Analysis of the Decree.
The decree of the council was a compromise and had two aspects: it was emancipatory, and
restrictive.
(1.) It was a decree of emancipation of the Gentile disciples from circumcision and the
bondage of the ceremonial law. This was the chief point in dispute, and so far the decree was liberal
and progressive. It settled the question of principle once and forever. Paul had triumphed. Hereafter
the Judaizing doctrine of the necessity of circumcision for salvation was a heresy, a false gospel,
or a perversion of the true gospel, and is denounced as such by Paul in the Galatians.
(2.) The decree was restrictive and conservative on questions of expediency and comparative
indifference to the Gentile Christians. Under this aspect it was a wise and necessary measure for
the apostolic age, especially in the East, where the Jewish element prevailed, but not intended for
universal and permanent use. In Western churches, as already remarked, it was gradually abandoned,
as we learn from Augustine. It imposed upon the Gentile Christians abstinence from meat offered
to idols, from blood, and from things strangled (as fowls and other animals caught in snares). The
last two points amounted to the same thing. These three restrictions had a good foundation in the
Jewish abhorrence of idolatry, and every thing connected with it, and in the Levitical prohibition.^459
Without them the churches in Judaea would not have agreed to the compact. But it was almost
impossible to carry them out in mixed or in purely Gentile congregations; for it would have
compelled the Gentile Christians to give up social intercourse with their unconverted kindred and
friends, and to keep separate slaughter-houses, like the Jews, who from fear of contamination with
idolatrous associations never bought meat at the public markets. Paul takes a more liberal view of
this matter—herein no doubt dissenting somewhat from James—namely, that the eating of meat
sacrificed to idols was in itself indifferent, in view of the vanity of idols; nevertheless he likewise
commands the Corinthians to abstain from such meat out of regard for tender and weak consciences,
and lays down the golden rule: "All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient; all things
are lawful, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but his neighbor’s good."^460
It seems strange to a modern reader that with these ceremonial prohibitions should be
connected the strictly moral prohibition of fornication.^461 But it must be remembered that the heathen
conscience as to sexual intercourse was exceedingly lax, and looked upon it as a matter of
indifference, like eating and drinking, and as sinful only in case of adultery where the rights of a
husband are invaded. No heathen moralist, not even Socrates, or Plato, or Cicero, condemned
fornication absolutely. It was sanctioned by the worship of Aphrodite at Corinth and Paphos, and
practised to her honor by a host of harlot-priestesses! Idolatry or spiritual whoredom is almost
inseparable from bodily pollution. In the case of Solomon polytheism and polygamy went hand in
hand. Hence the author of the Apocalypse also closely connects the eating of meat offered to idols(^459) Ex. 34:,15; Lev. 17:7 sqq.; Deut. 12:23 sqq. The reason assigned for the prohibition of the taste of blood is that "the life of
the flesh is in the blood," and the pouring out of blood is the means of "the atonement for the soul" (Lev. 17:11). The prohibition
of blood as food was traced back to the time of Noah, Gen. 9:4, and seems to have been included in the seven "Noachian
commandments" so-called, which were imposed upon the proselytes of the gate, although the Talmud nowhere specifies them
very clearly. The Moslems likewise abhor the tasting of blood. But the Greeks and Romans regarded it as a delicacy. It was a
stretch of liberality on the part of the Jews that pork was not included among the forbidden articles of food. Bentley proposed
to read in Acts 15:20πορκεία (fromπόρκος, porcus) for πορνεία, but without a shadow of evidence.
(^460) 1 Cor. 8:7-13; 10:23-33; Rom. 14:2, 21; 1 Tim. 4:4.
(^461) The word πορ́νεια, without addition, must be taken in its usual sense, and cannot mean illegitimate marriages alone, which
were forbidden to the Jews, Ex. 34; Lev. 18, although it may include them
A.D. 1-100.