The “Jerusalem Council” of Acts 15 was a crucial event for the early Church. Would Gentile (non-Jew) followers of Jesus be expected to obey all of the details of the Law of Moses? If not, would their freedom in Christ have any boundaries of inappropriate behavior? And, if only some aspects of the Law of Moses were to be obeyed by these Gentile believers, how can we know what these aspects should be?

           

The assertion of the need for Christians to be circumcised and to keep the entire Law had been raised by some believers who had come from Judea to Antioch. Paul and Barnabas strongly disagreed with them, and they were sent by the church in Antioch to see the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this question. The climax to their discussion came when James gave his judgment that the Gentile believers should not be burdened by anything beyond four basic requirements: to abstain from food sacrificed to (or “polluted by”-v.20) idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood. A letter was then drafted, informing the other churches of their decision.

           

Commentators have often been quite puzzled by the particular four areas of restraint that are mentioned. Some have viewed three of the prohibitions as worship-related, with the ban on sexual immorality not “fitting in” with the others. Many commentators also have debated at length about what is meant by each of these phrases, assuming that there is no specific contextual background from which these are derived. This confusion seems to be even reflected in a few textual variants among the ancient manuscripts, which omit either sexual immorality (with others seen as cultic/worship-related) or strangled things (assuming, then, that the other three are moral injunctions, with “blood” supposedly referring to murder!).

           

There is considerable evidence, however, which points to Leviticus 17 & 18 as the specific basis upon which the Jerusalem Council rendered its verdict. This explains why these four, and only these four, prohibitions are cited, and also provides a context and a more assured meaning for each phrase.

​

Evidence for Leviticus 17 & 18 as the basis for the Acts 15 prohibitions:

           

(1) Derived from Moses- In concluding his remarks, James makes the explanatory comment, “For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath” (Acts 15:21). Why does he add this? It seems clear that he is implying that these four prohibitions are derived directly from the Law of Moses, and he expects that this will be readily apparent to his hearers and to anyone else familiar with the Mosaic Law. (It might even be suggested that the Pharisees’ assertions in Acts 15:5 that “the Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the Law of Moses” is what led him to note that this had precisely not been the case under the Law of Moses, for Gentiles living among the children of Israel, other than in regard to the four areas which he then cites! So he repudiates their argument by pointing to the distinctions made in the Mosaic Law itself.)

           

(2) Similar prohibitions are listed together only here- In Leviticus 17 and 18 four areas of prohibition are listed: idolatry (17:1-9), eating blood (17:10-12), eating the meat of an animal which died with its blood trapped inside (i.e., “strangled” in Acts 15) (17:13-16), and various kinds of inappropriate sexual relations (18:6-30). This is the only place in the Mosaic Law where the four elements cited in Acts 15 are found together.

           

(3) “And any foreigner(s) residing among them/you (Israel)”- This phrase is repeated in Lev. 17 and 18 specifically in regard to each of these four restrictions (17:8, 10, 13, and 18:26), while the other prohibitions of the “holiness” and ceremonial laws of Leviticus are directed at Israelites only (cf. 19:1, 33), establishing that these four instead apply to both Israelites and the foreigners living among them. It is quite reasonable, then, to conclude that these injunctions would have provided the natural framework for deciding what aspects of the Law of Moses should be expected of the Gentile Christian “foreigners” being grafted into the Family of God.  

           

(4) The change of order- The difference in the order of the 15:20 and 15:29 lists is also noteworthy (the latter being reiterated in Acts 21:25). In 15:20 the items can be seen as given by James in theological categories, first in regard to respecting covenant sacredness by restraining idolatry and adultery, followed by those respecting blood as the means of atonement. Significantly, however, in drafting the letter to the churches the order is changed to follow the order of the concerns as listed in Lev. 17 and 18, listing idols, blood, things strangled, and sexual immorality, in that order. Thus, to any Jewish Christians in those churches who knew the Law in detail, these expectations in Lev. 17 and 18 would have been even more readily apparent as the basis for the specific group of restrictions being imposed upon Gentile followers of Christ.

​

Implications for Today:

           

Temporary Concession or Permanent Expectations? Were these expectations only for the Christians in the apostolic era, or also for us today? Did they end in 70 AD with the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the end of the Old Covenant era? If they were only a temporary concession to Jewish sensitivities, why is there no inference of this in the text? Rather, the focus seems to be on the more general question of the proper limits to the Law of Moses’ impact on any Gentile followers of Jesus, “that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (Acts 15:19). If we would conclude that these expectations have continuing validity for all Christians of all times, their possible application to us would seem to be as follows:

           

(1) Application of “food sacrificed to/polluted by idols” today- In correlation with Paul’s further teaching on the subject in 1 Cor. 10, the focus is on avoiding intentional participation in idolatrous worship and its fellowship meals.

           

(2) Application of “blood” restriction today- Perhaps in the first century eating or drinking blood were idolatrous practices equivalent to such practices among the Canaanites, so that the impact of this restriction would only be in regard to idol worship. Otherwise, this expectation about abstaining from intentionally eating or drinking blood, out of respect for blood as the means of atonement (Lev.17:11), could have the implication of avoiding foods where blood is a primary, rather than an incidental, ingredient. To go beyond this to condemning “rare” steaks or requiring extra efforts to extract the blood from the meat would be to unduly add a severity to this issue that is unwarranted by Scripture. The modern kosher laws of Judaism, like the Pharisees’ “hedge” of prohibitions around the general Sabbath command, would seem unduly strict in this regard.

           

(3) Application of “meat of strangled animals” today- Again, avoiding the inappropriate extreme rigidity of Jewish kosher laws today, it is merely expected that an animal killed in hunting or in a butcher shop would soon be cut open and the majority of blood enabled to drain out, as an expression of respect for the principle of blood atonement.

           

(4) Application of “sexual immorality” restrictions for today- Identifying Lev. 17 & 18 as the background context for the Acts 15 decision has a number of implications for us today. First, it is important for providing specific content to what is meant by the general term of “sexual immorality” (Gk. “porneia”) often used in the New Testament. Furthermore, in addition to the expectation that they would avoid the various abhorrent and incestuous sexual activities condemned here (cf., note the application in 1 Cor. 5:1), there are two other particular implications that are worthy of special note:             

First, the call to avoid sexual relations during the woman’s menstrual period (18:19), if practiced, would require the self-control of periodic abstinence by the couple from sexual relations.           

Second, the expectation that they should avoid homosexual sexual intimacy (18:22) would be seen to have a continuing validity for Christians today, with a sound hermeneutical rationale for us to apply it today, while not being obligated by other “holiness” matters mentioned elsewhere, such as trimming the beard or wearing clothing woven from two kinds of material (19:20, 27).

​

​