Charles Ellicott Commentary Acts 15:20

"but that we write unto them, that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood." — Acts 15:20 (ASV)

But that we write to them.—The grounds on which the measure thus defined was proposed are easily found.

1. It was in the nature of a compromise. The Gentiles could not complain that the burden imposed on them was anything very burdensome. The Pharisee section of the Church could not refuse admission to those who fulfilled these conditions, when they had admitted the proselytes of the gate on similar conditions to their synagogues, and had treated them in such a way as no longer unclean.
2. The rules that were now emphasized found a place among the seven precepts traditionally ascribed to Noah, and based upon the commands recorded in Genesis 9:5.

These were held to be binding on all humankind, while the Law, as such, was binding on Israel only. These, therefore, had been thought sufficient for the proselytes of the gate before, and were now urged as sufficient for the Gentile converts by the teacher who represented the most rigid type of Judaism. (See, once more, the history of Ananias and Izates in the Note on Acts 9:10). Special reasons attached, as will be seen, to each precept.

From pollutions of idols.—The Greek of the first noun is found only in the Septuagint and the New Testament; and perhaps its primary idea is that of “wallowing” in blood and mire, and so incurring pollution. Distinguished from the acts that follow, it indicates any participation, publicly or privately, in idolatrous rites.

One who acted on the rule would have to refrain from entering a temple and remove busts or statues of the gods from his house and gardens.

The presence of such things, when they were encountered upon entering a house, was a great stumbling block to devout Jews. The Gentile convert who, if left to himself, might have been inclined to keep them—though no longer as objects of worship, but as works of art—was required to renounce them. The statues of Zeus and Artemis and Hermes were to be to him from then on as abominations.

In the decree itself, however, we find “things sacrificed to idols” instead of the more general term, and we can therefore also address that question here. So interpreted, the rule brings before us a new phase of the life of the early Christian converts.

Under the religion of Greece and Rome, sacrifices were so common that it could fairly be assumed that the flesh at any festive meal had been offered in this way. A small portion of the flesh was burned on the altar, and the rest was cooked for the household meal or sent to the market for sale.

Such meat was, in the eyes of the strict Jews, polluted, and the history of Daniel and his companions (Daniel 1:8) was regarded as a precedent for avoiding it. Partly on this ground, and partly on the one referred to in the note after the next, the Jew never bought meat in the market, nor from anyone other than a Jewish butcher. He traveled with his cophinus, or basket, on his back, and carried his provisions with him.

So Juvenal (Sat. iii. 14) speaks of—

“Judæis, quorum cophinus fœnumque supellex.”
[“Basket, and wisp of straw to serve as pillow,—
That’s the Jew’s luggage.”]

This, therefore, presented a new stumbling block, and the Gentile was required to avoid this also. It involved many sacrifices and what would seem like privations. The convert had to refuse invitations to birthday, marriage, and funeral feasts; or, if present, to refuse to eat at them. A man with a sensitive conscience would refuse to partake of what was set before him in a private house or offered for sale in the market, unless he had satisfied himself that it had not been offered in that way.

It was natural that this restriction, which did not rest directly on a moral ground, should encounter some resistance, and the controversy connected with it took on many different forms. At Corinth, men claimed the right to eat what they chose, and St. Paul conceded the right in the abstract but urged abstinence on the ground of charity (1 Corinthians 8–10).

At Pergamum and Thyatira, somewhat later in the apostolic age (Revelation 2:14; Revelation 2:20), the lawfulness of eating things sacrificed to idols was openly maintained in contravention of both the teaching of St. Paul and of the apostolic decree, and was joined with a similar claim to be exempted from the law which forbade illicit sexual intercourse. At Corinth, it would seem from 1 Corinthians 8:10, the assertion of freedom had led men so far as not only to eat of the flesh that had been sacrificed, but actually to sit down to a feast in the idol’s temple. (Compare Romans 2:22, as expressing the Jewish feeling).

And from fornication.—We are surprised at first to find what seems to us a moral law placed in juxtaposition with two rules that, like those that follow, seem purely positive and ceremonial.

We have to remember, however:

1. That the first command was also moral, and that we can fairly recognize something like a practical, though not a formal distinction, by thinking of the first two precepts as grouped together.
2. That the sin named was the widespread evil of the ancient world, involving as it did the absence of any true sense of self-respecting purity or reverence for womanhood, against which Israel had from the first been called to bear its witness (Genesis 34:31; Leviticus 19:29; Deuteronomy 23:17; Proverbs 7:6–27).

The increasing laxity of morals throughout the Roman Empire, showing itself in the well-known line of Terence—

“Nihil peccati est adolescentulum scortari, “

had led men to think of it as natural and permissible, bringing with it no sense of wrong or shame (compare Horace, Sat. i. 2, 119), and it might well be that the ethical standard of the Gentile converts was not immediately raised to a true ideal of purity.

The old license may have seemed excusable, and the disciples may have thought, as Christians have too often thought since, that it did not call for any deep repentance or exclude them from fellowship with Christ.

And yet it was clear that to the Jewish Christian, trained from childhood to condemn the sin severely, this too would legitimately be a very serious stumbling block in the admission of Gentile converts. How could he feel any assurance that they might not have come from the embraces of a harlot to the Feast of Charity or to the very Supper of the Lord? (Compare 1 Corinthians 6:15; Revelation 2:14).

Such a state of things required a special enactment to address it. The moral command had to be reaffirmed and given new prominence.

The Church had to take its first step in purifying the morals of humankind, not only by its general teaching but also by canons and rules of discipline.

It has often been emphasized that in many cases, such as those of the Hetæræ, or harlot-priestesses, of Aphrodite at Corinth and Paphos, prostitution was in closest alliance with idolatry, and this was a reason for the prohibition. It is, of course, true that in such cases the sin assumed an aggravated character in the eyes of Jews.

The man identified himself, through his sinful indulgence, with the cultus of the woman who was its professed devotee. However, we can scarcely think that the sin was forbidden not on account of its own intrinsic evil, but only or chiefly with a view to this ulterior and incidental consequence.

Things strangled.—Literally, of that which has been strangled. The prohibition rested on Genesis 9:4, and was connected with the symbolic meaning of the blood as representing life, and therefore consecrated to Jehovah. It was repeated in the Law (Leviticus 3:17; Leviticus 7:26; Deuteronomy 12:16; 1 Samuel 14:33), and has been maintained with remarkable tenacity.

For this reason, long after sacrifices have ceased, the Jew will still, if possible, only eat what has been killed by a butcher of his own faith. Meat so killed, which may be eaten without defilement, is known technically as Kosher.

Here the moral element falls entirely into the background, and the prohibition has simply the character of a concordat to avoid offense.

Both Saint Paul and Saint Peter were persuaded that there is nothing unclean of itself (Acts 10:15; Romans 14:14).

Practically, the effect of the rule would have been to compel Christians to buy their meat, poultry, etc., from a Jewish butcher or a Christian who followed the Jewish mode of killing, and in some places this must have caused considerable inconvenience.

From blood.—Distinguished from the preceding rule, this forbade the separate use of blood, as with flour and vegetables, or in the black puddings of modern cookery, as an article of food. Dishes so prepared were common in the cuisine both of Greeks and Romans, and therefore, here also the restriction would have involved a frequent withdrawal from social life, or a noticeable peculiarity. On the history of the observance, see Note on Acts 15:28.