The Jerusalem-Conference Decree: A Closer Look (Part 2 of 4)

Revision of the Four-point Interdiction¹

James’s initial exhortation was to abstain from (1) “the pollutions of the idols” [τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων], (2) “and the illicit sexual intercourse” [καὶ τῆς πορνείας], (3) “and the strangled [things]” [καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ], (4) “and the blood” [καὶ τοῦ αἵματος] (Acts 15:20).² Rather than atomizing each item, the threefold employment of the conjunction καί (“and”) instead of ἤ (“or”) links all four together. Rather than broadly generalizing them, the article (“the”) preceding each one seems to indicate specific engagement in a particular environment.³

Following the group consensus, when submitted in writing, the recorded listing differs from James’s original proposal in wording, sequence, and article omission (Acts 15:29): (1) “[things] sacrificed to idols” [εἰδωλοθύτων], (2) “and blood” [καὶ αἵματος], (3) “and strangled [things]” [καὶ πνικτοῦ], (4) “and illicit sexual intercourse” [καὶ πορνείας]. The rearrangement more readily links “blood” with “strangled [things]” and both to the first prohibition, which is more specifically identified as “[things] sacrificed to idols.” The “illicit sexual intercourse” proscription is moved to the end of the sequence, albeit still contextually relevant to the others.

About seven years later—after the dispersion of the apostles—James and the Jerusalem elders quoted what had earlier been written, though with slight variation (Acts 21:25). The sequence is the same, whereas the genitives (prepositional objects) are reworded as accusatives (direct objects) with no significant change of meaning. The first proscription is articular yet singular instead of plural: “that which is sacrificed to idols” [τό ... εἰδωλόθυτον]. The second is still singular: “and blood” [καὶ αἷμα].⁴ The third is changed from plural to singular: “and what is strangled” [καὶ πνικτὸν]. Other than grammatical case, the final abstention is the same: “and illicit sexual intercourse” [καὶ πορνείαν]. For all practical purposes, the written version of the appeal and the quoted version are essentially the same.

Abstention #1

After James’s allusion to “the pollutions of idols” (Acts 15:20), the first proscription in the written decree is more specifically identified as εἰδωλόθυτος (Acts 15:29; 21:25)—a strictly Jewish⁵ and likely Jewish-Christian⁶ expression—referring to “someth[thing] offered to a cultic image/idol, food sacrificed to idols” (BDAG 280). Gentile polytheists, on the other hand, typically used the term ἱερόθυτον, meaning “devoted/sacrificed to a divinity,” or as a substantive, “meat sacrificed to idols” (BDAG 470). Paul seems to make a comparative distinction between εἰδωλόθυτος (1 Cor. 8:1, 4, 7, 10; 10:19) and ἱερόθυτον (1 Cor. 10:28).⁷

The ongoing debate is whether εἰδωλόθυτος refers to (a) food specifically eaten as part of a cultic ritual devoted to a pagan deity, or (b) the consumption of food having been sacrificed to a pagan idol, irrespective of the occasion and location of the meal.

First Corinthians 8–10

Remembering that Paul participated in issuing and disseminating the Jerusalem-conference decree (Acts 15:2–16:5), a few years later he had the opportunity to make practical application in his correspondence to the Corinth church, albeit adapted to Corinth’s unique situation.⁸ In chapters 8–10 of 1 Corinthians, while discussing the limits of ἐξουσία (“liberty”),⁹ Paul addresses the contentious matter of εἰδωλόθυτα, “things offered to idols” (N/KJV), or “things sacrificed to idols” (ASV, NASB95), or “food offered to idols” (ESV, RSV), or “food sacrificed to idols” (CSB, NASB20, NIV, NET).

It is not the sacrificial food itself but idolatry with which Paul takes issue (10:7, 14; cf. 5:11-13; 6:9-11). The primary focus of chap. 8 is the effect one’s actions might have on a weaker Christian (presumably a Gentile Christian), whereas the primary focus of chap. 10 is the effect one’s actions might have on an unbeliever.

It may be helpful to pay attention to the pronouns and related pronominal expressions in these chapters.

o   Obviously when first person singulars (“I,” “me,” “my”) are used, Paul is the lone referent (1 Cor. 8:13; 9:1-3, 6, 8, 15-23, 26-27; 10:1, 14, 15, 19, 20, 29-30, 33; 11:1), occasionally employing the exclusive “we” to involve his immediate coworkers (9:4-6, 11-12).

o   When the entire congregation is brought into Paul’s sphere of reference, the inclusive “we” is used (8:1, 4, 6, 8; 9:1, 10, 25; 10:6, 8-9, 11, 16-17, 22).

o   When directly addressing a segment of the congregation, namely those eating sacrificial meat, Paul employs second person (“you”) terminology, both plural (8:9, 12) and singular (8:10-11; 10:29).

o   When speaking to the entire Corinthian church, he uses second person plural address (9:2, 11-13, 24; 10:1, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 20-21, 25, 27, 31-32; 11:1).

In view of the reputation of ancient Corinth, Paul’s repeated warnings to the Christians there against idolatry and sexual immorality are understandable (1 Cor. 5:1–7:2; 8:1-13; 10:7-8, 14-33; 12:2; 2 Cor. 6:16; 12:21). Many in the church were former idolaters and “would then need to go out of the world” to have absolutely no contact at all with pagan temples, idols, and sacrifices (1 Cor. 5:10; 6:11a).¹⁰

From a monotheistic Christian perspective, “we know” [οἴδαμεν]¹¹ that an idol is nothing in the world and “food” is not what brings us closer to God, so we do not fall short nor are we advantaged if we abstain or if we eat (1 Cor. 8:4-8; cf. 10:19). Meat consumption is spiritually and morally neutral, neither enjoined nor forbidden; it is a personal “right” [ἐξουσία] (8:9a) or “freedom” [ἐλευθερία] (10:29b). It is therefore unnecessary to be overly scrupulous in confirming the particulars of the meat’s source or history before eating it (10:25-27).

Rather than the circumstances of the animal’s slaughter, Paul’s main concern in the context of the Corinth church is intent, perception, and influence. The environment is secondary. The meat of animals sacrificed in idol temples was regularly sold at the markets, eaten as common meals in private homes, served at weddings and funerals, at various family and social gatherings, at labor union meetings, political assemblies, and banquets. While a pagan temple was the venue for many of these occasions, the facility itself was not solely for idol worship but also functioned as a community center or restaurant for non-religious (non-idolatrous) social events.¹²

Erastus, who served in Corinth’s local government, was one of the prominent members of the Corinth church (Rom. 16:23b; cf. 13:1-7) and would have been hard pressed to avoid participating in public festivals tied to pagan idolatry and sacrificial meat consumption.¹³ In fact, Paul assumes somebody in the church is “eating in an idol-temple” (1 Cor. 8:10).

Whether secular or religious, the location does not necessarily determine the nature of the meal. One could eat at home or at a neighbor’s house as an act of veneration to a false god or not. One could eat at an idol’s temple as an act of veneration to a false god or not. Seeing that pagan religious ceremonies were essentially demonic, Christians must avoid knowingly engaging in them (1 Cor. 10:14-22; cf. 5:11-13; 6:9-11; 2 Cor. 6:11–7:1). But the mere eating of something “offered to idols” [εἰδωλόθυτος] is not inherently idolatrous or sinful, unless, of course, the participant intends it as such. The determining factor is intent, although Paul takes this a step further and considers perception.

Strictly speaking, it would be permissible to eat sacrificial meat bought from the market, or in an idol’s temple or at a neighbor’s house or at home, as long as it was not part of a religious ceremony (1 Cor. 8:4, 8-9a, 10a; 10:25-27, 29b-31). However, this “right” ought to be surrendered if the meal is part of a religious ceremony (10:14-22) or perceived as such (8:7; 10:28), or leads to lapsing into idolatry or conscience violation (6:9-11; 8:7-12; 10:7, 14), or spiritually harms a fellow-Christian (8:9-12), or compromises one’s Christian influence (8:13; 9:19-27; 10:28-29, 32-33). The answer lies, not in mere knowledge, but in love (8:1-3), which always seeks the best interests of others (10:23–11:1; 13:4-7).

Romans 14–15

Although Romans 14:1–15:13 may appear to be an adaptation of what was earlier written in 1 Corinthians 8–10, the respective audiences and circumstances are quite different. In 1 Corinthians there is nothing comparable to Romans 14 as per vegetarianism, special holy days, “clean” vs. “unclean,” and abstaining from wine (vv. 2, 5-6, 14, 20, 21). While debated in scholarly circles, the context of Romans 14–15 seems to involve Jewish believers and others influenced by Jewish traditions holding onto the special days and dietary regulations of the Mosaic system.

The primary focus in the Corinthian letter is the “conscience” [συνείδησις] and more about idolatry and pagan sacrifice [εἰδωλόθυτος] than dietary laws, whereas the main concern in Romans is strained relations in the church due to differing levels of faith and understanding. From Paul’s perspective, the “weak” among the Romans would have included anyone contributing to disunity, guilty of selfish disregard for others and unwarranted judging. The more obvious overlapping theme of 1 Corinthians 8–10 and Romans 14–15 is not sacrificial meat or sexual immorality but the need for self-restraint and consideration of fellow-Christians. Meanwhile, back in Jerusalem, the proscriptive guidelines for Gentile believers were still considered relevant (Acts 21:25).  

Revelation 2

Issues that prompted the Jerusalem-conference decisions and some of Paul’s written exhortations evidently persisted across the Roman Empire throughout the first century. In the final book of the NT the Lord revealed, through his servant John, messages to seven churches in Western Asia Minor, two of which are pertinent to our study.

Despite satanic forces and brutal hostilities, the church in Pergamon held fast to the Lord’s name and did not deny the faith. Nevertheless, like the OT account of Balaam, false teachers were responsible for “a stumbling block” [σκάνδαλον], luring people “to eat [things] offered to idols and to commit illicit sex” (Rev. 2:14). The church in Thyatira, although commended for their (good) works, love, faith, service, and perseverance, were tolerating a movement “to commit illicit sex and to eat [things] offered to idols” (Rev. 2:20).

Paul had also used examples from the OT to warn against idolatry and sexual misconduct (1 Cor. 10:1-8). Both sins are addressed in his letter to the Romans (1:18-32), and he employs the “stumbling block” [σκάνδαλον] metaphor in the context of dietary scruples (Rom. 14:13). He further exhorts, “take heed of those causing the divisions and the stumbling blocks [σκάνδαλα] contrary to the teaching you have learned, and stay away from them” (Rom. 16:17).

Conclusion

As we examine applicable information in scripture, we need to be mindful of the variety of contexts involving different historical, chronological, geographical, and sociocultural factors.

o   The Jerusalem conference (ca. AD 50) initially convened to address disruptions caused by judaizing instigators among Christ’s ethnically mixed churches, particularly communities from Judea northward through Syria and northwestward through Cilicia and Galatia in Central Asia Minor. The resulting pronouncement nullified unnecessary burdens placed on non-Jewish Christians, while offering the four-point abstention related to “the pollutions of idols” in consideration of those with deep convictions under the influence of old-covenant Judaism.

o   The Corinthian correspondence (ca. AD 56) concerns eating meat associated with pagan idolatry in mid-first-century Corinth in the Roman province of Achaia (Lower Greece), with particular emphasis on intent, perception, and influence, although Jew-Gentile tensions are not as evident.

o   In Romans (ca. AD 57) the issue is how Christian brothers and sisters of mid-first-century Rome treat one another and potential disunity among the churches. This apparently involved Jewish believers and perhaps others influenced by Jewish traditions holding onto the special days and dietary regulations of the Mosaic system, whereas other church members did not share these sentiments.

o   Near the end of the first century in Western Asia Minor (ca. AD 96), at least two of the seven churches of Revelation were dealing with the problems of sexual immorality and eating food sacrificed to idols, bringing us full circle back to the Jerusalem-conference decree.

In the next post the other proscriptions will be more closely examined.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ When the group decision was put into writing, it was later described as τὰ δόγματα (Acts 16:4), the plural form of the noun δόγμα, referring to “a formal statement concerning rules or regulations that are to be observed .... of formalized sets of rules ordinance, decision, command” (BDAG 254), variously rendered “decrees” (ASV, NASB95, NET, N/KJV), “ordinances” (NASB20), “decisions” (CSB, ESV, NIV, N/RSV).

     ² Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ³ Textual variation notwithstanding: καὶ [τοῦ] πνικτοῦ (“and [the] strangled”)?

     ⁴ The Byzantine Majority Text and Textus Receptus include the article here: καὶ τὸ αἷμα (“and the blood”), whereas other standard texts do not.

     ⁵ BDAG 280; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 139; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 357.

     ⁶ See esp. Ben Witherington III, “Not So Idle Thoughts about Eidolothuton,” Tyndale Bulletin 44.2 (1993): 237-39.

     ⁷ There is textual variation among manuscripts containing 1 Cor. 10:28. The Byzantine Majority Text and Textus Receptus read εἰδωλόθυτόν instead of ἱερόθυτόν, but the weight of textual evidence supports the latter. A non-Jewish person would say, “This is meat that worshipers have dedicated to an idol” (Summer Institute of Linguistics Translator’s Notes, SIL International, United Bible Societies TIPs [retrieved 25 June 2026], <Link>). Scholars are divided as to whether either term or both or just one would be counterpart to the Aramaic Korban (Mark 7:11) alluding to what is dedicated to Yahweh in the Jewish temple as opposed to something dedicated to a pagan god in a pagan temple.

     ⁸ Silas (a.k.a. Silvanus) was also involved in the Jerusalem conference, writing the decree, and the work at Corinth (Acts 15:22–18:5; 2 Cor. 1:19).

     ⁹ The theme of ἐξουσία (“right, liberty, freedom”) in 1 Corinthians is introduced at 7:37, along with synonymous expressions (7:39; 8:9; 9:1, 19; 10:29), and applied to particular issues in the Corinth church (8:1–11:16). See K. L. Moore, “Female Head-coverings: Part 1,” Moore Perspective (8 June 2013), <Link>, “Part 2” (22 June 2013) <Link>.

     ¹⁰ Second-century geographer Pausanias (Description of Greece 2.1.7–38.7) noted at least twenty-six sacred places, which would have included shrines of Apollo (god of prophecy/music), Octavia (sister of Augustus and maternal grandmother of Claudius), Poseidon (god of the sea), Hermes (messenger of the gods), Isis (Egyptian goddess of nature), Aphrodite (goddess of love), Asklepios (god of healing).

     ¹¹ Some translators have inserted quotation marks in 1 Cor. 8:1 (CSB, ESV, GNT, NET, NIV, NLT, N/RSV) and 8:4 (CSB, ESV, NET, NIV, N/RSV), raising the question of whether or not Paul is joining the Corinthians in making these observations. Paul’s frequent use of the rhetorical expression “we know” [οἴδαμεν] supports his referential inclusion (Rom. 2:2; 3:19; 7:14; 8:22, 26, 28; 1 Cor. 8:1, 4; 2 Cor. 5:1, 16; 1 Tim. 1:8).

     ¹² See David G. Horrell, “Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 8.1–11.1,” JSNT 67 (1997): 83–114; M. V. Hubbard, “Greek Religion,” in World of the New Testament, eds. J. B. Green and L. M. Martin (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013) 114; Andrew David Naselli, “Was It Always Idolatrous for Corinthian Christians to Eat εἰδωλόθυτα in an Idol’s Temple? (1 Cor 8–10),” STR 9.1 (Spring 2018): 23-45, <Link>. A number of scholars limit the meaning of εἰδωλόθυτος to the consumption of sacrificial meat inside an idol-temple and/or in the presence of an idol as a worshipful act, e.g., Philip Brown, “Exegeting a Pauline Assessment of Cultural Change: ‘Idol Sacrifice’ in I Corinthians 8–10,” Holy Joys, republished from apbrown2.net (7 August 2019), <Link>; Ben Witherington III, op. cit. However, the term εἰδωλόθυτος itself simply refers to something offered to an idol, regardless of where and why it is eaten (see BDAG 280).

     ¹³ Erastus is identified as “the steward of the city” [ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως] (Rom. 16:23), also rendered “city treasurer” (ESV), “town clerk” (Phillips), or “director of public works” (NIV). A pavement-stone inscription has been preserved in the ruins of ancient Corinth, documenting Erastus having laid the limestone block at his own expense in return for the honor of the office of aedile. This office included the maintenance of public buildings and regulating public festivals, although during the Empire era the authority and responsibilities of this position varied in the different cities and colonies.

Related Posts: Jerusalem Conference Decree: Part 1

Related articles:

 

Image credit: https://greekasia.blogspot.com/2019/12/sacrificial-ritual-in-ancient-greece.html

The Jerusalem-Conference Decree: A Closer Look (Part 1 of 4)

Background: A Setting of Controversy

About twenty years after the Lord’s church had begun, having spread from Jerusalem to the provinces of Judea, Syria, Cyprus, Cilicia, and Galatia, a major controversy threatened the unity, peace, stability, and growth of these young Christian communities. Certain Jewish converts felt compelled to bind on non-Jewish brethren, as conditions of salvation, distinctively Jewish practices—particularly circumcision, which they sincerely believed was divinely mandated. The ensuing dispute and inability to resolve the conflict called for urgent consultation with mature Christian leaders. The Syrian Antioch congregation, where the controversy was instigated, sent a delegation (including Paul, Barnabas, and Titus) to confer with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-6; Gal. 2:1).

The question of how to interact with those having little understanding or regard for deeply entrenched Jewish traditions and values was a rather sensitive and divisive issue among many Jewish disciples at the time (cf. Acts 10:28; 11:1-3). Not surprisingly, the discussions in Jerusalem began with intense debate (Acts 15:7a).¹ Simon Peter reminded the group of God’s acceptance of uncircumcised believers without added conditions beyond gospel obedience, which Barnabas and Paul reaffirmed (Acts 15:7b-12; cf. vv. 3-4).

James was next to speak (Acts 15:13-21). Reinforcing Simon Peter’s observations, James quoted scripture (viz. Amos 9:11-12) concerning the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s eternal plan. James then offered his judgment: “I therefore judge [διὸ ἐγὼ κρίνω] ...” (Acts 15:19a).²

The Influential Role of James

Jesus’s half-brother James (Matt. 13:55) at one time did not believe in Jesus as the promised messiah (John 7:5) but as an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ his doubts succumbed to unshakable faith (1 Cor. 15:7; Jas. 1:1). Although still relatively young when the church began (Acts 1:14), during the following decades he rose in prominence as a well-respected leader in Jerusalem’s Christian community (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal. 1:19; 2:9).

One of the most Jewish documents in the New Testament, and probably the earliest to have been written, is the epistle of James.³ He writes authoritatively as someone already well known and highly regarded among his readers, someone not only professing his faith but wholeheartedly living his faith. He exhorts his reading audience to do the same, to practice “pure and undefiled religion” and “to keep oneself untainted from the world” (Jas. 1:27; cf. 4:4).

Notwithstanding the debate concerning chronological placement (before or after the Jerusalem conference?), the event recounted by Paul in Galatians 2:11-21 shows how influential James was in the early church. 

But when Cephas came to Antioch, against his face I opposed him, because he stood condemned. For before some had come from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing the ones of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews [also] behaved hypocritically with him, so as even Barnabas was led away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they did not walk straight with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of all: “If you being a Jew live as a Gentile and not as a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to judaize?” (Gal. 2:11-14)

That “some had come from James” does not necessarily mean they were sent by or represented the Lord’s brother, but they had at least come from Jerusalem (where James was based) and were probably in some way associated with him and perhaps even claimed his authorization (cp. Acts 15:1-5). The source of the intimidation felt by Peter, Barnabas, and other Jewish believers was probably not undue pressure from the associates of James or others from the Jerusalem church, but rather news of violent backlashes from fanatical Zealots who regarded Jewish Christians (especially those who associated with Gentiles) as heretics deserving severe punishment (cf. Gal. 6:12; Acts 4:1-3, 21; 5:17-40; 7:54-60; 8:1-3; 9:1-2, 23, 29; 12:1-4; 21:20-21, 27-32).⁴

The Fourfold Interdiction

James’s proposal at the Jerusalem meeting, with which the rest of the group agreed, was to write a letter to non-Jewish brethren, advising them to ignore the unnecessary dictates of pharisaic judaizers, while abstaining from these four things: (1) “the pollutions of idols,” particularly sacrifices offered in pagan religious ceremonies, (2) illicit sexual intercourse, (3) the meat of strangled animals (without having the blood drained), and (4) blood itself (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25). Discussed in more detail below and in following posts.

The reason given: “for [γάρ] Moses, from generations of old, has in every city those proclaiming him in the synagogues, being read every sabbath” (Acts 15:21). James’s own explanation had to do with Christian influence and respectful consideration of the sensibilities of local Jewish communities. Were these prohibitions, then, simply the wise counsel of an esteemed church leader (with joint approval), or was this something divinely enjoined? And were these prohibitions ethical in nature, ceremonial, or a combination of both?

The Holy Spirit’s Role?

When put into writing, the Holy Spirit was acknowledged as having been involved, in some way, in the decision-making process: “for it seemed good [ἔδοξεν] to the Holy Spirit and us to lay upon you no greater burden except these necessary things” (Acts 15:28). The manner of the Spirit’s activity is not explicitly stated. Were these directives revealed through divine agency (as in Acts 1:2; 8:29; 10:19; 11:12, 28; 13:2-4; 20:23; 21:11), or simply based on an inference drawn from the Spirit having already validated Gentile converts (Acts 10:19–11:18), about which Simon Peter had just reminded these brethren (Acts 15:7-11)?

The verb ἔδοξεν, aorist form of δοκέω, is not a definitive statement of absolute certainty but conveys something that appears to one’s understanding, seems to be, or recognized as (see BDAG 254-55; cf. Acts 12:9; 17:18; 25:27; 26:9; 27:13). It “seemed good [ἔδοξε(ν)] to the apostles and to the elders, with the whole church ...” (Acts 15:22), who then wrote, “it seemed good [ἔδοξεν] to us, having come to one mind ...” (v. 25).⁵

When James said, “I therefore judge ...” (Acts 15:19a), the verb κρίνω is used in the sense of “to make a judgment based on taking various factors into account, judge, think, consider, look upon” (BDAG 568). This was a matter of practical judgment (as in Acts 3:13; 4:19; 13:46; 16:15; 20:16; 25:25; 26:8; 27:1).⁶ Later the group decision was described as “having been judged [perfect participial form of κρίνω] by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4), i.e., “decided” (NASB95), “determined” (NKJV); “we wrote, we judged [aorist participial form of κρίνω] ...” (Acts 21:25), i.e., “decided” (NASB, NKJV), “concluded” (KJV), “our decision” (CSB, NIV), “our judgment” (ESV).

The only specific allusion to the Holy Spirit’s involvement in these proceedings does not clearly define what his role was. No mention is made of direct revelation. No mention of a heavenly vision or angelic visitation (as in Acts 10:3-16, 22, 30-32; 11:5-10, 13-14), or verbal communication from the Spirit (as in Acts 10:19-20; 11:12), or observable manifestation of the Spirit’s miraculous power (as in Acts 10:44-47; 11:15-17). Instead, there was “much debate” (Acts 15:7a), and when Simon Peter, Barnabas, and Paul contributed to the discussion, they simply argued from the precedent already set by the past working of God and God’s Spirit (vv. 7b-14). James followed suit with a scripture quotation (vv. 13b-18)⁷ and his personal judgment (v. 19a).

Necessary Things?

Described as “these necessary things” [τούτων τῶν ἐπάναγκες] (Acts 15:28), the question is, necessary for what? Necessary for salvation, or necessary for handling the current dilemma? The four points of abstention, issued from James and accepted by his colleagues, were separated from what the judaizers were claiming to be necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1), and Peter affirmed that Jews will be saved the same way as Gentiles (v. 11), not vice versa. The condition, “If you keep yourselves from these things,” was not answered with “you will be saved,” but rather, “you will do well [εὖ πράξετε]” (v. 29). These proscriptions were “necessary” to avoid stumbling blocks impeding outreach and influence, to prevent needlessly offending Jewish neighbors and recent converts, and to maintain peace among ethnically mixed churches.

The non-binding nature of circumcision in the Christian Age was clearly a cultural rather than ethical matter, but what about these other points of contention? Rather than isolating and classifying each proscription individually, it makes better sense to consider them all together as a collective whole. Each is contextually associated with the others, and the stated purpose of avoidance is therefore mutually applicable.⁸

Comparable Situations

When Paul did not have a direct command from the Lord to address a particular issue, he offered his own personal judgment (1 Cor. 7:12, 25-26, 40a; 2 Cor. 8:10; 9:5). Even so, he was aware of his mature faith and experience, knowledge and understanding, leadership responsibilities, and the divine sanction of his teachings (1 Cor. 1:1; 2:6; 7:40b; 4:6, 16; 11:1; Phil. 3:15-17).

Mature Christians are expected to make wise judgments consistent with God’s revealed will and the application thereof (Matt. 7:5; John 7:24; 1 Cor. 2:15; 5:3, 12; 6:2-5; 10:15; 11:13, 31a). To “judge” is to make an informed assessment about whether something is right or wrong, true or false, good or bad. Spiritual maturity involves developing the capacity for proper discernment in making responsible decisions (Heb. 5:14).⁹

The whole point of the Jerusalem conference was to counter pharisaic legalism in the church. James and fellow-leaders were not implementing a new law but opposing mandated observance of the old law.

The “Pollutions” of Idols

It is not insignificant that James started with “the pollutions [τῶν ἀλισγημάτων] of idols” (Acts 15:20), which was later more specifically applied to ritual defilement associated with idol worship. These restrictions were not simply about sacrificial meat consumption, sexual immorality, strangulation, or blood per se. From a Jewish-Christian perspective, this was about how Jewish people, particularly in the north/northwestern Gentile territories of Antioch, Syria, Cilicia, and Galatia (Acts 15:23; 16:4), generally perceived what pagan idolaters did, whether any or all these things were actually part of their religious ceremonies.

Just as Gentile converts from pagan backgrounds would have had no previous associations with Jewish laws and customs, almost certainly none of the church leaders who participated in the Jerusalem conference had ever been inside a pagan temple or seen firsthand what happened there.¹⁰ The four prohibitions seem to cover all the bases and would help ensure that non-Christian Jews would be less likely to get the impression that followers of Christ were in any way associated with cultic polytheism. 

Conclusion

One might wonder why any Christian would need to be reminded to abstain from some or all these things. We could ask the same question about Paul’s correspondence to the mid-first-century church at Corinth (1 Cor. 5:1–7:9; 10:7-8, 14; 2 Cor. 12:20-21), as well as similar vice lists in other letters (Gal. 5:16-21; Eph. 5:1-17; Col. 3:1-10; 1 Thess. 4:1-7). Seeing that several forms of pagan idolatry included sexual activity, it is not without significance that nearly every reference in the NT to consuming food offered to idols also warns against illicit sex.

In the next posts we will more closely examine the Jerusalem-conference proscriptions, how each relates to the others, and the significance of the collective whole.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The descriptive term ζήτησις (Acts 15:7), meaning “engagement in a controversial discussion, discussion, debate, argument” (BDAG 429), is the same type of exchange that Paul and Barnabas previously had with the judaizers in Antioch (v. 2); cf. also 1 Tim. 1:4; 6:4; 2 Tim. 2:23; Tit. 3:9.

     ² Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ³ See K. L. Moore, “The Story of Young Jacob,” Moore Perspective (15 June 2016), <Link>; “The Epistle of Jacob” (22 July 2012), <Link>.

     ⁴ Apparently the fallibility of Cephas (Peter), demonstrated in the Gospels, persisted in these early developmental stages of the Lord’s church, despite his prominent role. His “fearing the ones of the circumcision” is in stark contrast to Paul’s determined refusal to “seek to please men” (Gal. 1:10). Over a decade earlier, Peter had been convinced by the Lord of the legitimacy of consuming non-kosher foods and eating with the uncircumcised (Acts 10:9–11:18). He then defended this position at the Jerusalem conference, along with James’s endorsement (Acts 15:7-21), and participated in the decision of the apostles and elders to safeguard the freedom of Gentile believers from works of the Mosaic law (Acts 15:22-29). Nevertheless, what one professes among allies and what one practices among (or with awareness of) adversaries is not always consistent (cf. Matt. 26:33-35, 69-75).

     ⁵ Most standard English versions render this verb in Acts 15:22, 25, 28, “it seemed good,” albeit varied in Acts 15:22, “decided” (CSB, NIV, NET, NRSV), “it pleased” (N/KJV).

     ⁶ Other uses of the verb κρίνω in Acts are indicative of condemnatory judging (Acts 13:27; 23:6; 24:21; 26:6), official adjudication (Acts 23:3; 24:6[variant]; 25:9, 10, 20), or God’s judgment (Acts 7:7; 17:31).

     ⁷ Along with citing Moses (v. 21), this would have been another indirect working of the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 1:16; 4:25; 21:25). Moreover, Paul had gone to the Jerusalem meeting “according to a revelation” (Gal. 2:2), perhaps communicated through prophets in Antioch (Acts 13:1), and could therefore reasonably assume that the outcome would have divine sanction.

     ⁸ The verb ἀπέχω occurs in the first two listings of prohibitions (Acts 15:20, 29), meaning “to avoid contact w[ith] or use of someth[ing], keep away, abstain, refrain from” (BDAG 103). Later the verb φυλάσσω is used, with the twofold nuance: (a) “observe, follow” (Acts 16:4), rendered “keep” (NKJV), “for observance” (ESV); and (b) “to be on one’s guard against, look out for, avoid” (Acts 21:25), rendered “keep ... from” (ASV, CSB, N/KJV), “abstain” (ESV, NIV, NASB) (BDAG 1068).

     ⁹ Hebrews 5:14 employs the terms τέλειος (“full grown,” “mature”), αἰσθητήριον (lit. “organ of sense,” fig. “faculty,” “capacity for discernment”), ἕξις (“proficiency,” “skill,” “maturity”), γυμνάζω (“train,” “undergo discipline”), διάκρισις (“ability to distinguish and evaluate”); see BDAG 29, 208, 231, 350, 995-96.

     ¹⁰ Gentile God-fearers (Acts 10:2, 22; 13:16, 26; 17:17; 18:7) were affiliated with Jewish teachings and conventions. Titus was Greek, having accompanied Barnabas and Paul to Jerusalem and serving as a test case against mandated circumcision (Gal. 2:1-3). While nothing is known about his religious past, there is no indication (whether in private or public meetings) he was involved in formulating the prohibitions.

Related Posts: Jerusalem-Conference Decree: Part 2

Related articles:

 

Image credit: https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2025/09/25/the-jerusalem-council-and-the-gentile-question/