The Jerusalem-Conference Decree: A Closer Look (Part 4 of 5)

Atomized Distinctives or Fourfold Collective?

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.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Cf. Acts 14:15; 26:17-20; 1 Cor. 10:20-22; 12:2; 1 Thess. 1:9. Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² 1 Cor. 5:9-11; 6:9-10; 10:7-14; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 4:17-24; 5:1-5; 1 Pet. 4:2-5; Rev. 21:8; 22:14-15.

     ³ Mark 10:42-45; Luke 9:23; 14:11; Rom. 12:1-3; 1 Cor. 10:24; 13:4-5; Phil. 2:3-5; 3:8-9; Jas. 4:6-7; 1 Pet. 5:6-7; 1 John 2:15-17.

     ⁴ Catherine Clark, “Drinking Blood: Is It Safe?” Healthline (updated 31 May 2022), <Link>. See also Jesse Borke, “Iron overdose,” MedlinePlus (14 Oct. 2025), <Link>.

     ⁵ See S. I. McMillen and David E. Stern, None of These Diseases: The Bible's Health Secrets for the 21st Century, 3rd ed. (Ada, MI: Revell, 2000); also Kyle Butt, “Science and the Bible,” R&R 38.11 (4 Nov. 2018), <Link>.

     ⁶ “Importance of Proper Bleeding,” Agriculture Institute (25 June 2025), <Link>.

     ⁷ Rom. 2:22; 1 Cor. 5:1–7:9; 8:1-13; 10:6-33; 12:2; 2 Cor. 6:16; 2 Cor. 12:20-21; Gal. 5:16-21; Eph. 5:1-17; Col. 3:1-10; 1 Thess. 1:9; 4:1-7; Rev. 2:14, 20.

     ⁸ Matt. 18:18; John 16:12-15; Acts 1:2–8:4; 11:30; 15:2; 1 Cor. 12:28a.

Related Posts: Jerusalem-Conference Decree: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 5

Related articles:

 

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 

The Jerusalem-Conference Decree: A Closer Look (Part 3 of 5)

Abstentions #2 and #3

James’s original four-point proposal to stay clear of “the pollutions of idols” (Acts 15:20) was reworded and reordered when issued in writing (v. 29).¹

The first prohibition against “[things] sacrificed to idols” (see previous post) was immediately followed by “blood” and “strangled [things].” Whether James and other leaders in Jerusalem simply made an assumption or heard rumors or had access to information no longer extant, the choking of animals to death is mentioned in the biblical record only in this listing (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) and nowhere else. It was not a normal practice in the Gentile world, not even in pagan rituals.

It is reasonably clear, due to its association with the “blood” proscription, that the meat of strangled animals, without having the blood drained, is in view (cf. BDAG 838). The Law of Moses required the bleeding out (exsanguination) of a dead animal before eating it (Lev. 17:10-14; Deut. 12:15-16, 23-25; 15:22-23), although no specific method is prescribed. The Law of Moses forbade eating an animal that had died of natural causes or was trapped or killed in the wild (Ex. 22:31; Lev. 17:13, 15; Ezek. 4:14) and thus not properly bled (cf. 1 Sam. 14:32-34).

The blood-eating offense can be traced all the way back to the days of Noah. It appears that prior to the flood, vegetarianism was the norm (Gen. 1:29). The blood restriction was instituted when meat became a dietary staple (Gen. 9:4). Even so, there were notable differences over time. The Noahic proscription was limited to blood, whereas the Mosaic proscription included the animal’s fat and some of its entrails (Lev. 3:1-17; 7:22-27; 17:6). The pre-flood 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 dispensation it was for both purposes (Lev. 10:10-11; 11:47; 20:25), whereas during the Christian Age it has served neither purpose (Acts 10:12-15; Rom. 14:14a, 20).

In contrast to the Jerusalem-conference stipulations, the directives given to Noah and Moses did not address meat associated with or consumed as an act of idolatry.² The impact of pagan religion across the Mediterranean world, where Christianity was growing and spreading, seems to have been a major concern for church leaders in mid-first-century Jerusalem.

What About Blood Transfusions?

The biblical texts under consideration are not about blood transfusions, unknown in the ancient world and not commonly practiced until the 20th century. The trepidation of James and his colleagues had nothing to do with a life-saving medical procedure but “the pollutions of idols” (Acts 15:20) involving “[things] sacrificed to idols” (v. 29). While the “blood” prohibition could be related to paganistic “drink offerings of blood” (Psa. 16:4),³ the “strangled [things]” reference seems more likely to pertain to the more familiar practice of blood consumption.⁴

What About Undercooked Meat?

The red liquid that seeps out of undercooked meat is typically not blood but mainly water (75% of muscle tissue) and myoglobin (the protein that transports oxygen through muscle).⁵ Nevertheless, when an animal is killed and drained of blood, only about 40% to 60% of the blood is extricated. The rest remains mostly in the capillaries, entrails, and bones, while a small amount stays in the skeletal muscle that is normally eaten.⁶ Since the residual blood is not cooked out of the meat but cooked into it, whether it is rare or burnt, it is not possible to eat meat without consuming a small amount of blood. The fundamental difference is incidental ingesting of blood (unavoidable when meat is consumed) versus intentional ingesting of blood (a matter of choice). Only the latter applies to the relevant biblical texts.  

Abstention #4

The fourth and final abstention in the Jerusalem-conference decree concerns πορνεία, “illicit sexual intercourse.”⁷ This was the second item in James’s original proposal, immediately following his allusion to “the pollutions of idols” (Acts 15:20). Although moved to the end of the sequence when published in writing (Acts 15:29; 21:25), it is still contextually linked to the others.

Sexual misconduct is clearly a moral issue, repeatedly warned against in the early days of the Christian movement,⁸ apparently listed here because of its association with idolatry. In fact, whenever the subject of idolatry or eating food offered to idols is addressed in the NT, the sin of sexual immorality is also included. Several forms of pagan idolatry involved sexual activity, including fertility rites and cult prostitution.⁹

Many in the church were former idolaters and former sexual deviants (1 Cor. 6:9-11), continuing to visit idol temples (1 Cor. 8:10) and to associate with immoral and idolatrous people (1 Cor. 5:9-10). Paul felt apprehensive about the prospect of some Christians returning to their past sinful lifestyles (2 Cor. 12:20-21), with repeated warnings to stay away from sexual immorality and idolatry (1 Cor. 6:18; 10:6-22).

The Thessalonians were reminded, “you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God,” then were warned “to abstain from illicit sexual intercourse ... not in passion of lust as the Gentiles not knowing God” (1 Thess. 1:9; 4:3-5). The Jerusalem-conference decree, including avoidance of illicit sexual intercourse, was directed to “those from among the Gentiles turning to God” (Acts 15:19-20; cf. also 14:15).

Conclusion

The Jerusalem conference and resultant guidelines would accomplish at least four things: (a) counter pharisaic legalism (Acts 15:5-6, 24); (b) mitigate unnecessary burdens affecting Gentile Christians (vv. 10, 19, 28a); (c) avoid offending Jewish sensibilities and deterring prospective converts (v. 21); and (d) dissuade Gentile Christians from returning to their former pagan ways (vv. 20, 29).

Our next post will consider how all this applies today.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² The term εἰδωλόθυτον, concerning the eating of “[things] offered to idols” (Acts 15:29; 21:25), is never employed in the LXX renderings of Genesis 9:4 or any of the Mosaic regulations.

     ³ David spoke of idolators and “their drink offerings of blood” (Psa. 16:4), which is the only biblical reference to this practice and may be an allusion to the sacrificial offering of animal’s blood (Isa. 66:3), or human sacrifice (Deut. 12:31; Psa. 106:37-38), or metaphorically the defilement of bloodshed or blood-stained hands (Isa. 1:15; 59:3; Hos. 6:8). The blood of Israel’s sacrifices was to be poured out on the altar (Deut. 12:27).

     ⁴ The known precedent involved “eating” blood (Lev. 17:10-12; Deut. 12:16, 23a; 15:23) and/or meat that had not been properly bled (Gen. 9:4; Ex. 22:31; Lev. 17:13-14; Deut. 12:23b-25; 1 Sam. 14:32-34).

     ⁵ Stanbroke, “That Red Juice,” Steak School (27 July 2021), <Link>.

     ⁶ P. D. Warriss, “Exsanguination of animals at slaughter and the residual blood content of meat,” Vet Rec 115.12 (22 Sept. 1984): 292.

     ⁷ Πορνεία is any kind of sexual intercourse that is not within the context of a divinely approved (heterosexual, monogamous, consensual) marriage (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2; Heb. 13:4). Sexual permissiveness, perversion, and promiscuity were the norm in most Greco-Roman societies at the time. See Demosthenes, Orations 59.122; Horace, Satires 1.2.31-35; Cicero, Pro Caelio 48; Plutarch, Moralia 104b, 144f; Juvenal, Satires 6.486-89, 526-41; 9.22-26; Josephus, Antiquities 18.65-80.

     ⁸ Matt. 5:27-28, 32; 15:19; 19:9, 18; Mark 7:21; 10:19; Luke 16:18; 18:20; John 8:11; Rom. 1:18-32; 2:22; 13:9; 1 Cor. 5:1–7:9; 10:8; 2 Cor. 12:20-21; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:3-11; Col. 3:5-7; 1 Thess. 4:1-8; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; Jas. 2:10-12; 1 Pet. 4:2-4; Rev. 2:14, 20-22; 9:20-21; 21:8; 22:15.

     ⁹ So-called “sacred sex” is believed to have been particularly practiced in the ancient cult of Ashtoreth, a.k.a. Astarte, Ishtar, Aphrodite, Venus. Greek geographer-historian-philosopher Strabo of Amasia (ca. 64 BC–AD 24) visited Corinth in 29 BC and later wrote about the temple of Aphrodite that “owned more than a thousand temple slaves, courtesans, whom both men and women had dedicated to the goddess” (Geographica 8.6.20).

Related Posts: Jerusalem Conference Decree: Part 1, Part 2, Part 4, Part 5

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 5)

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 “I” [ἐγὼ] is emphatic.

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., “we decided” (NASB, NKJV), “we 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, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

Related articles:

 

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