Acts 15:19,20,28,29 what does it really mean?

beginnersmind

I'm not completely sold on these verses at Acts 15:19,20,28,29 meaning it was just to keep harmony with Jews and Gentiles. I can see that meaning in those verses but also another one. For example v28 says "we have favoured no further burden except these necessary things" then goes to list those things in v29. To me that can mean that they arent going to add Circumcision to the list of burdens or necessary things and those things listed in v29 are burdens not simply some things to keep harmony. *Also when reading v19,20 it can mean that the "decision not to trouble those of the nations turning to God" was simply not to add circumcision to the list which was given in v20. Why is fornication listed? Surely thats not something they had to refrain from to keep the peace? As to the exact meaning of blood in these verses I dont know.

Lets be clear though I do not support a ban on blood transfusions. I'm just putting across my problem with those verses in Acts. I need explaining why:

1 Fornication is on the list to avoid if its a list of things purely for keeping harmony. (I dont buy that thats permanent but the others arent argument because why havent they listed murder unless that is what is meant by blood but it would still leave the same problem of why is the list made up of temporary and permenant laws)

2 v28 where it says no futher burden ie implying v29 are burdens and v19 explaining why theres no circumcision in the list in v20*

Even if I believed these alternative explanations I still wouldnt believe in not having blood transfusions for other reason as has already been touched on in this thread. However when reading these verses my mind has both conflicting arguments going on and I cant settle on anything definite. Would anyone care to offer reasons why I should accept one explanation and reject the other?

proplog2

Fornication was mentioned because gentiles were known to be very loose sexually. The Jews were used to laws governing sexual behavior. As you know prostitutes were incorporated into worship of the gods of the nations. This letter was a way to end the controversy over circumcision and at the same time throw some meat to the Jewish guard dogs.

Ok. You don't have to go through all the trouble WE did and get your foreskin snipped but you filthy gentiles better quit fornicating and if you want us to eat with you it had better be kosher. slap!

Narkissos

First, there is a strong possibility that porneia in this (ritual) context doesn't have a broad "moral" meaning like the WT's "fornication," but rather refers to possible ceremonial Jewish standards like the prohibited kin marriages as defined in Leviticus 18, which did not correspond exactly to the Gentile definitions of incest.

Second, the presentation of this list of prohibitions as an apparently universal "Apostolic decree" in Acts 15 may well be misleading. The tradition which the book of Acts use may actually have reflected the practice of some Eastern Christian communities, as the list of regions to which the so-called "decree" is "delivered" suggests. Another indication is that the Western text of Acts gives a different list in a different (i.e. moral) spirit, where the reference to "strangled animals" is substituted by a negative version of the "Golden rule," "that they do not do to others what they do not want to suffer".

Btw I'm not sure I understand your point # 2. Could you explain?

jwfacts

There are two areas to recognise about this command:

It is not a binding command on all individuals
It does not refer to blood transfusions

The situation at Acts was very specific. Jewish Christians were having difficulty accepting Gentile Christians, particularly in regards to circumcision. Paul, the Apostle to the Nations, was converting Gentiles and rightfully taught that they were not obligated to follow the Mosaic Law. Judaizers were a group of Jewish Christians claiming to be superior to the Gentile Christians due to following the Mosaic Law. As explained in the New Catholic Encyclopaedia, Judaizers were;

"A party of Jewish Christians in the Early Church, who either held that circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic Law were necessary for salvation and in consequence wished to impose them on the Gentile converts, or who at least considered them as still obligatory on the Jewish Christians."

The Apostles and older men convened to discuss the application of the Mosaic Law and came to the conclusion that observation of the Mosaic Law was unnecessary. However they recommended that 'the believers from among the nations' observe fours things from the Mosaic Law.

Acts

This is not an exhaustive list of things to abstain from (murder being obvious omission) so why was this unusual list given. It was to prevent stumbling Jewish brothers. This was explained in the Watch Tower 1909 April 15 pp. 116-117 and is the common Christian understanding. The New Catholic Encyclopaedia states;

The Catholic Encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm

How do both scholars and Russell reach this conclusion? Firstly, as the Mosaic Law had ceased to apply it does not make sense for Christians to be required to retain only this portion of it. Particularly is this so when considering that these four things are not the only Mosaic rules that a Christian must follow, nor are they the most important ones.

James explained why the four things mentioned at Acts 15:20 were specifically chosen in the very next verse.

Acts

The words of Moses that were read in Synagogues every Sabbath is the passage from Leviticus 17:1 to 18:27. Leviticus 17 and 18 has the same four requirements, listed in the exact order as that given in Acts 15. These were the compulsory rules for both Israelites and foreigners living in ancient Israel. These were considered of utmost importance to Jews due to being based on the Noahide laws.

Genesis 8:20 "And Noah began to build an altar to Jehovah" introduced the concept of abstaining from idolatry
Genesis 9:1 "Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth." Introduced the idea of marriage and not fornication
Genesis 9:4 "Only flesh with its soul-its blood-YOU must not eat" was abstinence from things strangled.
Genesis 9:6 "Anyone shedding man's blood, by man will his own blood be shed" introduced the blood law by forbidding murder. Once more we see that the foundation for the law on blood was respect for life.

This is why these four items meant so much to the Judaizers. Hence the Apostles felt abstinence was necessary in order to prevent stumbling within the surrounding Jewish congregations.

Paul specifically states that there is nothing wrong with eating food sacrificed to idols. Paul explains that this prohibition was so as not to stumble others. This was an issue in congregations that were having trouble between Judaizers and Gentiles. The same principal applies to blood.

1 Corinthians

1 Corinthians 10:25-33 "Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience; for "to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it." If anyone of the unbelievers invites YOU and YOU wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience. But if anyone should say to YOU: "This is something offered in sacrifice," do not eat on account of the one that disclosed it and on account of conscience. "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other person. For why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person's conscience? If I am partaking with thanks, why am I to be spoken of abusively over that for which I give thanks? Therefore, whether YOU are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God's glory. Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God, even as I am pleasing all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage but that of the many, in order that they might get saved."

Even though the decree at Acts 15 says to abstain from eating food sacrificed to idols Paul makes clear that there is nothing wrong with this practice. He said it was only wrong when it stumbled the brothers, in this case the Judaizers. Acts 15 included food sacrificed to idols, blood and animals strangled because they caused stumbling in the mixed congregations due to their being read "in the Synagogue on every Sabbath", not because they are offensive to God. This became less of an issue after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. and holds no relevance in our era.

Abstaining from blood is never mentioned in any other context in the New Testament. It is never discussed as a reason to shun a brother. Paul does not mention eating blood at 1 Corinthians 5 as a reason to 'quit mixing' with a brother, neither does John mention it. In Revelation 21:8 and 1 Corinthians 6 blood is not said to be a reason for not inheriting God's Kingdom. If avoiding blood was a key requirement of God it would be mentioned alongside sins such as fornication, murder and idolatry that are repeatedly condemned in the New Testament.

jwfacts

Another area to consider is that eatting blood was not one of the Noahide laws. After the flood God gave Noah was Jews refer to as the seven Noahide Laws. These are the only laws that Jews consider binding on Gentiles.

To behave justly in all relationships, and to establish courts of justice.
To refrain from blaspheming Gods name.
To refrain from practicing idolatry.
To avoid immoral practices, specifically incest and adultery.
To avoid shedding the blood of ones fellow man.
To refrain from robbing ones fellow man.
To refrain from eating a limb torn from a live animal." (http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/7laws.html (6th Oct 2006))

Although the Watchtower refers to the laws given to Noah to support it blood doctrine there was nothing given about eating blood. Rather God's law was about respect for animal and human life. Noah was told at Genesis 9:4:

with

This does not state that blood could not be eaten. Rather it is a command against eating things strangled. In its strict Hebrew wording it means that an animal should not have flesh torn off it for food whilst the animal is still alive. In general it is understood to mean that out of respect for the life of an animal it was to be bled when being killed for food.

As shown in the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 17:15) the command to Noah allowed for an animal that had died naturally to be eaten, despite not being bled. For this reason at Deuteronomy 14:21 God allowed Israelites to sell un-bled animals found dead to be used as food by "alien residents" and "foreigners." This is because the alien resident was bound by Noahide Law, but not Mosaic Law.

skeeter1

Acts refers to a much older law, right? A law that was around when the Jews were Jews. A law that was around before Abraham & his sons were born (one became the Jews & one became the Muslims...) Both Jewish and Muslim laws have held for hundreds, if not, thousands of years that the foremost law is to respect life. You are to "live" by the laws, not die by them. Both jewish and Muslim's allow blood transfusions, allow sick/young/pregnant to not fast on holidays, allow doctors to work on the Sabbath, etc. Why? They are saving a life. Is it ok to sit around and eat a cheeseburger? No. It disrespects the mother cow by mixing the meat with the milk. Is it ok to have a goblet of blood with a feast? No. Why? It disrespects the animal who shed his life as blood is somewhat holy. But, what about blood for life? Thus, when the men in battle ate bloody meat, they were not killed. God may have been displeased becuase they were "hungry", but their life was not in immediate danger. God did not kill them. After all, even the Muslim Quoron says that Allah is most forgiving & kind. Read Mark 2:22. Read Matthew 11 & 12. What is Jesus saying? After all, he's a Jew. Ask a Jewish rabbi. Ask a Muslim cleric. They will point you to their decisions, laid out over thousands & thousands of years.

skeeter1

They will tell you that it's commanded to respect life. Therefore, it's commanded to take a blood transfusion. I think the JW leadership knows this to be true. Since they allow the fractions. But, to admit it would be too $$$$costly$$$$. Skeeter

NoLoveLost

This article is lengthy but I feel like it is the most coherent explanation given for the Acts 15 issue you are wondering about...

beginnersmind

Thanks for the posts they make interesting reading.

Narkissos sorry for the confusion in point 2. Sometimes I have difficulty explaining the thoughts that go round in my head. I think its sort of been answered anyway but i'll try and explain what I meant. I think the problem was I was interpreting the word burden as a definite thing to avoid for whatever reason not just a temporary one to appease the Jews. On more thinking and reading these posts I realise the word burden doesnt really play an important part in the meaning of these verses. I probably have confused you more now!

edited to say thanks also to NoLoveLost. You must have posted that as I was typing my message. I will read that later.

jwfacts

Each of these four "essential" things to avoid were not four things, but one. They were meant to be read as "never again worship idols by eating with the idolaters in the sacrificial meals, drinking the cup of blood at the idol sacrifice ceremonies, do not ceremoniously eat the flesh of animals strangled during the worship of idols, and abstain from ritual acts of fornication with temple prostitutes".

Interesting point.

Acts 15:19,20,28,29 what does it really mean?

Share this