Acts 15:20

Write. Gr. epistello, “to send a message,” “to write a letter” (see Heb. 13:22). The messengers sent by the apostles took with them the written decision of the council (see Acts 15:23).

That they abstain. The decision was essentially a practical one (see on v. 19). With the coming of greater theological insight, the question of eating meat offered to idols was later viewed in a somewhat different light (see below on “pollutions of idols”). But under the conditions of the moment, this decision was as far as the church felt it expedient to go. The Gentiles could not but be gratified, since no extreme burden was imposed upon them, and those of a Pharisaic tendency could not deny that Gentiles had really been converted. The requirements stipulated seemed to be especially acceptable to Christian Jews.

Pollutions of idols. In view of the fact that the official written pronouncement of the Jerusalem Council declared against “meats offered to idols” (Gr. eidolothuta, “[things] offered to idols”; v. 29), it is probably best to understand “pollutions of idols” here in the specific sense of food (and drink) that had been offered to heathen deities. In Greek and Roman religion food was routinely presented to the deities in the temples. However, only a small portion of it was put upon the altar. The rest was either consumed by those living in connection with the temple, or sent to the market for sale. In the eyes of strict Jews, such food was polluted. Thus a judgment attributed to Rabbi Akiba (c. A.D. 100) declares: “Meat which is being brought in to a place of idols is permitted [to derive some benefit therefrom], but that which is brought out is forbidden, because it is [regarded] as sacrifices of the dead” (Mishnah ‘Abodah Zarah 2.3, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 145). Similarly another regulation from the Mishnah (codified c. A.D. 200) declares regarding wine offered to an idol, “Yen nesek (libation-wine) is prohibited and renders [other wine] prohibited by the smallest quantity. Wine [mixed] with wine and water with water [disqualifies] by the smallest quantity. Wine [mixed] with water and water with wine [disqualifies when the prohibited element] imparts a flavour. This is the general rule: with the same species [the mixture is disqualified] by the smallest quantity, but with a different species [it is disqualified when the prohibited element] imparts a flavour” (ibid. 5.8, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 349). Consequently a strict Jew never bought meat in the open market, but only of a Jewish butcher. When he traveled, it was with his kophinos, or basket, on his back; he carried his food with him (see on Mark 6:43).

Juvenal refers to “Jews, who possess a basket and a trass of hay for all their furnishings” (Satires iii. 13, 14; Loeb ed., p. 33).

In view of this strong Jewish feeling, the council saw fit to ask Gentile Christians to abstain from meat offered to idols. This would entail no small denial of self. The convert must refuse invitations to many festive affairs, or if present, refuse to eat. A man of careful conscience also would refuse to eat food set before him in a private house, unless he was satisfied it had not been offered in a temple. At the same time, this restriction had the practical value of safeguarding Gentile Christians against the temptation to engage in pagan rituals, where tasting the sacrificial food and wine was an essential part of worship. If nothing offered to an idol was to be eaten, the conscientious Christian could clearly understand that even the perfunctory ritual of tasting food and drink at an emperor’s altar was forbidden. This seems especially to have been an issue at the time of the writing of the Revelation (see on Rev. 2:14).

A few years after the Jerusalem Council, this restriction met with some resistance. At Corinth men claimed the right to eat what they chose, and Paul conceded the right in the abstract, to the extent that they might buy food in the market places without regard to whether it had been offered previously in a temple, since “an idol is nothing.” But he supported the restriction on the ground of brotherly love and respect to others’ scruples (1 Cor. 8-10; see on Rom. 14).

From fornication. It may be surprising at first to find a moral rule placed along with restrictions that seem purely ceremonial. But the first item in the decree was moral also in so far as it was based on the second commandment of the Decalogue. In regard to fornication, the Levitical law against every form of unchastity was rightly strict (Lev. 18; 20:10-21).

The sin of fornication, involving the lack of any real respect for the purity of womanhood, was so widespread an evil in the ancient world that it can be considered almost a characteristic of Greco-Roman life. Idolatry and fornication sometimes were related in the pagan cults. As with the harlot-priestesses of Aphrodite at Corinth and Paphos, prostitution was often a part of idolatry. The man who indulged himself in the temple thereby expressed his supposed faith in the goddess thus worshipped. The sin of fornication was a permissible and even routine thing to the pagan. For this reason the Jewish Christian would want to know that Gentile converts had entered into purity of life (see 1 Cor. 6:15; Rev. 2:14). Therefore at the Jerusalem Council Christianity took its first public step toward holding aloft high moral standards, not only by its general teaching, but by a specific rule laid down for its members to follow.

Things strangled. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 10) for the omission of the words, “and from things strangled.” There is no clear prohibition in the OT against the eating of “things strangled.” However, the principle involved appears to be the same as that of the next prohibition, abstaining from eating blood. Animals strangled would not normally be bled, and so their flesh would not be bled, and so their flesh would not be acceptable for food (see Lev. 17:13, 14). James’s declaration may also have been based on the Mosaic restrictions against the flesh of animals that had died of themselves or that had been killed by another beast (Lev. 17:15; Deut. 14:21). Such restrictions were observed by the early church, as is testified by Tertullian (died c. A.D. 230), who, writing to pagans, declares: “Blush for your vile ways before the Christians, who have not even the blood of animals at their meals of simple and natural food; who abstain from things strangled and that die a natural death, for no other reason than that they may not contract pollution, so much as from blood secreted in the viscera” (Apology 9; ANF, vol. 3, p. 25). Similarly, an ancient rule in the Eastern Church ordains: “If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or indeed any one of the sacerdotal catalogue, eats flesh with the blood of its life, or that which is torn by beast, or which died of itself, let him be deprived; for this the law has forbidden. But if he be one of the laity, let him be suspended” (Apostolic Canon 63; ANF, vol. 7, p. 504). Ancient Jewish tradition declared that when the neck of an animal was broken the blood flowed into the limbs in such a way that it could not be brought out, even with the use of salt (Talmud Hullin 113a, Soncino ed.,pp. 621, 622).

From blood. The prohibition against the use of blood as food was made as soon as animal food was permitted for men (Gen. 9:4), and it was frequently reiterated in the Mosaic law (Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10; 19:26). To eat blood was counted a sin against the Lord in the days of Saul (1 Sam. 14:33). Food prepared with blood was common on the tables of both Greeks and Romans. For instance this is found in Homer:

“Here at the fire are goats’ paunches lying, which we set there for supper, when we had filled them with fat and blood. Now whichever of the two wins and proves himself the better man, let him rise and choose for himself which one of these he will” (Odyssey xvii. 44-49; Loeb ed., vol. 2, pp. 199, 201).

The heathen were accustomed, at their sacrifices, to drink blood mingled with wine. Josephus, speaking from the standpoint of the Jews of the 1st century A.D., recorded that “blood of any description he [Moses] has forbidden to be used for food, regarding it as the soul and spirit” (Antiquities iii. 11.2 [260]; Loeb ed., vol. 4, p. 443). The attitude of the Jews toward this prohibition may be seen from a statement attributed to Rabbi Shimon ben ‘Azzai (c. A.D. 110): “In the Torah there are 365 prohibitions, and among all the laws there is none like this ... if the Scriptures admonish you thus regarding the prohibition of blood [Deut. 12:23], in comparison with which there is no easier one among all the commandments, how much the more does this apply to all the rest of the commandments!” (Sifre Deuteronomy 12:23; quoted in Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vol. 2, p. 734). That the prohibition of blood might be considered the most easily observed of all the commandments helps to make understandable the feeling of the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem that Gentile converts should abide by it. For several centuries, in some areas at least, the early Christian church appears to have held to this rule (see above on “things strangled”). At the same time, particularly in the West, an attempt seems to have been made to present the restrictions of the Jerusalem Council as purely moral prohibitions. Thus Irenaeus (c. A.D. 185) quotes the present passage as follows: ‘“That it be enjoined them, that they do abstain from the vanities of idols, and from fornication, and from blood; and whatsoever they wish not to be done to themselves, let them not do to others’” (Against Heresies iii. 12.14; ANF, vol. 1, pp. 435, 436). That from such a standpoint “blood” was interpreted as the shedding of human blood, that is, murder, is clear from Tertullian (died c. A.D. 230), who explains, “The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood” (On Modesty 12; ANF, vol. 4, p. 86). See on Gen. 9:4.