Gentiles by Paul. Certain persons from Judea had visited these Gentile Christians, and having found them uncircumcised, they said to them, “If you are not circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” If they had found the Gentiles violating the Sabbath, without doubt this would have been the first subject of their censure. This is a fact worthy of notice, that we find in no part of Acts where the violation of the Sabbath is mentioned. The fact that these persons found no occasion to accuse the Gentile churches of violating the Sabbath, is a certain proof that the Gentiles could not be accused of this sin. The question concerning the observing of the Sabbath was not raised by the assembly at Jerusalem. But if it was true that Paul had taught the Gentiles to transfer the Sabbath to the first-day, or the abrogation of the Sabbatic institution, without doubt the person who raised the question concerning circumcision would have taken stronger measures against the abrogation of the Sabbath. The observing of the law of Moses and circumcision was the subject of discussion by the council. We will now show that that law is the ceremonial law and not the moral law of the ten commandments. 1. Because that Peter in this discussion called this law a yoke which neither their fathers nor themselves could bear. But, James, who presided over the council, teaches that the ten commandments are contained in the royal law, which is a law of liberty. James 2: 8-12. 2. This assembly decided against the authority of the law of Moses, or the ceremonial law; but James affirmed the obligation of all the commandments eight years after the council. James 2: 10. Paul also recognizes the same authority of the moral law in Rom. 3: 31. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” 3. One proof that the law of Moses was not the law of the ten commandments is the fact that circumcision is the part of the law of Moses which received the most attention from the council; but circumcision is not comprised in the ten commandments; and if it were true that the ten commandments are comprised in the law of Moses, then it could not be true that circumcision is the chief thing of the Mosaic law. 4. Finally, the things which were established by the council comprised not one of the ten commandments in whole. Those things were: first, things sacrificed to idols; second, blood; third, beasts strangled; fourth, fornication. Verse 29. The first and last ordinances are contained in the second and seventh commandments; but neither one embraces all the things forbidden in these commandments. It is manifest that this council did not convene to discuss the authority of the ten commandments. But the persons who affirm that this council was convened to decide the authority of the ten commandments, if they were consistent with themselves, would be obliged to teach that the apostles have retrenched eight of the ten commandments, and the most important part of two others. We say these things to show the character of the argument which is drawn from this chapter against the Sabbath. If this argument has any value, it destroys eight of the ten commandments. J. N. A.