having by their hand written [thus] The apostles, and the elders, and the brethren, to the brethren who are from among [the] nations at Antioch, and [in] Syria and Cilicia, greeting
The council at Jerusalem has finished its work, and now the decision has to travel. This verse opens the letter: it names the senders, names the readers, and sets the tone for all that follows.
The oldest copies of Acts open this line differently from the familiar text. The difference tells us how the Jerusalem elders came to hold their place.
The most ancient authorities open with a reading that almost all critics now accept. It gives a sense further from church tradition than the ordinary text. That ordinary text separates "the elders" sharply from "the brethren" that follow. "The elder brethren," however, is a phrase that exactly fits the state of things at Jerusalem. No doubt they were "the elders" there, as we find them called in Acts 11:30, and in Acts 15:2, 6. They were the local authorities. But it seems no apostle formally chose them, directly or indirectly, as certainly happened with the elders in the Gentile assemblies. They seem instead to have acted from their experience and moral weight, as was usual among the Jews. This fits remarkably with the unusual phrase used here, "the elder brethren," and it matches the tone of Peter's words in 1 Peter 5:1-4.
Either way, the apostles do not sign alone.
Men who could have written on their own authority chose instead to put other names beside their own.
It is striking that the letter joins the "elder brethren" (now generally accepted as the true reading) with the apostles. This confirms the earlier point about the character of eldership in the Jewish assemblies. It also shows how little the genuine apostles guarded their own rights. In seven of Paul's fourteen letters we find others named with him in the same way. That style is truly apostolic. The men of those days still remembered the Lord's picture of greatness: a little child. They remembered too that He Himself had been among them as one who serves.
The letter carries weight because no majority forced it through.
The assembly did not vote. All consented, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, to what had been expressed. The apostles and elders met together to examine the question, but all the brethren joined with them in the letter sent to the Gentiles. So it was not the Gentiles who defended their own rights against the assembly at Jerusalem. By the wisdom and grace of God, it was the assembly at Jerusalem that acknowledged the liberty of the Gentiles from the law. And so unity held.
Notice what the letter does not claim. Jerusalem had every human reason to speak as a headquarters, and did not.
There was, notice, no claim of the rights and primacy of a central bishop's seat whose occupant could lay down the law for others. Surely, if any city could claim that, Jerusalem might, which had been, and still was, the home of apostles. The apostles and elders wrote to their brethren in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. It was not James, or John, or Peter, or all of them apart from others not counted among the apostles, who issued a decree. It was brethren writing to brethren. And the letter, though firm in character, was gracious in tone.
The same writer shows why Jerusalem wrote at all:
The question raised was vital for doctrine, and vital for fellowship too. If the troublers had been right, the fellowship of Gentile converts with those at Jerusalem depended on the Gentiles submitting to all the ordinances of the law. So they might well want to know on what terms Christian fellowship could continue. It was for those at Jerusalem to make that plain. This they did. Hence their letter.
The letter ends with one word: greeting. The same word opens the letter of James, the man who gave the council's verdict.
He writes, as we saw, to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, and sends them greeting. It is not the salutation that the letters of Paul and the other apostles have made so familiar to us, but exactly the form of greeting used in the famous letter of Acts 15 from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, who wrote to the Gentile assemblies to guard them from giving in to legalism. And since he was the person who gave the verdict, it is worth seeing the link between what was written that day and what James writes here.
The address also reached further than one city. Of Cilicia, one reference work notes:
There were clearly Gentile believers there, for Cilicia is mentioned in the letter from Jerusalem about the exemption of the Gentiles from keeping the law.
- Brethren write. Apostles and elder brethren send the letter together. Their weight came from experience and moral standing, not from a formal appointment.
- Brethren agree. No one voted. Apostles, elders and the whole gathering consented together, and unity held.
- Brethren receive. The letter calls Gentile converts in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia brethren, with no law-keeping required first.
- Brethren, not rulers. Jerusalem, the home of apostles, claimed no bishop's seat. It was brethren writing to brethren, firm but gracious.
- Brethren greeted. The one word of greeting matches James's own letter. It links the man who gave the council's verdict to the message that freed the Gentiles.
Inasmuch as we have heard that some who went out from amongst us have troubled you by words, upsetting your souls, [saying that ye must be circumcised and keep the law]; to whom we gave no commandment;
The letter from Jerusalem names the source of the trouble at Antioch. Men had gone out from the Jerusalem believers and upset the Gentile Christians with their teaching. The apostles and elders then add something striking: they never sent these men. So what makes teaching dangerous, and what makes it trustworthy?
These men had come from Jerusalem, so people assumed Jerusalem stood behind them. The letter takes that support away.
What we have here is that the apostle and the Jewish assembly, by which God had begun the work, set the Gentiles free from the law, and unity is kept... The letter declares that those who had disturbed the Gentiles and subverted their souls had no commission at all.
The verse says only that these men troubled the Gentiles with words. One writer spells out what those words demanded.
You will see how constantly, how widely, and how bitterly these Jewish teachers opposed Paul and his teaching of pure grace... They were teaching the Christians this: the Gentiles had left idol worship and pagan religion, and had been baptized, so joining themselves to the Christian assembly. Even so, they now had to be circumcised and keep the law, or else they could not be saved. See Acts 15:1 and 24.
Older translations read "subverting your souls" where the ESV has "unsettling your minds". The damage does not come from denying Christ. It comes from adding to Him, and that addition empties the gospel.
If we put devotedness in service, or the best of good works, as supplementary to the work of Christ, it is no gospel at all... These teachers said, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." The gospel does not depend on such "ifs" and "excepts." Bring them in, and they overturn the gospel of the grace of God. James, in this chapter of Acts, teaches the same truth that Paul teaches in his own letter. To add anything to the finished work of Christ, as the ground of acceptance with God, is to "trouble the brothers" and to "subvert their souls."
One writer names the spirit of the letter and the harm the law would have done.
This letter from Jewish believers to Gentile believers breathes a spirit of love, fellowship and unity throughout. To put the Gentiles under the law would have had the effect of "subverting" their souls.
This was not a small point. If these men had been right, Gentile believers could share fellowship only by keeping the law.
The question raised, a vital one as to doctrine, was also vital as to fellowship. For if these troublers had been correct, Gentile converts could only have fellowship with those at Jerusalem by submitting to all the rules of the law... Notice that no one claimed the rights and leading place of a chief city church, whose leader could lay down the law for others. Surely, if any city could claim that, Jerusalem might... It was brothers writing to brothers. And the letter, though firm in character, was gracious in tone.
The letter says the decision was of one accord, even though some had argued against it.
Notice that they could still say "with one accord," even though some had opposed. Their opposition had been shown to be against God, so it fell silent, and the brothers kept their unity in the face of it.
Teaching that unsettles the soul rarely looks dangerous.
Many dangers surround the path of the young or simple Christian. The worst of them all is false or anti-Christian teaching... Such teaching nearly always looks harmless. It is only a matter of taking in certain ideas. There is nothing about it disgusting or immoral. Yet its effect is to subvert the soul and, in practice, put it under the rule of Satan, the god of this world.
- Unsent — The men came from Jerusalem but carried no commission from it. The apostles say they never gave them any such instruction.
- Unbiblical addition — Their message was Christ plus circumcision and law-keeping. Add anything to His finished work as the ground of acceptance, and it is no gospel at all.
- Unsettled souls — That addition is what "troubles" and "subverts". Putting Gentile believers under the law would have unsettled their souls.
- Unified answer — The reply came as brothers writing to brothers, gracious in tone and firm in content. They could call it "of one accord" because the opposition had been shown to be against God.
- Unchanging guard — False teaching still arrives looking harmless. Weigh what is taught, not the standing of the place the teacher came from.
it seemed good to us, having arrived at a common judgment, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Acts 15 settles a crisis. Some teachers had told Gentile believers they must be circumcised and keep the law. The apostles, elders and the whole assembly at Jerusalem met and answered them by letter. Verse 25 comes from that letter. How did a divided company reach one mind, and why send men and not just a letter?
One writer explains how this decision was made and who shared in it:
The assembly did not vote. All consented, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, to what had been expressed. All agreed — apostles, elders, and the whole assembly — to send men chosen from among them. These men would confirm by word of mouth the account of Barnabas and Paul, and the written decision they carried from Jerusalem. The apostles and elders assembled together to examine the question, but all the brothers joined with them in the letter they sent to the Gentiles. So the Gentiles did not hold their rights against the assembly at Jerusalem. By the wisdom and grace of God, it was that assembly which acknowledged the freedom of the Gentiles from the law. This is what preserved unity.
Some had opposed this earlier in the chapter. Another writer explains why "one accord" still fits:
Notice that "with one accord" is rightly said, even though some had opposed. Their opposition had proved to be against God, and it fell silent. The unity of the believers held firm through it.
One writer sets out what they had before them, and how the outcome changed the standing of two men:
Three things were before them. First, Peter's testimony about what God had done with Cornelius. Second, the account Barnabas and Paul gave of God's actions during their missionary journey. Third, the voice of Scripture, as quoted by James. What God had said agreed with what God had done. They had come together to seek His mind. By His word and His actions they saw it clearly, and all were of one accord. So they settled a difficult question that might have divided the whole church, and it ended by drawing them together. When Barnabas and Paul went up to Jerusalem, it was as men whose service was open to challenge and suspicion. When they left, they carried a letter that called them "our beloved Barnabas and Paul."
Cornelius was a Roman officer, and not a Jew.
Elsewhere in the chapter the names run the other way round. One writer shows that the order carries meaning:
Notice that in the letter of the council the order is "Barnabas and Paul" (v. 25), as in verse 12. Earlier in the chapter, in verse 2, and later in verse 35 and after that, it is "Paul and Barnabas". The believers in Jerusalem felt it the first way, as believers elsewhere did in the early days of the great apostle's testimony… The reader of the Old Testament may find a similar principle in Exodus 6:13, 20, 26 and 27. In the order of nature it is "Aaron and Moses"; in sovereign grace it becomes "Moses and Aaron".
Barnabas and Paul could have carried the letter alone. Judas and Silas went with them, and that choice was wise for two reasons. First, no one could say these two were pleading their own case:
Their way of acting truly shows the spirit of grace and wisdom. They give their full backing to Paul and Barnabas, and they send with them men of note from the assembly at Jerusalem. No one could suspect these men of bringing an answer that supported their own claims, as people might have supposed in the case of Paul and Barnabas.
Second, they had been there while the matter was debated:
It was important to have the presence of men who were themselves competent witnesses of what had been debated and decided at Jerusalem. This was far more than being the mere and cold bearers of a letter. They knew what drove the opponents. They knew the spiritual interests at stake, and they knew the feeling of the apostles and of the church at large.
This council also sets a pattern for later gatherings. One writer quotes the verse from an older translation and marks the limit of what any assembly may decide:
The assembly is the place where the inspired Word of God rules and directs. In Acts 15:13-29 we read, "Simon has related… with this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written… therefore I judge… it seemed good to us, having arrived at a common judgment." In the assembly, God's will as expressed in His Word is the only thing that counts. So it is never permissible to enforce a discipline that is more rigorous than Scripture directs.
- Accord, not arithmetic — nobody voted. Apostles, elders and the whole company agreed under the Spirit, and the earlier opposition proved to be against God and fell silent.
- Accord grounded — Peter's account, the missionary report and Scripture all agreed. What God had said matched what God had done.
- Accord expressed — two men once under suspicion left Jerusalem as "our beloved Barnabas and Paul."
- Accord carried — Judas and Silas travelled with the letter as witnesses with no case of their own to plead, so it came as more than cold paper.
- Accord bounded — in the assembly God's Word alone rules, so no one may enforce a discipline stricter than Scripture directs.
men who have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The letter from Jerusalem to the Gentile believers carries more than a decision. It also describes the two men who had argued the case, calling Barnabas and Paul beloved because they had already risked their lives for the Name they preached.
The trip to Jerusalem changed how these two men were seen.
When Barnabas and Paul went up to Jerusalem, they went as men whose service was open to challenge and suspicion. When they left, they carried a letter that called them "our beloved Barnabas and Paul."
That warmth was not one man's opinion. It was the agreed voice of the whole gathering.
Notice that the account rightly says "with one accord," even though some had opposed. It had become clear that their opposition was against God, so the unity of the believers held firm in the face of it, and the opposition fell silent. It is good to see how they valued Barnabas and Paul. They speak of them as men who had risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The ESV says these men "risked" their lives. Older translations read "hazarded" or "delivered up," and the difference matters.
They were also spoken of as "men who have hazarded [or delivered up] their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." To hazard your life is to risk it, the way a gambler risks his money on a throw of the dice. To deliver up your life is to accept death as a certainty, not just a risk. Anyone who gives up his life in this way should be counted beloved in the church of God.
The same writer presses the stronger reading elsewhere.
If you turn to another translation you will find an even stronger wording: "Men who have yielded up their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus." There was no gamble about it at all. They did not have an even chance. The outcome was settled in advance. They were men who would step into the gap and lay down their lives.
Conditions in those days decided what kind of worker was needed.
The ministry of Christ in those early days called for courage. Armchair soldiers were no use then! "Men who risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" were needed, and thank God, such men came forward. That was the credential for the field in days when the fire burned, the sword struck, and the lion roared!
The men who carried the letter shaped how it was received.
We can well understand why such a letter cheered the hearts of the believers. It was sent by such apostles and brothers, and carried by them — men who had risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (verse 26). Leading men among the believers stood behind it too (verse 22). So we read that the crowd gathered together "rejoiced because of its encouragement" (verse 31).
Few believers today face what these two faced. The same devotion is still open to everyone.
Even in our own day some have "risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 15:26). But it is open to each one of us, moved by the love of Christ, to give our whole life to His interests. We can be sure that blessing will be the result.
- The Name first. Barnabas and Paul risked their lives for one thing: "the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." That is why the letter honours them.
- Risk, then surrender. One reading of the word pictures a gambler's throw. The stronger reading, "delivered up," treats death as settled, not just possible.
- Suspicion answered. Men whose work was questioned at Jerusalem left it called "beloved." The whole gathering agreed, even though some had opposed.
- Credential, not decoration. Courage for Christ was the qualification for the work, not an extra for gifted speakers.
- Result: joy. Such men carried the letter, so Antioch welcomed it and rejoiced. That same whole-life devotion is open to any believer today, and blessing follows.
We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves also will tell you by word [of mouth] the same things.
The assembly at Jerusalem had just settled a fierce dispute: must Gentile believers keep the Jewish law? Its letter went to Antioch, and two men travelled with it to say the same thing out loud.
The trouble at Antioch had come from men out of Jerusalem. So Jerusalem sent men of its own, to put its decision beyond dispute.
Judas and Silas were sent as the clearest possible witnesses of the decision at Jerusalem. This gave Barnabas and Paul support that no one could question. The power of divine grace had worked in truth and righteousness for the name of Jesus, and there was a great calm.
Paul and Barnabas would say it themselves. But two more witnesses, sent from the city the trouble had come from, left no room for argument.
Some from Jerusalem had troubled the assembly at Antioch by pressing the Jewish law on them. Judas and Silas were to go from Jerusalem as witnesses to the statement in the letter they carried. That statement was this: those in authority in Judea rejected the teaching of the men who had disturbed the converts among the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas could and would certainly say so. Confirmation of it would then be available from the witnesses, who would back up what the other two said.
The decision at Jerusalem came without a vote. Everyone agreed, and the messengers carried it in two forms — spoken and written.
The assembly did not vote. Everyone consented, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, to what had been said. All agreed — apostles, elders, and the whole assembly — to send men chosen from among them. These men were to confirm by word of mouth the account given by Barnabas and Paul, and the written decision they carried from Jerusalem. So the Gentiles were not defending their rights against the assembly at Jerusalem. By the wisdom and grace of God, the assembly at Jerusalem itself acknowledged that the Gentiles were free from the law. And so unity held.
Judas and Silas are called leading men among the brothers. Their standing is worth noticing, because they fit none of the usual offices.
Judas Barsabbas and Silas were sent with Paul and Barnabas, described as "leading men among the brothers." They were not apostles. They were not elders or elder brothers either. The council chose them for their fitness to visit Antioch… They seem to have been connected with the ministry of the word rather than with oversight or presiding, as the elders were. This fact, once recognised, gives us clear insight. The early church had far greater freedom and variety of gift than the narrowness of modern Christendom.
The letter they delivered could have come as a ruling from a higher centre. It did not.
Notice that no one claimed the rights and first place of a chief city whose leader could lay down the law for others. Surely, if any city could claim that, Jerusalem might have — it had been, and still was, the home of apostles. The apostles and elders wrote to their brothers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. It was not James, or John, or Peter, or all of them apart from the others who were not apostles, issuing a decree. It was brothers writing to brothers. And the letter, though firm in character, was gracious in tone.
Their visit was not only about settling a dispute. It also met a need in the believers themselves.
For the need that all this trouble created, the testimony of Judas and Silas would be all-important. They were prophets themselves. And so in fact we hear how they comforted and strengthened the brothers. Peace and unity were kept perfectly, and so far the enemy had gained no advantage.
- Trouble — Men from Jerusalem had unsettled Gentile believers at Antioch. The answer had to come from Jerusalem too.
- Letter — Jerusalem sent no decree from a ruling centre. It sent brothers writing to brothers: firm in substance, gracious in tone.
- Voices — Judas and Silas travelled with the letter. They said the same thing out loud, and nobody could question them.
- Gift — They were neither apostles nor elders. They were leading men linked with the ministry of the word, a mark of the breadth of gift in the early church.
- Peace — Spoken and written word together comforted and strengthened the believers. Unity held, and the enemy gained nothing.
For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things
A letter goes out from Jerusalem to Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. It ends a long fight over circumcision and the law of Moses, and its wording is startling: a group of men say their decision is also the Holy Spirit's.
The sentence does not begin with the apostles. It names the Spirit first, and that order settles who was really deciding.
Verse 28 treats the matter as being of the greatest importance: it seemed good to the Holy Spirit first, and then "to us." No question at all can remain about the definite leading of the Spirit of God here. The apostles and elders went along with that leading.
The order was not their idea. Peter had watched the Spirit come on Cornelius and his household before any of this.
The Spirit coming on Cornelius and his company was, to Peter and those with him, undeniable proof that God accepts uncircumcised men. That is why they speak of the Spirit first and apart from themselves. The same seal had been put everywhere on the Gentile converts. How then could they do anything but obediently follow as the Spirit so plainly led? The prophets James had appealed to were also His witness; and the command given to Noah was no new law, but what Scripture had handed down.
The phrase is not a pious flourish. One writer traces the same guidance right through Acts.
The Holy Spirit is always present to guide the assembly. This fact is the foundation of how the church is put together on earth… In chapter 13 He guides the assembly at Antioch in the same way: "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." They went out, sent by Him. When the assembly at Jerusalem had to settle a question of great importance, it again recognised the presence of the Holy Spirit — "for it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us."
after
The word burden points back to the law. What the Spirit lifts off, believers keep trying to pick back up.
The Galatian Christians were very eager to take up the burden of the law. Peter said this burden was one which "neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." No, says the apostle, I will show you a better burden to bear than that. Bear one another's burdens… The burden of law, which most Christians today are loading onto themselves, is not for us; we are free from the law — free, so that we may take up one another's burdens.
The four requirements are not a short law code. The letter calls them necessary, and that word is carefully chosen.
It is a direction that teaches, not what is right or wrong in the abstract, but what suited the case in front of them. It was "necessary," not "righteous before God," to avoid certain things. The things might be really evil, but they are not looked at that way here. There were certain things the Gentiles were used to. It was proper for them to give these up, so that the assembly might walk as it should before God in peace.
The four look like an odd mix. Each one touches God's own rights.
It surprises many that keeping clear of idols and personal purity should be set alongside not eating blood or things strangled. The revealed will of God is absolute for the believer… These four carry the full weight of apostolic authority as "necessary things." God stated them for Gentiles who believe, in pointed contrast to the rules of Israel's law. What can cancel them? God's honour cannot be touched, and neither can His sanction of marriage, not of fornication. God insists that life belongs to Himself; so, while He gives flesh to eat, He reserves the blood.
Some read the verse as a pattern for church meetings today. One writer answers that the words belonged to that council alone.
This was the only council entitled to say, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." If others have imitated the language, it is mere profanity. Yet it was not a worldwide assembly at all. It was the assembly at Jerusalem, where the apostles and local elders met to consider the matter… It is of the greatest importance that the way, as well as the end, be of the Holy Spirit and in accordance with the word of God.
The weight falls on the words "and to us."
When it says, "And to us," did this not refer to men having some direct authority? Could any gathering, convinced that a doctrine is presented in the word, send a decree to other gatherings? No! There was then an authority and a capacity which no longer exist.
- Spirit first. The verse names the Holy Spirit before the men, so the decision follows His leading, not their agreement.
- Spirit shown. They could speak that way because the Spirit had already come on uncircumcised believers. They were only following Him.
- Spirit lifts. He led them to lay on "no greater burden" — the law's load, which no one could carry, stayed off.
- Spirit keeps. The four things are necessary, not the whole of righteousness: God's honour, marriage, and His claim on life.
- Spirit alone. The words belonged to that one council. The test stands: the way as well as the outcome must be the Spirit's, and in line with Scripture.
to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from fornication; keeping yourselves from which ye will do well. Farewell.
The letter from Jerusalem settles a fight. Did Gentile believers have to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses? The answer comes as a short list: no idol-meat, no blood, nothing strangled, no sexual immorality. The question every reader asks is why these four, and whether a Christian today is bound by them.
The decree matters for who issued it. Gentiles did not win this freedom by arguing for it. The people most likely to oppose it granted it.
God did not allow Paul and Barnabas to settle the question at Antioch. Such a decision would not have ended the dispute. It would have made two separate churches. But the moment the Jewish Christians and the church at Jerusalem granted freedom to the Gentiles, no one could oppose their release from the law... Judaism itself had granted the Gentiles freedom from the Jewish yoke.
The four items are not leftovers of Moses. Each one reaches back behind the law — to creation, and to what God said to Noah.
So this decree does not rule on the nature of the things forbidden. It rules on what was fitting at the time, since the Gentiles had in fact been in the habit of doing all these things. Note that the law was not the only thing that forbade them. They went against the order God set up as Creator, or against the prohibition God gave Noah when He told him to eat meat. A woman was to be joined to a man only in the sanctity of marriage, and this is a very great blessing. Life belonged to God. All fellowship with idols was an outrage against the authority of the true God... So this is not a new law that Christianity imposes, and it is not a concession to Jewish prejudice.
Why name blood and strangled meat separately? Because they are two different ways of handling the same thing, and both are ruled out.
There should be no question about what "blood" means. It is blood drawn out of the animal for cooking. That is clearly different from "strangled", where the aim is to keep the blood from flowing. Both are forbidden; for God demands that man shall, by abstaining, own that life belongs to Him. If any are so self-willed as to plead that they do not see or understand, let them own their ignorance and obey. It is not a Jewish or Mosaic statute only, but for man since Noah and the flood (Gen. 9:4)... The apostles were content here to decide that none of these things is an open question for Gentile converts, and that, if they abstain from all these necessary things, they will do well.
Sexual sin looks out of place in a list about eating. One writer matches each item to the people it offends.
Why is sexual immorality put here with the other things? Because it offends the church of God, as blood would offend the Jews, or things offered to idols would offend the Gentiles. The church has the character of a chaste virgin for Christ... So when you keep away from things offered to idols, you do it for someone else's conscience, not your own (1 Cor. 10). But when you keep away from sexual immorality, even in its slightest degree, you do it for your own conscience in the fullest possible sense.
The list is not arbitrary. Reduced to its core, it protects three things at once.
In sum the principles established are these: purity by marriage according to God's original institution; that life belongs to God; and the unity of God as the one only true God — Godhead, life, and God's original ordinance for man.
One writer says this is not a scrap of the law of Moses but a rule for everyone, kept without Jewish scruples.
The apostles and elders gave this instruction to Gentile believers in Acts 15:20 and 29. They were not imposing on them something that was merely an item of the law of Moses. It was a prohibition that applies to all people. We do well to observe it, though we do not need to observe the extreme scruples of the Jews, as is shown by the instruction of 1 Corinthians 10:25.
Another writer holds the same commands as binding, and still leaves each person's conscience alone.
In Acts 15 three commands still bind a Christian now: keep away from blood, from things offered to idols, and from sexual immorality. They are not from law, but from Noah. Not that I should think, if I had eaten blood, that I was defiled by it, for it is not the things that go in that defile... To me these three principles are the expression of man as belonging to God, and not to his own lusts. As to blood, it is the life, and clearly belongs to God, but I leave every man's conscience to himself.
- Burden lifted. Jerusalem itself released the Gentiles from the law, and that kept one church instead of two.
- Necessary, not Mosaic. The apostles called these things necessary because they reach back to creation and to Noah, not because they kept a corner of Moses in reserve.
- Necessary for God's honour. Life belongs to God, so we refuse blood, whether drained out or kept in by strangling. Idols insult the one true God. Marriage is His own institution.
- Necessary for the conscience. You refuse idol-meat for someone else's conscience, and immorality for your own — the church is a chaste virgin for Christ.
- Result: you will do well. None of these is an open question, yet food does not defile you — so obey, and leave each other's consciences to God.