Each prohibition listed in the Jerusalem-conference decree is contextually linked with the others as a collective whole (Acts 15:29; 21:25). The conjunction καί (“and”) instead of ἤ (“or”) brings all four together. James’s initial concern about “the pollutions of idols” (Acts 15:20) was more specifically applied to ritual defilement associated with idol worship, pertinent to “Gentiles turning to God” (v. 19) involving things they ought to turn away from.1
Whether any or all these points of contention were actually features of pagan religious ceremonies at the time, they were at least perceived as such in the Jewish communities of Judea, Syria, Cilicia, and Galatia (Acts 15:23; 16:4). Decades later, on the western end of Asia Minor, the churches of Pergamon and Thyatira were dealing with similar problems of sexual misconduct and eating things offered to idols (Rev. 2:14, 20). The OT account of Balaam is cited as a comparative analogy, wherein the “stumbling block” consisted of sacrifices to pagan gods, eating, bowing down to idols, and harlotry (Numbers 22–25).
The Jerusalem-conference list of abstentions was not meant to independently confront four separate issues but was conceived as a collective whole within the general scope of mid-first-century polytheism.
Present-day Application
In seeking to determine how all this applies to the 21st-century church, we will consider each abstention individually but without losing sight of the interrelationship of all four.
What about “the pollutions of idols” and things “sacrificed to idols”?
In modern westernized cultures, we tend to equate “idolatry” with ancient paganism and/or present-day eastern religions, where temples, shrines, and sacrificial offerings are a normal part of daily life. However, the broader sense of whatever is prioritized, venerated, and elevated above allegiance to God would be a contemporaneous equivalent. Greediness is classified as “idolatry” (Col. 3:5; cf. Eph. 5:5), biblically associated with, and just as serious as, sexual misbehavior and bowing down to a graven image.2 It is a manifestation of selfishness—essentially self-exaltation—the opposite of what God calls us to be.3 In principle, the prohibition would also include any discretionary preference elevated to such importance that one is unwilling to forego it, even if it causes spiritual harm to a brother or sister in Christ and compromises one’s Christian influence (1 Cor. 8–10; Rom. 14–15).
What about abstaining from “blood”?
On the questions of blood transfusions and eating undercooked meat, see Part 3. But what about drinking blood or eating blood sausage, black pudding, blood soup, and other recipes with blood as a main ingredient?
The traditional reasoning is that the blood proscription is permanently binding because it was issued in all three dispensations of biblical history: the Patriarchal Age (Gen. 9:4), the Mosaic Age (Lev. 17:10-14), and the Christian Age (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25). For whatever it’s worth, I am perfectly happy refraining from blood as a food source. But before settling on a hard-and-fast rule, let’s consider some notable differences.
o The Noahic proscription dealt only with the consumption of blood, whereas the Mosaic proscription included the animal’s fat and entrails (Lev. 3:1-17; 7:22-27; 17:6). Is the latter still binding today?
o In Noah’s time the distinction between “clean” and “unclean” animals was strictly for sacrificial purposes (Gen. 7:2, 8; 8:20-21) but not for dietary regulations (Gen. 9:3). During the Mosaic Age it was for both purposes (Lev. 10:10-11; 11:47; 20:25), and during the Christian Age it serves neither purpose (Acts 10:12-15; Rom. 14:14a, 20).
o The Jerusalem-conference stipulations were particularly focused on pressing issues affecting churches at the time, namely “the pollutions of idols” or things “sacrificed to idols” and associated improprieties. The Noahic and Mosaic blood prohibitions do not speak to these matters, also foreign to developed societies in the modern world.
o The stated reason for the original declaration was to address a specific concern: “for [γάρ] Moses, from generations of old, has in every city those proclaiming him in the synagogues, being read every sabbath” (Acts 15:21). This rationale is far less relevant today, if not entirely irrelevant.
If health considerations were a factor (see further below), then consuming blood, with its high concentration of iron, increases iron levels leading to severe health risks, including bloodborne illnesses, nervous disorders, and organ damage.4
Even so, the immediate context of the four points of contention was the negative impact of idolatry and Jewish sensibilities. Involvement in cultic blood rituals (like vampirism) would still be prohibited. Moreover, the originally stated reason, emphasizing Christian influence and removing barriers (Acts 15:20-21), is a basic principle with broader applicability.
What about abstaining from the meat of “strangled” animals?
Coupled with the “blood” proscription, the meat of strangled animals was off limits likely because the blood was not properly drained. The Law of Moses required the bleeding out (exsanguination) of an animal prior to consumption (Lev. 17:10-14; Deut. 12:15-16, 23-25; 15:22-23). It has long been recognized that the regulations given through Moses had underlying health advantages, ensuring the Israelites avoided serious health problems plaguing other nations (cf. Ex. 15:26). In addition to enjoying and benefitting from God’s blessings, this enabled them to more readily fulfill his purpose (cf. Rom. 9:4-5).5
While not specifically stated as the reason for this prohibition, health considerations are still worth noting. Blood is a primary channel for bacterial growth that produces foodborne pathogens, rapid spoilage, and greater safety risks. According to Agriculture Institute, for quality and safety purposes, the bleeding of a slaughtered animal is “one of the most consequential steps in the entire meat production chain .... removing as much blood as possible from the carcass is a non-negotiable .... When bleeding is inadequate ... the downstream consequences are significant.”6
Taken as a whole, these directives would also avert sexually transmitted diseases (see below). Even so, the immediate context of the four points of contention was the negative impact of idolatry and Jewish sensibilities. The originally stated reason, emphasizing Christian influence and removing barriers (Acts 15:20-21), is a basic principle with broader applicability.
What about the “illicit sexual intercourse” prohibition?
Sexual misconduct is clearly a moral issue, repeatedly warned against and condemned throughout scripture. Nonetheless, in the context of the Jerusalem-conference deliberations, involvement in idolatrous indecencies appears to be the main concern. In James’s original proposal, this proscription immediately followed the allusion to “the pollutions of idols” (Acts 15:20), and whenever the subject of idolatry or eating idol food is addressed in the NT, the sin of sexual immorality is included. Several forms of pagan religion involved sexual activity, including fertility rites and cult prostitution (see Part 3). Many in the first-century church were former idolaters and former sexual deviants, thus the NT record contains copious admonitions dealing with sexual immorality and idolatrous behavior.7
Once again, the immediate context of the four points of contention was the negative impact of idolatry and Jewish sensibilities. The originally stated reason, emphasizing Christian influence and removing barriers (Acts 15:20-21), is a basic principle with broader applicability.
What about ecumenical church councils?
The historical record of Acts 15 documents a one-time gathering of apostles and elders, including those recognized at the time as “pillars” of the church (Gal. 2:2-9), with some also functioning as prophets (Acts 15:22-32). The apostles were the principal authority figures in the earliest period of the Lord’s church, divinely commissioned and authorized by the Lord himself.6 Prophets operated in leadership positions as well (1 Cor. 12:28b; 14:3; Eph. 2:20). The elders played an important role, not only with wisdom and experience as the longest serving congregational leaders in the oldest Christian community (cf. Acts 11:30), but the flock over which they served as shepherds included among the membership the main instigators of the controversy (Acts 15:1-6, 10, 22, 24).
The Jerusalem conference was not the first of many but the only such occasion recorded in scripture. This unparalleled gathering was for a specific purpose to address an urgent matter at a particular moment in history that was fulfilled, with no indication it was meant to be continued or repeated.
It was not until the fourth century that the first “ecumenical council” convened, long after the apostolic age. Mainly for political reasons, the event was commissioned by the Roman emperor Constantine I in the Byzantine city of Nicaea (May–July 325), producing the Nicene Creed. Many other councils followed and resulted in additional man-made creeds, constitutions, catechisms, and declarations of faith, but without biblical precedent or biblical authority.
Image credit: https://www.ucg.org/members/united-news/united-news-september-october-2015/3-ways-avoid-leaving-prayer-and-study-home-when-youre-feast
