Acts 15:20

Robert H. Gundry
15:19–21: “Therefore [because God has involved himself so as to take from among the Gentiles a people for his name, just as prophesied] I give judgment not to trouble those from the Gentiles who are turning [from idols] to God [that is, not to trouble them with the requirement of circumcision and keeping the rest of Moses’ law], 20 but to write them a letter to the effect they should avoid

1. the things polluted by idols [which things will be specified in 15:29 as meat eaten in a pagan temple after the animal from which the meat comes has been sacrificed to the idol housed in the temple] and 
2. [to avoid] sexual immorality [practiced there in connection with feasting on the meat, for pagan temples and adjacent quarters featured prostitution and other sexual dalliance as well as dining] and 
3. what’s strangled [as pagan sacrifices sometimes were] and 
4. blood [which was sometimes tasted or drunk at sacrificial ceremonies in pagan temples].” 

In other words, Gentile converts are to forgo their past participation in idolatrous and immoral activities at pagan temples (compare 1 Corinthians 8 and especially 10; also 1 John 5:21; Revelation 2:14, 20–21). 21

Robert H. Gundry, Commentary on the New Testament: Verse-by-Verse Explanations with a Literal Translation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010), 524.

I. HOWARD MARSHALL

1. In Leviticus only sacrifices offered at the tent of meeting are acceptable, with the implication that only the meat of these may be consumed; hence the text can be taken as indirectly forbidding the consumption of sacrificial meat offered to idols (Lev. 17:8–9). 
2. The consumption of blood is expressly forbidden (Lev. 17:10–12). The blood must be drained from any animal that is eaten; hence 
3. it can be argued that implicitly the eating of animals killed by strangulation (without draining off the blood) is forbidden (Lev. 17:13–14). 
4. Sexual immorality of all kinds is said to be forbidden in Lev. 18:26 (but the reference is to the preceding list of forbidden relationships, and prostitution is not mentioned). 

These four items occur in the same order in Acts 15:29 (though not in 15:20). In Leviticus these regulations are bound up with the fact that such actions pollute the land. The statement in Acts does not reflect specifically LXX phraseology at this point. The word alisgēma (“pollution”) occurs in the Greek Bible only here in Acts 15:20 (although the cognate verb alisgeō occurs in Dan. 1:8; Mal. 1:7, 12; Sir. 40:29). The word porneia (“sexual immorality”) is not used in Leviticus, but many examples of it are given. Bauckham (1996: 174–78) argues that the choice of these restrictions (excluding the Sabbath requirement on resident aliens in Exod. 20:10; Deut. 5:14) reflects the prophecies about the Gentiles joining the people of God and living “in the midst of them,” specifically Jer. 12:16; Zech. 2:11. Only the pentateuchal rules for aliens “in the midst” are applied here to Gentiles in the new people of God. The gezerah shavah link (use of a common word creating a link) between the passages depends on the MT and not on the LXX. So Gentiles do not have to become Jews (i.e., proselytes) when they come into the new people of God, but they are required to keep the commandments that applied to Gentiles living in Israel. Thus certain aspects of the OT law were applied to Gentiles. Nevertheless, the prohibition of nonkosher food has been quietly dropped from most Christian practice. On this, see the comment by Calvin (Calvin 1965–1966: 2:51–52, cited in Barrett 1994–1998: 738).
This interpretation is not universally accepted. The proposal to find the origin of the requirements elsewhere, specifically in the “Noachian precepts” that developed in Judaism as God’s law for all peoples (cf. Gen. 9:4–6; Jub. 7:20; see Str-B 3:37–38), is less convincing, but the broad similarities are not surprising. Barrett (1994–1998: 734–35) notes that Jews under persecution faced three issues on which compromise was impossible—idolatry, the shedding of blood, and incest—and thinks that these are the basis of the requirements here, but the parallel is much less close, and the rationale for the adoption of these points here is not clear. Turner (1982: 114–19) and Witherington (1998: 464–65) are skeptical of the appeal to Lev. 17–18. Turner argues that Luke did not expect believing Gentiles to keep the law and that Jewish law required more from the Gentiles than simply the four requirements listed; these are ad hoc requirements, the minimum needed to enable fellowship with scrupulous believing Jews. Witherington draws attention to the points where the requirements do not correspond very precisely with those in Leviticus and develops an alternative understanding of the passage as prohibiting the eating of sacrificial food in pagan temples. It can be seen that these regulations would in fact deal on a practical level with the problem of fellowship at the table in mixed churches (similarly, Blomberg 1984: 65–66).

I. Howard Marshall, “Acts,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI;  Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic;  Apollos, 2007), 593–594.

Eckhard J. Schnabel
15:20 We should instruct them in a letter to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood (ἀλλὰ ἐπιστεῖλαι αὐτοῖς τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων καὶ τῆς πορνείας καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος). James suggests that the assembly formulate a formal rejection of the demands of the Pharisaic Christians, written up in a letter,530 in which their decision would be communicated to the Gentile Christians. James proposes that in addition to the decision not to demand circumcision and wholesale submission to the Mosaic law, one request should be made of the Gentile believers.531 They should be asked to “abstain” (ἀπέχεσθαι) from four things. The verb means “to avoid contact with or use of something” and can be translated as “keep away, abstain, refrain from.”532
The first item is “food polluted by idols” (τὰ ἀλισγήματα τῶν εἰδώλων). The term “the polluted things” (τὰ ἀλισγήματα) is rare; the verb (ἀλισγέω) is used in the LXX denoting “to make ceremonially impure.”533 In v. 29 the term “food sacrificed to idols” (τὰ εἰδωλόθυτα) is used, denoting anything sacrificed to the cult image of a pagan deity (usually food; see on v. 29).534 The genitive “by idols” (τῶν εἰδώλων) indicates the source of the pollution: contact with pagan deities defile the members of God’s people. The Greek term translated as “idol” (εἴδωλον) was used in secular Greek literature to denote a form, an image, a shadow, or a phantom.535 In a Jewish context (including the LXX), the term was used for the deities of the polytheists (or pagans, Gentiles) that have no reality; they are the products of fantasy; they have been manufactured by human hands.536
The term “idol” reflects the Old Testament critique of pagan religiosity according to which the deities that the pagans manufacture and worship are an “image,” i.e., a copy, distinct from reality.537 The Decalogue prohibits images: God may not be depicted as an “image/idol” (εἴδωλον; Hebr. פֶסֶל֙).538 The people of Israel “knew that Yahweh was never so ready to hand as the deity in the ritual forms of the ancient Near East, in which the image of the god was waited on.”539 And the law prohibits offering sacrifices to idols.540 Some New Testament scholars assume that most if not all of the meat that one could buy in Greek and Roman cities came from animals that had been sacrificed in local temples to honor pagan deities.541 This is incorrect.542 Paul’s discussion in 1 Cor 10:25, 28 indicates that it was possible, at least in Corinth, to buy meat that did not come from animals that had been slaughtered in a cult ceremony in a pagan temple. Food polluted by pagan idol worship was consumed in connection with the sacrifice, on the premises of a temple.
James’s first prohibition thus concerns idolatry: the Gentile believers are to refrain from attending sacrificial ceremonies in pagan temples and from attending banquets held in pagan temples where they would be eating meat from animals slaughtered on altars devoted to pagan deities. This prohibition corresponds to the first commandment of the Decalogue not to have any other God besides Israel’s God (Exod 20:3), and to the commandment of Exod 34:15 that stipulated, “Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices.” The consistent commitment to this commandment had prompted Paul and Barnabas to refuse the honor of being treated like deities by the citizens of Lystra (14:12–18).
For the Jewish people, the refusal to eat meat from animals that had been sacrificed to pagan deities, tantamount to the refusal to be involved in idol worship, was so fundamental that they were willing to die as martyrs rather than commit this sin.543 Paul agrees that Gentile believers should not attend banquets in pagan temples and eat meat from animals sacrificed to idols (1 Cor 10:1–11:1).544 John warns of false teachers who were telling the believers in Pergamon and Thyatira that they could eat meat sacrificed to idols (Rev 2:14, 20). This first provision prohibits either buying meat that may have been used in an idol offering or participation in idolatry, including the attendance at social functions in pagan temples—or both.
The second prohibition concerns “sexual immorality” (πορνεία), a term that refers to unsanctioned sexual intercourse, i.e., sexual immorality or aberration of every kind. From an Old Testament and Jewish perspective, this included prostitution, extramarital sex (fornication), incest, bestiality, homosexual relationships, and marriage within close degrees of kinship prohibited by the law. Adultery (Greek, μοιχεία), i.e., intercourse with a married partner other than one’s spouse, certainly also constitutes sexual immorality, since the law prohibited adultery on pain of death (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22); since adultery was a criminal offense in Greco-Roman societies as well, it did not have to be mentioned: the prohibition of adultery was known to both Jews and Gentiles.
Prostitution, fornication, and homosexual relationships were acceptable or at least tolerated behavior in Greco-Roman society but were viewed negatively in the Old Testament and Jewish society; the last of these was punishable by death.546 These sexual activities are certainly in view here. If the origin of the four stipulations is Lev 17–18 (see below), the primary reference of “sexual immorality” would be intrafamilial sexual relationships that the Mosaic law prohibits in Lev 18:6–18.547 In the Old Testament and in Jewish tradition, sexual immorality was often linked with idolatry.548 If the focus of the prohibitions is on meal preparation, the reference to sexual immorality could refer either to the provision of prostitutes which a Roman host might provide for postmeal activities,549 or to the impurity of the women who prepared the meal due to menstrual uncleanness (Lev 18:19).550
The third item is “what has been strangled” (τὸ πνικτόν), a rare term which is usually understood to mean “meat of strangled animals,” i.e., meat from animals that have been improperly butchered, with the result that the blood has not been drained from them. The Mosaic law prohibits eating such meat.551 An alternative translation is “what has been smothered,” as the term is used to denote the smothering of very young animals for tender meat and to the gentle cooking of very tender food.552 If the decree refers to moral matters, the term could refer to infanticide (or abortion) which was used in ancient societies for birth control.553
The fourth prohibition concerns “blood” (αἵμα), a term that could refer to murder, i.e., the spilling of blood, but refers more plausibly to eating food made from the blood of animals, which the Mosaic law prohibits.554
The rationale for these four particular stipulations is disputed. Six main interpretations have been suggested, the last two being the most likely.
(1) The four stipulations are practical measures that were meant to facilitate the (table) fellowship between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians as “ad hoc advice on how not to offend certain Jews.” This explanation is not convincing since the stipulation that forbids idolatry does not fit the assumed concern for harmony between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians; rather, abandonment of idolatry was a fundamental part of the conversion of Gentiles. Also, the matters related to idolatry, immorality, and the ingestion of blood are not mere intrapersonal offenses for Jews (which the Gentile believers should take into account), but offenses against God prohibited in the law. A related explanation suggests that the regulations do not invoke specific Old Testament texts but reflect an “ethos” in terms of “having a spirit of sensitivity about that which may cause offense” and “respecting the practices of others and not forcing oneself on another because of such views.”556 While “cross-cultural concerns” are certainly involved at some level, the issue at stake is not “culture” but the application of the Mosaic law as Scripture. James does not ask the Gentile believers to “respect” the Jewish believers, nor does he ask the Jewish believers not to “force” themselves on the Gentile believers. Had this “ethos” been James’ main concern, he would have had other linguistic means to make his point.
(2) The stipulations correspond to the Noahide commandments that the Jews regarded as normative for humanity.557 The parallel is not very striking, since the concrete specifications of the Noahide commandments in the rabbinic sources prohibit idolatry, blasphemy, murder, incest, stealing, perverting justice, and eating meat containing blood. The stipulations of v. 20 have only the first, third, fourth and seventh command (if “sexual immorality” is understood as incest, and “blood” as reference to murder).
(3) The stipulations correspond to the cardinal sins that a Jew was not supposed to commit under any circumstances—idolatry, fornication, and murder (blood).558 This explanation cannot account for the prohibition of eating “what is strangled.”559
(4) The stipulations come from the catalogues of vices and virtues which Jews used in teaching Gentiles when they became proselytes. The apostles’ decision removed circumcision from such a list, but kept the other requirements.560 While intriguing, this explanation cannot explain the phrase “what has been strangled,” and it fails to see that by the removal of the requirement of circumcision, the Gentile converts were thus exempted from the necessity of becoming proselytes. It is questionable whether Jewish proselyte traditions per se, apart from their scriptural basis, would have been regarded as relevant by Peter, Paul, or James, given the fact that it was the law, and Scriptures more widely, and its application to Gentile Christians which was the focus of the discussion (vv. 5–6, 10, 15–18, 21).
(5) The stipulations should be interpreted in the context of the Jewish diaspora on the background of the Old Testament polemic against idolatry; they direct the Gentile believers to refrain from participating in pagan cultic and other practices.561 This interpretation suggests that the first stipulation concerns matters related to pagan idols; term “sexual immorality” (πορνεία) refers to prostitution sometimes linked with pagan temples; the references to strangled animals and to blood refer to cultic practices of pagans. This interpretation is valid in a general sense. The first stipulation concerns idolatry, and as Paul’s discussion in 1 Cor 8–10 shows, Gentile believers were tempted to continue to attend banquets in pagan temples. However, by itself this explanation is insufficient for several reasons. First, if the four stipulations only wanted to direct Gentile Christians to give up their former pagan practices and to worship the one true God, concerns regarding idolatry could have been formulated more clearly and without recourse to rare Greek words. Second, the decree would not have said anything new and would therefore have been redundant, since the renunciation of pagan religious practices was a fundamental part of the message that missionaries preached among Gentiles. Third, the regulations regarding strangled animals and blood are difficult to associate with pagan temples.562
(6) The four stipulations should be interpreted in terms of the regulations that Lev 17–18 formulates for Gentiles who live in Israel as resident aliens (גֵרִים).563 Prohibited are sacrifices that are not offered on the altar at the tabernacle, which means that consumption of meat sacrificed in other places to idols is prohibited (Lev 17:8–9); immorality, specifically sexual relations between blood relatives (18:10–18); eating meat from animals that have been strangled (17:13); and eating blood (17:14; cf. 18:26). Understood against this background, the four stipulations have been explained as a (cultic-ritual) compromise that aimed at facilitating the communal fellowship of Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in “mixed churches.”564
However, the pragmatic desire to facilitate fellowship between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians alone does not suffice to explain the selection of the four stipulations, particularly since other stipulations of the law for the resident alien are missing, as, for example, the Sabbath commandment.565 It seems that the four stipulations in v. 20 are requested of Gentile Christians not only because they occur in Lev 17–18 but because they are linked with the phrase “in the midst of them” (Hebr. בְּתֹוכָם; Lev 17:8–9, 10–14; 18:26), and that these stipulations for the resident alien living in Israel are connected via this catchphrase with the prophecies in Jer 12:16 and Zech 2:11 (MT 2:15) concerning the Gentiles joining the people of God and living “in the midst of them.”566
Thus, the provision in v. 20 “is not an arbitrary qualification” of the decision to admit Gentile believers into the people of God without requiring them to become Jewish proselytes. Rather, the prohibitions follow with exegetical logic from vv. 16–18: “If Gentile Christians are the Gentiles to whom the prophecies conflated in Acts 15:16–18 refer, then they are also the Gentiles of Jer 12:16; Zech 2:11/15, and therefore the part of the Law of Moses which applies to them is Leviticus 17–18.”567 In other words, James’s exegetical argument created a link between the prophecy of Amos 9:11–12, quoted in vv. 16–18, and Lev 17–18, quoted in v. 20, by alluding to prophecies that announced the integration of Gentiles into the people of God (Jer 12:16; Zech 2:11). James established that the law contains these commandments which explicitly apply to Gentiles living among Israel. This interpretation has been criticized mainly because the law required more from resident aliens living in Israel than these four requirements, and because Luke does not expect Gentile Christians to keep the law.568 The first argument is valid, but not decisive since the phrase “in the midst of” may have been deliberately chosen as the principle of selection which eliminated other laws (such as the Sabbath commandment) because these four stipulations had particular relevance in pagan religious contexts and were thus a more likely source of defilement (see the fifth explanation).569 The second argument is patently incorrect: if Gentile Christians are requested to abstain from idolatry (the first stipulation in v. 20), they indeed keep the first and the most important commandment of the Decalogue570 (see further Theology in Application).
It has been suggested that the Apostolic Decree has been formulated in a deliberately ambiguous manner—the Jewish believers can read it as giving teaching about food laws, while others (including Paul, Barnabas, and Silas, who take the decision to Antioch and beyond, explaining its meaning, as letter carriers do571) read it in terms of the immoral values and behavior of the Gentile world.572 As teaching on the preparation of food when eating with Jews, Gentile Christians are directed not to buy meat which may have been an idol offering, not to buy meat which contains blood (including meat from animals which have been killed by asphyxiation), and not to let a woman who is menstruating prepare the meal. As teaching on moral lifestyle, Gentile believers are directed to avoid idolatry (including social functions in temples where meat is served that has been sacrificed to idols), to abstain from bloodshed and violence, including killing unwanted children after birth, and to abstain from sexual immorality, including prostitution and homosexual practices. However, since the disputes which made the Apostles’ Council necessary were clearly regarded as important and serious, it is doubtful that the decree was deliberately formulated in an ambiguous manner.

Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts, Expanded Digital Edition, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), Ac 15:20.

I. Howard Marshall
19–20. From this argument James drew the conclusion that the church should not go on burdening Gentiles who turned to God. But how does the conclusion follow from the argument? The point would seem to be that God is doing something new in raising up the church; it is an event of the last days, and therefore the old rules of the Jewish religion no longer apply: God is making a people out of the nations and nothing in the text suggests that they are to become Jews in order to become God’s people. So there are no entrance ‘conditions’ to be imposed upon them. Nevertheless, James has a recommendation to make, that the Gentiles should abstain from certain things which were repulsive to Jews. Four things are mentioned in the text. First, there are pollutions of idols. This refers to meat offered in sacrifice to idols and then eaten in a temple feast or sold in a shop. Secondly, there was unchastity, variously understood as illicit sexual intercourse or as breaches of the Jewish marriage law (which forbade marriage between close relatives, Lev. 18:6–18). The third element was meat which had been killed by strangling, a method of slaughter which meant that the blood remained in the meat, and the fourth item was blood itself. These food regulations resemble those in Leviticus 17:8–13. For the problems raised by these rules see the introduction to this section.32

I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 5, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 267–268.

Warren W. Wiersbe
James advised the church to write to the Gentile believers and share the decisions of the conference. This letter asked for obedience to two commands and a willingness to agree to two personal concessions. The two commands were that the believers avoid idolatry and immorality, sins that were especially prevalent among the Gentiles (see 1 Cor. 8–10). The two concessions were that they willingly abstain from eating blood and meat from animals that had died by strangulation. The two commands do not create any special problems, for idolatry and immorality have always been wrong in God’s sight, both for Jews and Gentiles. But what about the two concessions concerning food?
Keep in mind that the early church did a great deal of eating together and practicing of hospitality. Most churches met in homes, and some assemblies held a “love feast” in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17–34). It was probably not much different from our own potluck dinners. If the Gentile believers ate food that the Jewish believers considered “unclean,” this would cause division in the church. Paul dealt clearly with this whole problem in Romans 14–15.
The prohibition against eating blood was actually given by God before the time of the Law (Gen. 9:4), and it was repeated by Moses (Lev. 17:11–14; Deut. 12:23). If an animal is killed by strangulation, some of the blood will remain in the body and make the meat unfit for Jews to eat. Hence, the admonition against strangulation. “Kosher” meat is meat that comes from clean animals that have been killed properly so that the blood has been totally drained from the body.
It is beautiful to see that this letter expressed the loving unity of people who had once been debating with each other and defending opposing views. The legalistic Jews willingly gave up insisting that the Gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved, and the Gentiles willingly accepted a change in their eating habits. It was a loving compromise that did not in any way affect the truth of the Gospel. As every married person and parent knows, there are times in a home when compromise is wrong, but there are also times when compromise is right. Wise Samuel Johnson said, “Life cannot subsist in society but by reciprocal concessions.” The person who is always right, and who insists on having his or her own way, is difficult to live with happily.
What did this decision accomplish in a practical way? At least three things. First, it strengthened the unity of the church and kept it from splitting into two extreme “Law” and “grace” groups. President Eisenhower called the right kind of compromise “all of the usable surface. The extremes, right or left, are in the gutters.” Again, this is not doctrinal compromise, for that is always wrong (Jude 3). Rather, it is learning to give and take in the practical arrangements of life so that people can live and work together in love and harmony.
Second, this decision made it possible for the church to present a united witness to the lost Jews (Acts 15:21). For the most part, the church was still identified with the Jewish synagogue; and it is likely that in some cities, entire synagogue congregations believed on Jesus Christ—Jews, Gentile proselytes, and Gentile “God-fearers” together. If the Gentile believers abused their freedom in Christ and ate meat containing blood, this would offend both the saved Jews and their unsaved friends whom they were trying to win to Christ. It was simply a matter of not being a stumbling block to the weak or to the lost (Rom. 14:13–21).
Third, this decision brought blessing as the letter was shared with the various Gentile congregations. Paul and Barnabas, along with Judas and Silas, took the good news to Antioch; and the church rejoiced and was encouraged because they did not have to carry the burdensome yoke of the Law (Acts 15:30–31). On his second missionary journey, Paul shared the letter with the churches he had founded on his first missionary journey. The result was a strengthening of the churches’ faith and an increase of their number (Acts 16:5).
We today can learn a great deal from this difficult experience of the early church. To begin with, problems and differences are opportunities for growth just as much as temptations for dissension and division. Churches need to work together and take time to listen, love, and learn. How many hurtful fights and splits could have been avoided if only some of God’s people had given the Spirit time to speak and to work.
Most divisions are caused by “followers” and “leaders.” A powerful leader gets a following, refuses to give in on even the smallest matter, and before long there is a split. Most church problems are not caused by doctrinal differences but by different viewpoints on practical matters. What color shall we paint the church kitchen? Can we change the order of the service? I heard of one church that almost split over whether the organ or the piano should be on the right side of the platform!
Christians need to learn the art of loving compromise. They need to have their priorities in order so they know when to fight for what is really important in the church. It is sinful to follow some impressive member of the church who is fighting to get his or her way on some minor issue that is not worth fighting about. Every congregation needs a regular dose of the love described in 1 Corinthians 13 to prevent division and dissension.
As we deal with our differences, we must ask, “How will our decisions affect the united witness of the church to the lost?” Jesus prayed that His people might be united so that the world might believe on Him (John 17:20–21). Unity is not uniformity, for unity is based on love and not law. There is a great need in the church for diversity in unity (Eph. 4:1–17), for that is the only way the body can mature and do its work in the world.
God has opened a wonderful door of opportunity for us to take the Gospel of God’s grace to a condemned world. But there are forces in the church even today that want to close that door. There are people who are preaching “another gospel” that is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Help keep that door open—and reach as many as you can!
Be daring!

Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 464–465.

Richard N. Longenecker
20 On the practical questions that troubled many Christians at Jerusalem and originally gave rise to the Judaizers’ assertion—i.e., questions of relations between Jewish and Gentile believers in the church and tolerance for the scruples of others—James’s advice was that a letter be written to the Gentile Christians requesting them to abstain (1) “from food polluted by idols” (tōn alisgēmatōn tōn eidōlōn, lit., “from pollutions of idols,” GK 246, 1631), (2) “from sexual immorality” (tēs porneias, GK 4518, which probably means here “from marriage in prohibited degrees of relationship”; cf. Str-B, 2.729), (3) “from the meat of strangled animals” (tou pniktou, lit., “from things strangled,” GK 4465), and (4) “from blood” (tou haimatos, i.e., “from eating blood,” GK 135).
21 These prohibitions have often been viewed as a compromise between two warring parties that in effect nullified James’s earlier words and made the decision of the Jerusalem Council unacceptable to Paul. In reality, however, they are to be seen not as dealing with the central issue of the council but as meeting certain practical concerns—i.e., not as primarily theological in nature but more sociological. Seen in this light, they were meant not as divine ordinances for acceptance before God but as concessions to the scruples of others for the sake of harmony within the church and the continuance of the Jewish-Christian mission. So James adds the rationale of v. 21: “For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath”—that is to say, since Jewish communities are to be found in every city, their scruples are to be respected by Gentile believers.

Richard N. Longenecker, “Acts,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Luke–Acts (Revised Edition), ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 949.

Stanley D. Toussaint
15:19–21. As a result of this theological discussion James set forth a practical decision. It was his considered judgment (krinō, lit., “I judge”) that the church should not make it difficult (parenochlein, “to annoy”; used only here in the NT) for the Gentiles. This parallels in thought the sentiments of Peter expressed in verse 10. Instead (alla, “but,” a strong adversative conjunction) James suggested they draft a letter affirming an ethic which would not offend those steeped in the Old Testament.
The Gentiles were to abstain from three items: (a) food polluted by idols, (b) sexual immorality, and (c) the meat of strangled animals and … blood. Many Bible teachers say these are only ceremonial matters. The food polluted by idols is explained in verse 29 as “food sacrificed to idols” (cf. 22:15). This then, it is argued, looks at the same problem Paul discussed (1 Cor. 8–10). The abstinence from sexual immorality is explained as referring to the marriage laws of Leviticus 18:6–20. The prohibition against eating blood is taken to refer to Leviticus 17:10–14. All three prohibitions according to this interpretation look back to the Jewish ceremonial Law.
However, it seems better to take these as moral issues. The reference to food polluted by idols should be taken in the sense of Revelation 2:14, 20. It was a usual practice among Gentiles to use an idol’s temple for banquets and celebrations. Paul also condemned the practice of Christians participating in these (1 Cor. 10:14–22). Fornication was such a common sin among the Gentiles that it was an accepted practice. The problem of immorality even persisted among Christians all too often


Stanley D. Toussaint, “Acts,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 395.