The "problem" that would not go away

The tension and debate in the early church was not just about whether or not 'gentile' converts should be circumcised. The life of a Jew revolved around the ritualistic fulfillment of "the law" and circumcision was just one part of this. Jewish Christians, especially the Pharisees, said "Tell them (the Gentile Christians) to keep the law of Moses". For Pharisees, keeping the law of Moses involved the regulation of one's daily life in detail. But James, the apparent leader of the Church described this regulation of life as "a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor ourselves were able to bear."

He replied that Gentile converts had access to weekly readings of the law of Moses in their local synagogue.

But realistically, hearing about the law is not the same as actually keeping it!

James then proposes "tell them (the Gentile converts) to abstain from the pollution of idols and fornication and anything strangled and also blood."

What is he talking about here?
These things appear to refer to the rites and feasts of idol worship practices. Is the avoidance of these practices the only demand being made of the Gentile converts??

How can these requirements connect in with the essentials of the Law of Moses?
How do they tie in with the core identity of the emerging Church?
How do they reinforce the claim of Jesus that he has come to 'fulfil the law"?
How do they set a direction for the church into the future?

Going back to the theme of the child

Mark, who wrote the introductory gospel, recalled how Jesus set out life requirements for the man who asked Jesus if he could follow him. Jesus replied.

Do not kill (c/f 5th commandment of Moses)
Do not commit adultery (c/f 6th commandment of Moses)
Do not steal (c/f 7th commandment)
(the 8th, 9th and 10th commandments echo these three).

The man replied he had kept all these commandments from his youth. He was looking for something more. Jesus replied "Go sell what you have and give to the poor and come follow me." The man did not want to do this. Jesus told his disciples how difficult it was for such a one to enter the kingdom of God - the kingdom he was introducing.

Have a closer look at what Jesus said.

To give away what one owns is surely the reverse of stealing.
To give to the needy rather than set up one's own family and household is surely the reverse of adultery (and taking from the family of another).
To follow Jesus and making a commitment to help the self-determination of others is surely the reverse of "thou shalt not kill".

Jesus has taken each of the three key social commandments and "raised the bar".

How does the challenge of Jesus
tie in with the 'challenge' made by James?

James says to avoid blood. Does this simply refer to meat with blood in it? Or is he referring to blood sports (common at the time) and any level of violence at all, c/f "thou shalt not kill".

He says to avoid fornication. The sixth commandment forbids adultery (c/f between people married to others). Fornication involves people who are not married to anyone!

He says to avoid anything strangled. If this ties in with "thou shalt not steal" how could it do so? In his response James refers to the words of the prophets. "I will rebuild everything that has been overturned etc." But in fact his full quote comes from only the one prophet, Amos, who railed against the "strangling" of the poor by unfair business practices. Why bother to quote Amos if he is only talking about strangled meat?

On the surface it appears James is only talking about the avoidance of pagan worship rites. But in fact he has taken the three key social commandments of Moses and has "raised the bar" in a way that carries on the position of Jesus. It is not enough to just keep the commandments. An idealistic approach to them needs to be taken.