Acts 15:20

King James Version (KJV)

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Adam Clarke
Bible Commentary

But that we write unto them - Four things are prohibited in this decree:

Pollutions of idols;

fornication;

things strangled;

blood.

By the first, Pollutions of Idols, or, as it is in Acts 15:25, meats offered to idols, not only all idolatry was forbidden, but eating things offered in sacrifice to idols, knowing that they were thus offered, and joining with idolaters in their sacred feasts, which were always an incentive either to idolatry itself, or to the impure acts generally attendant on such festivals.

By the second, Fornication, all uncleanness of every kind was prohibited; for πορνεια not only means fornication, but adultery, incestuous mixtures, and especially the prostitution which was so common at the idol temples, viz. in Cyprus, at the worship of Venus; and the shocking disorders exhibited in the Bacchanalia, Lupercalia, and several others.

By the third, Things Strangled, we are to understand the flesh of those animals which were strangled for the purpose of keeping the blood in the body, as such animals were esteemed a greater delicacy.

By the fourth, Blood, we are to understand, not only the thing itself, for the reasons which I have assigned in the note on Genesis 9:4, and for others detailed at the end of this chapter; but also all cruelty, manslaughter, murder, etc., as some of the ancient fathers have understood it.

Instead of του αἱματος, blood, some have conjectured that we should read χοιρειας, swine's flesh; for they cannot see, first, that there can be any harm in eating of blood; and, secondly, that, as the other three things neither have nor can have any moral evil in them, it would seem strange that they should be coupled with a thing which, on all hands, is confessed to have much moral turpitude. Answers to such trifling objections will be found at the end of the chapter. It is only necessary to add that this χοιρειας, which is the critical emendation of Dr. Bentley, is not supported by one MS. or version in existence.

At the close of this verse, the Codex Bezae, and several others, add a fifth thing, And not to do to others what they would not have done to themselves. Though this is a very ancient reading, it does not appear to be genuine.

Was this helpful?

Albert Barnes
Notes on the Whole Bible

That we write unto them - Expressing our judgment, or our views of the case.

That they abstain - That they refrain from these things, or wholly avoid them.

Pollutions of idols - The word rendered “pollutions” means any kind of “defilement.” But here it is evidently used to denote the flesh of those animals that were offered in sacrifice to idols. See Acts 15:29. That flesh, after being offered in sacrifice, was often exposed for sale in the markets, or was served up at feasts, 1 Corinthians 10:25-29. It became a very important question whether it was right for Christians to partake of it. The Jews would contend that it was, in fact, partaking of idolatry. The Gentile converts would allege that they did not eat it as a sacrifice to idols, or lend their countenance in any way to the idolatrous Worship where it had been offered. See this subject discussed at length in 1 Corinthians 8:4-13. As idolatry was forbidden to the Jews in every form, and as partaking even of the sacrifices of idols in their feasts might seem to countenance idolatry, the Jews would be utterly opposed to it; and for the sake of peace, James advised that the Christians at Antioch be recommended to abstain from this. To partake of that food might not be morally wrong 1 Corinthians 8:4, but it would give occasion for scandal and offence; and, therefore, as a matter of expediency, it was advised that they should abstain from it.

And from fornication - The word used here πορνεία porneiais applicable to “all illicit sexual intercourse,” and may refer to adultery, incest, or licentiousness in any form. There has been much diversity of opinion in regard to this expression. Interpreters have been greatly perplexed to understand why this violation of the moral law has been introduced amidst the violations of the ceremonial law, and the question is naturally asked whether this was a sin about which there could be any debate between the Jewish and Gentile converts? Were there any who would practice it, or plead that it was lawful? If not, why is it prohibited here? Various explanations of this have been proposed. Some have supposed that James refers here to the offerings which harlots would make of their gains to the service of religion, and that James would prohibit the reception of it. Beza, Selden, and Schleusner suppose the word is taken for idolatry, as it is often represented in the Scriptures as consisting in unfaithfulness to God, and as it is often called adultery. Heringius supposes that marriage between idolaters and Christians is here intended. But, after all, the usual interpretation of the word, as referring to illicit sexual intercourse of the sexes of any kind, is undoubtedly here to be retained. If it be asked, then, why this was particularly forbidden, and was introduced in this connection, we may reply:

(1) That this vice prevailed everywhere among the Gentiles, and was that to which all were particularly exposed.

(2) that it was not deemed by the Gentiles disgraceful. It was practiced without shame and without remorse. (Terence, Adelphi, 1,2,21. See Grotius.) It was important, therefore, that the pure laws of Christianity on this subject should be known, and that special pains should be taken to instruct the early converts from paganism in those laws. The same thing is necessary still in pagan lands.

(3) this crime was connected with religion. It was the practice not only to introduce indecent pictures and emblems into their worship, but also for females to devote themselves to the service of particular temples, and to devote the avails of indiscriminate prostitution to the service of the god, or the goddess. The vice was connected with no small part of the pagan worship; and the images, the emblems, and the customs of idolatry everywhere tended to sanction and promote it. A mass of evidence on this subject which sickens the heart, and which would be too long and too indelicate to introduce here, may be seen in Tholuck‘s Nature and Moral Influence of Paganism, in the Biblical Repository for July, 1832, p. 441-464. As this vice was almost universal; as it was practiced without shame or disgrace; as there were no laws among the pagan to prevent it; as it was connected with all their views of idol worship and of religion, it was important for the early Christians to frown upon and to oppose it, and to set a special guard against it in all the churches. It was the sin to which, of all others, they were the most exposed, and which was most likely to bring scandal on the Christian religion. It is for this cause that it is so often and so pointedly forbidden in the New Testament Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 1 Corinthians 6:18; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:3.

And from things strangled - That is, from animals or birds that were killed without shedding their blood. The reason why these were considered by the Jews unlawful to. be eaten was, that thus they would be under a necessity of eating blood, which was positively forbidden by the Law. Hence, it was commanded in the Law that when any beast or fowl was taken in a snare, the blood should be poured out before it was lawful to be eaten, Leviticus 17:13.

And from blood - The eating of blood was strictly forbidden to the Jews. The reason of this was that it contained the life, Leviticus 17:11, Leviticus 17:14. See notes on Romans 3:25. The use of blood was common among the Gentiles. They drank it often at their sacrifices, and in making covenants or compacts. To separate the Jews from them in this respect was one design of the prohibition. See Spencer, De Ley Hebrae., p. 144,145,169,235,377,381,594, edit. 1732. See also this whole passage examined at length in Spencer, p. 588-626. The primary reason of the prohibition was, that it was thus used in the feasts and compacts of idolaters. That blood was thus drank by the pagans, particularly by the Sabians, in their sacrifices, is fully proved by Spencer, De Leg., p. 377-380 But the prohibition specifies a higher reason, that the life is in the blood, and that therefore it should not be eaten. On this opinion see the notes on Romans 3:25. This reason existed before any ceremonial law; it is founded in the nature of things; it has no particular reference to any custom of the Jews; and it is as forcible in any other circumstances as in theirs. It was proper, therefore, to forbid it to the early Christian converts; and for the same reason, its use should be abstained from everywhere. It adds to the force of these remarks when we remember that the same principle was settled before the laws of Moses were given, and that God regarded the fact that the life was in the blood as of so much importance as to make the shedding of it worthy of death, Genesis 9:4-6. It is supposed, therefore, that this law is still obligatory. Perhaps, also, there is no food more unwholesome than blood; and it is a further circumstance of some moment that all people naturally revolt from it as an article of food.

Was this helpful?

Matthew Henry
Concise Bible Commentary

We see from the words "purifying their hearts by faith," and the address of St. Peter, that justification by faith, and sanctification by the Holy Ghost, cannot be separated; and that both are the gift of God. We have great cause to bless God that we have heard the gospel. May we have that faith which the great Searcher of hearts approves, and attests by the seal of the Holy Spirit. Then our hearts and consciences will be purified from the guilt of sin, and we shall be freed from the burdens some try to lay upon the disciples of Christ. Paul and Barnabas showed by plain matters of fact, that God owned the preaching of the pure gospel to the Gentiles without the law of Moses; therefore to press that law upon them, was to undo what God had done. The opinion of James was, that the Gentile converts ought not to be troubled about Jewish rites, but that they should abstain from meats offered to idols, so that they might show their hatred of idolatry. Also, that they should be cautioned against fornication, which was not abhorred by the Gentiles as it should be, and even formed a part of some of their rites. They were counselled to abstain from things strangled, and from eating blood; this was forbidden by the law of Moses, and also here, from reverence to the blood of the sacrifices, which being then still offered, it would needlessly grieve the Jewish converts, and further prejudice the unconverted Jews. But as the reason has long ceased, we are left free in this, as in the like matters. Let converts be warned to avoid all appearances of the evils which they formerly practised, or are likely to be tempted to; and caution them to use Christian liberty with moderation and prudence.

Was this helpful?

SDA Bible Commentary (limited)
Volume 1-7

20. Write. Gr. epistellÅÂ, “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 truly 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. eidÅÂlothuta, “[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 truss 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 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 Shim‘on ben ‘Azzai (c. a.d. 110): “In the Torah there are 365 prohibitions, and among all the laws there is none like this Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ 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 Deuteromony 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.

Was this helpful?

Ellen G. White
The Acts of the Apostles, 96

“God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” 1 Corinthians 14:33. He requires that order and system be observed in the conduct of church affairs today no less than in the days of old. He desires His work to be carried forward with thoroughness and exactness so that He may place upon it the seal of His approval. Christian is to be united with Christian, church with church, the human instrumentality co-operating with the divine, every agency subordinate to the Holy Spirit, and all combined in giving to the world the good tidings of the grace of God. AA 96.1

This chapter is based on Acts 6:5-15; 7.

Read in context »

Was this helpful?

Ellen G. White
The Acts of the Apostles, 190-7

Before his conversion Paul had regarded himself as blameless “touching the righteousness which is in the law.” Philippians 3:6. But since his change of heart he had gained a clear conception of the mission of the Saviour as the Redeemer of the entire race, Gentile as well as Jew, and had learned the difference between a living faith and a dead formalism. In the light of the gospel the ancient rites and ceremonies committed to Israel had gained a new and deeper significance. That which they shadowed forth had come to pass, and those who were living under the gospel dispensation had been freed from their observance. God's unchangeable law of Ten Commandments, however, Paul still kept in spirit as well as in letter. AA 190.1

In the church at Antioch the consideration of the question of circumcision resulted in much discussion and contention. Finally, the members of the church, fearing that a division among them would be the outcome of continued discussion, decided to send Paul and Barnabas, with some responsible men from the church, to Jerusalem to lay the matter before the apostles and elders. There they were to meet delegates from the different churches and those who had come to Jerusalem to attend the approaching festivals. Meanwhile all controversy was to cease until a final decision should be given in general council. This decision was then to be universally accepted by the different churches throughout the country. AA 190.2

On the way to Jerusalem the apostles visited the believers in the cities through which they passed, and encouraged them by relating their experience in the work of God and the conversion of the Gentiles. AA 190.3

Read in context »

Was this helpful?

Ellen G. White
The Acts of the Apostles, 383

This chapter is based on the Epistle to the Galatians.

While tarrying at Corinth, Paul had cause for serious apprehension concerning some of the churches already established. Through the influence of false teachers who had arisen among the believers in Jerusalem, division, heresy, and sensualism were rapidly gaining ground among the believers in Galatia. These false teachers were mingling Jewish traditions with the truths of the gospel. Ignoring the decision of the general council at Jerusalem, they urged upon the Gentile converts the observance of the ceremonial law. AA 383.1

Read in context »

Was this helpful?

Ellen G. White
The Acts of the Apostles, 387

To substitute external forms of religion for holiness of heart and life is still as pleasing to the unrenewed nature as it was in the days of these Jewish teachers. Today, as then, there are false spiritual guides, to whose doctrines many listen eagerly. It is Satan's studied effort to divert minds from the hope of salvation through faith in Christ and obedience to the law of God. In every age the archenemy adapts his temptations to the prejudices or inclinations of those whom he is seeking to deceive. In apostolic times he led the Jews to exalt the ceremonial law and reject Christ; at the present time he induces many professing Christians, under pretense of honoring Christ, to cast contempt on the moral law and to teach that its precepts may be transgressed with impunity. It is the duty of every servant of God to withstand firmly and decidedly these perverters of the faith and by the word of truth fearlessly to expose their errors. AA 387.1

In his effort to regain the confidence of his brethren in Galatia, Paul ably vindicated his position as an apostle of Christ. He declared himself to be an apostle, “not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead.” Not from men, but from the highest Authority in heaven, had he received his commission. And his position had been acknowledged by a general council at Jerusalem, with the decisions of which Paul had complied in all his labors among the Gentiles. AA 387.2

It was not to exalt self, but to magnify the grace of God, that Paul thus presented to those who were denying his apostleship, proof that he was “not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.” 2 Corinthians 11:5. Those who sought to belittle his calling and his work were fighting against Christ, whose grace and power were manifested through Paul. The apostle was forced, by the opposition of his enemies, to take a decided stand in maintaining his position and authority. AA 388.1

Read in context »

Was this helpful?

More Comments

Cross References

from pollutions