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.