Acts 15:6-21 Testimony and a decision

Acts 15:6-11 Peter gives his opinion. He puts his experience with Cornelius forward as justification for why he believes that God does not require the keeping of the law as a condition for salvation. He took the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as evidence, proof really, that Cornelius and his household had been saved by God. And since they were Gentiles, Peter drew the conclusion that Paul also drew. God saves Gentiles based on faith apart from any works of the law. (Romans 3:28) Peter recognized the bankruptcy of the Jewish legalism as a means of salvation, more or less directly taking on the Pharisees' theology.

Acts 15:12 Paul and Barnabas relate their experience from their missionary trip. The people were silent, evidently taking in stories of God's supernatural endorsement of Paul and Barnabas' mission trip to the Gentiles.

Acts 15:13-21 James renders his opinion. Peter had related his experience that God had sovereignly and supernaturally chosen to save Gentiles. James then quotes Amos 9:11-12 as a reference for linking the return of God to Israel with God accepting people from among the Gentiles. When God returns, He will rebuild David's tabernacle. Since the temple in Jerusalem had been rebuilt long before the coming of Christ, this must be interpreted as James taking the view that the church is God's dwelling place, His tabernacle among men, consistent with 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 6:19.

          James then goes on to give four specific commands that should be given to Gentiles who turn to Christ, but not the entirety of the Mosaic law, since that is proclaimed every Sabbath in the synagogues wherever there are Jews. The four conditions may strike us as an odd collection of commands. They should abstain from

•   things contaminated by idols

•   fornication

•   what is strangled

•   blood.

It is not clear if James is attempting to strike a compromise or if these are indeed from the Holy Spirit. Obviously, he omitted circumcision, which had been the focal point of the Pharisees' contention. But of these four items, only idolatry and fornication fall under the Ten Commandments. It might be a matter of interpretation that partaking of things contaminated by idols amounts to participation in idolatry. And Paul did not have this interpretation later (1 Corinthians 10:25-28). Paul in that case said to buy and eat meat without asking questions, unless someone tells you that it was sacrificed to idols. Then there is a restriction based on conscience, but it derives primarily from the duty of not making another person stumble. We don't need to go on a witch hunt to find out the provenance of the meat we eat. But if someone is so concerned about this point that they bring it up, we should not defile their conscience.

          Fornication is kin to adultery, and this topic also is discussed by Paul (1 Corinthians 5). In this case, Paul says that such flagrant immorality is not countenanced even among the Gentiles, and that the one who does such a thing is to be treated as someone outside the church, in other words, excommunicated. So Peter's command here is simply in keeping with the moral law. Jesus forgave the woman caught in the very act of adultery (John 8:1-10) but He did tell her to go and sin no more. The Holy Spirit does not and cannot empower someone to sin. Those who believe in Christ and subsequently walk under the Holy Spirit's anointing cannot do so while flagrantly sinning.

          The remaining two items in James' letter seem to be based on the kosher commandments. Lev 17:10-13 commands that meat is not to be eaten with blood. There is a lesson based on this, that the life is in the blood, and it is only the blood of Jesus that can save, not the blood of bulls or goats (Hebrews 9:12-14). In context, the primary Levitical concern appears to be the health hazard of eating undercooked meat. Most likely, James had in mind the risk that people might fall into some kind of theological error if they thought that somehow eating the blood of animals would in some way amplify atonement through the blood of Christ, or bring cleansing from specific acts of sin.

          Abstaining from things strangled is really not directly stated as a rule in the kosher food section of the Pentateuch. The closest that can be found is Lev 1:15, which gives instructions for a particular offering for the priest to wring the head off of the bird. After this the priest is to drain the blood and then burn the carcass to convert it to smoke. This is an offering from the flock, and its purpose is to be a soothing aroma to The Lord. Perhaps Peter's instructions in this case are for the same reason as the instructions for abstaining from blood.

          Another possibility is that all the things identified here are associated with practices at pagan temples, and that it really is a command to avoid contamination by idolatry with specific examples of common practices at pagan temples: prostitution, and the offering of the blood of  animals that have been strangled. Under this interpretation, what James is really saying is to steer clear of any practice that brings the association with pagan worship or idolatry. It is unlikely that the Gentiles would fall into Jewish legalism, not having ever been raised or immersed in it. So it would be more natural for them to be warned against the one cultural practice to which they might be susceptible.