John Calvin Commentary Acts 15:19

"Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God;" — Acts 15:19 (ASV)

That we must not trouble. He denies that the Gentiles must be driven from the Church through the disagreement about ceremonies, since they were admitted by God; yet he seems to contradict himself when he denies that they ought to be troubled, and yet prescribes certain rites. The answer is easy, which I will address more fully later.

First, he requires nothing from them but that which they were bound to do by brotherly concord.

Secondly, these precepts could in no way trouble or disquiet their consciences, after they knew that they were free before God, and that the false and perverse religion, which the false apostles sought to introduce, was taken away.

The question is now, why James enjoins the Gentiles only these four things? Some say that this was derived from the ancient custom of the fathers, who did not make any covenant with any people whom they could compel to obey them except on this condition; but because no suitable authority for that idea has been brought to light, I leave it in doubt and undecided.

But here appears a clear reason why they gave a particular commandment concerning things offered to idols, blood, and what was strangled. These were, indeed, in themselves indifferent things, yet they had something special about them more than other rites of the law.

We know how strictly the Lord commands us to avoid those things that are contrary to the external profession of faith, and in which there is any appearance or suspicion of idolatry.

Therefore, so that no stain of superstition should remain among the Gentiles, and so that the Jews should not see anything in them that did not agree with the pure worship of God, it is no wonder if, to avoid offense, they are commanded to abstain from things offered to idols.

The word αλισγημα, which Luke uses, signifies every kind of profanation; therefore I have not changed the common translation, which has 'pollution' or 'filthiness.' Yet it is sometimes taken to mean sacrifices, a sense that would not disagree with James’ purpose; and, perhaps, it will be plainer and more natural to explain it so in this place, because, where Luke shortly after repeats the same decree, he will use εἰδωλόθυτα, or 'things sacrificed to idols.'

Concerning blood and what was strangled, not only were the Jews forbidden by the Law of Moses to eat them (Deuteronomy 12:23), but this law was given to all the world after the flood (Genesis 9:4), as a result, those who were not entirely corrupted by nature loathed blood.

I do not speak of the Jews, but of many of the Gentiles. I confess, indeed, that even that commandment was only temporary; yet, nevertheless, it was extended further than to just one people. It is no wonder, therefore, if greater offense might arise from this, and to remedy this seemed good to the apostles.

But a more difficult question arises concerning fornication, because James seems to reckon it among things indifferent, of which they must beware only to avoid causing offense. However, there was another reason he placed fornication among those things that were not in themselves unlawful.

It is well known what unbridled license for sexual immorality reigned and raged everywhere; and this vice had become prevalent principally among the men of the Eastern countries, as they are more given to lust.

Assuredly, the faithfulness and chastity of marriage were nowhere less observed and kept than among them.

Moreover, in my judgment, he is not treating, in this place, indiscriminately of every kind of fornication or sexual immorality, such as adultery, and promiscuous and unbridled lusts, by which all chastity is violated and corrupted.

But I think he speaks of what they call concubinage, which was so common among the Gentiles that it was almost like a law.

Therefore, when James lists a common corruption among things that are not in themselves corrupt, there is no inconsistency in this, provided that we understand that it was not his intention to place those things, which are very different from each other, in the same category. For, when unclean men thereby try to disguise and excuse their filthiness, they may easily be refuted.

"James," they say, "coupled eating of blood with whoredom; but does he compare them as things that are alike, or at least as things that do not differ in any point?"

Indeed, he only addresses the wicked and corrupt custom of men, which had fallen away from the original law and order of nature appointed by God.

Concerning the judgment of God, knowledge of it must be sought from the continual teaching of Scripture; and it is not at all doubtful what the Scripture says: namely, that whoredom is accursed before God, that the soul and body are thereby defiled, that the holy temple of God is polluted, and Christ is torn apart; that God daily punishes whoremongers, and that He will one day repay them fully.

The filthiness of whoredom, which the heavenly Judge so severely condemns, cannot be covered with any cloaks by the patrons of whoredom, however witty and eloquent they may be.