It were a long story to tell all the crudities of thought which have been connected with the meeting held in Jerusalem to take action on the question of circumcision. I saw one of these expressed in a religious newspaper not many weeks ago. In answer to a querist, it was said that the decree issued by the apostles on that occasion was intended to be temporary "so far as it was purely ceremonial." As there is not a hint in the text of Acts, [251] or anywhere in the New Testament, that any part of the decree was temporary, and as the decree itself begins by saying, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things," it is hard to see where the idea of temporariness originated. And as to the part that is purely ceremonial, I think it is hard to find. The things enjoined are these: "That ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves it shall be well with you." Which of these is ceremonial? Ceremonial means relating to ceremony. But what ceremony was there in abstaining from things offered to idols? You may as well speak of the ceremony of abstaining from intoxicating drinks. What was there ceremonial in abstaining from things strangled and from blood? I have abstained from both all my life, and I never dreamed that in doing so I was observing a ceremony. Fornication had been ceremonial, for it was used as a ceremony in the worship of Venus, and that is one reason why it is here prohibited. Many of the Gentiles, having been accustomed to it as a religious ceremony, were slow to realize that it was a hideous sin in the sight of God, and for this reason special emphasis had to be laid upon the prohibition of it. According, then, to the answer which we are considering, the prohibition of fornication was only temporary, while abstaining from things strangled and from blood, not being ceremonial at all, might be continued. This writer ought now to rise and tell us at what time fornication, which was forbidden only temporarily, ceased to be prohibited by this decree. The man who originated this interpretation did not look far enough ahead. [252]

[SEBC 251-252]