Acts 15: Why these three things?

[Plain_Doc]

In Sunday school, a question arose regarding the Jerusalem Conference recorded in Acts 15: Why were the gentile converts instructed to abstain from pollutions of idols, from fornications, and from eating the meat of strangled animals or consuming blood? The first and second are pretty obvious—all of Scripture attests that God alone shall be worshiped and feared and that God made humans male and female and that marriage should be respected. But, the last restriction seems odd, almost Mosaic. But, Peter had just argued against laying the Law of Moses on the gentiles. So, I went home and pulled out some big thick books: The Mosaic Law was fulfilled completely in Christ. But, the earlier, Noahdic covenant was still in effect. We haven’t been flooded out lately and are free to eat the meat of animals, but God commanded Noah that meat with the lifeblood still in it (as occurs with strangulation) was not to be consumed. Isn’t that beautiful?

[Neto]

As James summarizes the discussion and makes his suggestion for how to approach the question of whether non-Jewish believers should be required to follow the Mosaic Law or not, and if so, which parts, he make an interesting comment (vs 21). I tend to take this as a reason for the last of the three prohibitions - the bit about strangled meat and blood. He says "... because from generations past Moses has been preached and read in the synagogues every Shabbat." Some years ago, while still in active missionary service, we were subscribed to a missionary quarterly magazine, and they reported about a hot debate among mission agencies working in parts of Africa where blood is more or less a staple of the diet for many tribal groups. I would not suggest we encourage the consumption of blood (and I prefer my steaks well-done), but I wonder if this last item (of the three) wasn't primarily a "peace-keeping" measure, designed to smooth the way for fellowship between the non-Jewish and Jewish Christ followers. (Or at least that's how James comes across.)

[steve-in-kville]

Welcome to the forum!

I'm not the most educated Bible scholar, but I always associated the consumption of blood with witchcraft and satanic rituals. Maybe I read too much...

[Josh]

In Sunday school, a question arose regarding the Jerusalem Conference recorded in Acts 15: Why were the gentile converts instructed to abstain from pollutions of idols, from fornications, and from eating the meat of strangled animals or consuming blood? The first and second are pretty obvious—all of Scripture attests that God alone shall be worshiped and feared and that God made humans male and female and that marriage should be respected. But, the last restriction seems odd, almost Mosaic. But, Peter had just argued against laying the Law of Moses on the gentiles. So, I went home and pulled out some big thick books: The Mosaic Law was fulfilled completely in Christ. But, the earlier, Noahdic covenant was still in effect. We haven’t been flooded out lately and are free to eat the meat of animals, but God commanded Noah that meat with the lifeblood still in it (as occurs with strangulation) was not to be consumed. Isn’t that beautiful?

This is a nice idea, but it's also entirely extra-biblical, as many other commandments from the Law of Moses most people would agree apply to the Gentiles (such as 9 of the 10 commandments; does anyone seriously believe that New Testament believers who are Gentiles don't need to honour their father and mother? Well, the NT never commands it!)? And why would the Noahide "covenant" (which is largely an invention of 16th century Reformers) still be in effect? And if it is, why would a conference need to be convened to figure that out?

The actual reality is that the church has the authority to convene a conference and make decisions about how to apply Bible doctrines to the present era, and in their era, it concerned things going with idols, temples, and meat.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

My confusion comes not from this text alone, but from other texts that address the practice of eating meat offered to idols.

In one passage, Paul admonishes some for eating this meat, telling them that these false gods can, in fact, represent real demonic powers at work in the world.

In another passage, Paul explicitly says that meat is meat, and it's just superstitiousness that makes some feel opposed to it by their conscience, but he advises the brethren to honor the consciences of the weaker members.

[Swiss Bro]

God allowed Noah and with him all humanity to consume meat, before that, this was not allowed. He only banned the consumption of blood because blood represents life/ the soul. It‘s all written in Scripture.

Acts 15, the Apostolic covenant fully agreed with Paul that the law of Moses was not applicable to Christians, none of it. However, the law of Noses did not overrule the older rules given in 1 Moses 9. Those were and are still applicable to everybody. That‘s what the Apostles confirmed.

Hence, no black pudding or Bluwurst.

[Josh]

God allowed Noah and with him all humanity to consume meat, before that, this was not allowed. He only banned the consumption of blood because blood represents life/ the soul. It‘s all written in Scripture.

Acts 15, the Apostolic covenant fully agreed with Paul that the law of Moses was not applicable to Christians, none of it. However, the law of Noses did not overrule the older rules given in 1 Moses 9. Those were and are still applicable to everybody. That‘s what the Apostles confirmed.

Hence, no black pudding or Bluwurst.

This interpretation has not been part of Christian practice until the Reformera dreamt it up during the Reformation.

[Neto]

God allowed Noah and with him all humanity to consume meat, before that, this was not allowed. He only banned the consumption of blood because blood represents life/ the soul. It‘s all written in Scripture.

Acts 15, the Apostolic covenant fully agreed with Paul that the law of Moses was not applicable to Christians, none of it. However, the law of Noses did not overrule the older rules given in 1 Moses 9. Those were and are still applicable to everybody. That‘s what the Apostles confirmed.

Hence, no black pudding or Bluwurst.

This interpretation has not been part of Christian practice until the Reformera dreamt it up during the Reformation.

Was that the reforming of the noses?

[barnhart]

I tend to view the New Testament warnings against idolatry in light of the Roman cult of emperor worship which was keyed to citizenship and economic power. It's possible the blood issue was tied in as well as the meat from pagan sacrifice may not have been butchered to Judaic standard.

[ohio jones]

Hence, no black pudding or Bluwurst.

This interpretation has not been part of Christian practice until the Reformera dreamt it up during the Reformation.

Well, the Affair of the Sausages was an important part of the Reformation. That was not blood sausage, as far as I know.