20<\/strong>. But that we write unto them<\/em> ] The word is used primarily of a charge sent by a messenger, but also, as in Heb 13:22<\/span>, is often used of what is sent by letter (and hence comes the English word epistle<\/em>), and there can be little doubt that this is the sense in the present case, for though messengers were sent, they carried with them the decision of the synod of Jerusalem in a formal manner committed to writing ( Act 15:23<\/em><\/span>).<\/p>\n that they abstain from pollutions of idols<\/em> ] This is explained in Act 15:29<\/em><\/span> by “meats offered (i.e. sacrificed) to idols.” Of the necessity for such an injunction in the early church, where congregations were to be now composed of both Jews and Gentiles, we can judge from St Paul’s argument to the Corinthians (1Co 8:1-10<\/span>; 1Co 10:19<\/span>), and we can also see how he would have the Gentile converts deal tenderly with the scruples of their Jewish fellow-worshippers, however needless they themselves might deem such scruples.<\/p>\n The word rendered pollutions<\/em> is unknown to classical Greek and of very rare occurrence. So far as the construction of the original is concerned, it might refer to the other forbidden things that follow “pollutions of idols and of fornication, &c.” But as in the other places where the cognate is found (Dan 1:8<\/span>; Mal 1:7<\/span>; Mal 1:12<\/span>; Sir 40:29 ) it has always reference to defilement caused by food, it is better to confine the connexion in the same way here, and as in A. V. supply a preposition before the second noun, “and from<\/em> fornication.”<\/p>\n As the ordinance of the synod is for the settling of Jewish minds, we may understand the sort of offence which they were likely to feel from Daniel’s refusal to eat of the food supplied by King Nebuchadnezzar. Meat was often sold in the markets from beasts that had been offered in sacrifice to idols, and this food and those who ate it the Jew would abhor. The Gentile converts might not be careful, when they had once come to think of the idol as nothing, and might join still in banquets with their non-Christian friends, and St Paul (1Co 8:9<\/span>) supposes an extreme case, that such men might even sit down to meat in an idol-temple. If Jew and Gentile were to become one in Christ, much respect must be paid to the feelings which had been sunk deep into the minds of Israel by long years of suffering for their own idolatry.<\/p>\n and from fornication<\/em> ] This injunction must not be understood as a simple repetition of a moral law binding upon all men at all times, but must be taken in connexion with the rest of the decree, and as forbidding a sin into which converts from heathenism were most prone to fall back, and which their previous lives had taught them to regard in a very different light from that in which a Jew would see it. The Levitical law against every form of unchastity was extremely strict (Leviticus 18, 20<\/span>), and it is probably to the observance of these ordinances that we may ascribe the persistence of the Jewish type, and the purity of their race at this day. Whereas among the heathen unchastity was a portion of many of their temple rites, and persons who gave themselves up to such impurities were even called by the names of the heathen divinities. To men educated in the constant contemplation of such a system, sins of unchastity would have far less guilt than in the eyes of those to whom the law of Moses was read every sabbath-day.<\/p>\n and from things strangled<\/em> (lit. from what is strangled), and from blood<\/em> ] The prohibition of blood was made as soon as animal food was given to men (Gen 9:4<\/span>), and it was frequently enforced in the Mosaic law (Lev 3:17<\/span>; Lev 7:26<\/span>; Lev 17:10<\/span>; Lev 17:14<\/span>; Lev 19:26<\/span>). To eat blood was counted a sin against the Lord in the days of Saul (1Sa 14:33<\/span>), and with strict Jews it is an abomination to this day. Things strangled are not specially mentioned in the law of Moses, but that they should not be eaten follows from the larger prohibition. Lev 7:26<\/span> does, however, make mention of the blood of fowls, and it would be in the use of them that the eating of blood began first to be practised. And in breaking the neck of an animal the Jew held that the blood was caused to flow into the limbs in such wise that it could not be brought out even by salt. See T. B. Chullin<\/em>, 113 a .<\/p>\n That we write unto them – <\/B>Expressing our judgment, or our views of the case.<\/P> That they abstain – <\/B>That they refrain from these things, or wholly avoid them.<\/P> Pollutions of idols – <\/B>The word rendered pollutions means any kind of defilement. But here it is evidently used to denote the flesh of those animals that were offered in sacrifice to idols. See Act 15:29<\/span>. That flesh, after being offered in sacrifice, was often exposed for sale in the markets, or was served up at feasts, 1Co 10:25-29<\/span>. It became a very important question whether it was right for Christians to partake of it. The Jews would contend that it was, in fact, partaking of idolatry. The Gentile converts would allege that they did not eat it as a sacrifice to idols, or lend their countenance in any way to the idolatrous Worship where it had been offered. See this subject discussed at length in 1Co 8:4-13<\/span>. As idolatry was forbidden to the Jews in every form, and as partaking even of the sacrifices of idols in their feasts might seem to countenance idolatry, the Jews would be utterly opposed to it; and for the sake of peace, James advised that the Christians at Antioch be recommended to abstain from this. To partake of that food might not be morally wrong 1Co 8:4<\/span>, but it would give occasion for scandal and offence; and, therefore, as a matter of expediency, it was advised that they should abstain from it.<\/P> And from fornication – <\/B>The word used here <\/SPAN><\/span> porneia is applicable to all illicit sexual intercourse, and may refer to adultery, incest, or licentiousness in any form. There has been much diversity of opinion in regard to this expression. Interpreters have been greatly perplexed to understand why this violation of the moral law has been introduced amidst the violations of the ceremonial law, and the question is naturally asked whether this was a sin about which there could be any debate between the Jewish and Gentile converts? Were there any who would practice it, or plead that it was lawful? If not, why is it prohibited here? Various explanations of this have been proposed. Some have supposed that James refers here to the offerings which harlots would make of their gains to the service of religion, and that James would prohibit the reception of it. Beza, Selden, and Schleusner suppose the word is taken for idolatry, as it is often represented in the Scriptures as consisting in unfaithfulness to God, and as it is often called adultery. Heringius supposes that marriage between idolaters and Christians is here intended. But, after all, the usual interpretation of the word, as referring to illicit sexual intercourse of the sexes of any kind, is undoubtedly here to be retained. If it be asked, then, why this was particularly forbidden, and was introduced in this connection, we may reply:<\/P> (1) That this vice prevailed everywhere among the Gentiles, and was that to which all were particularly exposed.<\/P> (2) That it was not deemed by the Gentiles disgraceful. It was practiced without shame and without remorse. (Terence, Adelphi, 1, 2, 21. See Grotius.) It was important, therefore, that the pure laws of Christianity on this subject should be known, and that special pains should be taken to instruct the early converts from paganism in those laws. The same thing is necessary still in pagan lands.<\/P> (3) This crime was connected with religion. It was the practice not only to introduce indecent pictures and emblems into their worship, but also for females to devote themselves to the service of particular temples, and to devote the avails of indiscriminate prostitution to the service of the god, or the goddess. The vice was connected with no small part of the pagan worship; and the images, the emblems, and the customs of idolatry everywhere tended to sanction and promote it. A mass of evidence on this subject which sickens the heart, and which would be too long and too indelicate to introduce here, may be seen in Tholucks Nature and Moral Influence of Paganism, in the Biblical Repository for July, 1832, p. 441-464. As this vice was almost universal; as it was practiced without shame or disgrace; as there were no laws among the pagan to prevent it; as it was connected with all their views of idol worship and of religion, it was important for the early Christians to frown upon and to oppose it, and to set a special guard against it in all the churches. It was the sin to which, of all others, they were the most exposed, and which was most likely to bring scandal on the Christian religion. It is for this cause that it is so often and so pointedly forbidden in the New Testament Rom 1:29<\/span>; 1Co 6:13<\/span>, 1Co 6:18<\/span>; Gal 5:19<\/span>; Eph 5:3<\/U><\/span>; 1Th 4:3<\/span>.<\/P> And from things strangled – <\/B>That is, from animals or birds that were killed without shedding their blood. The reason why these were considered by the Jews unlawful to. be eaten was, that thus they would be under a necessity of eating blood, which was positively forbidden by the Law. Hence, it was commanded in the Law that when any beast or fowl was taken in a snare, the blood should be poured out before it was lawful to be eaten, Lev 17:13<\/span>.<\/P> And from blood – <\/B>The eating of blood was strictly forbidden to the Jews. The reason of this was that it contained the life, Lev 17:11<\/span>, Lev 17:14<\/span>. See notes on Rom 3:25<\/span>. The use of blood was common among the Gentiles. They drank it often at their sacrifices, and in making covenants or compacts. To separate the Jews from them in this respect was one design of the prohibition. See Spencer, De Ley Hebrae., p. 144, 145, 169, 235, 377, 381, 594, edit. 1732. See also this whole passage examined at length in Spencer, p. 588-626. The primary reason of the prohibition was, that it was thus used in the feasts and compacts of idolaters. That blood was thus drank by the pagans, particularly by the Sabians, in their sacrifices, is fully proved by Spencer, De Leg., p. 377-380 But the prohibition specifies a higher reason, that the life is in the blood, and that therefore it should not be eaten. On this opinion see the notes on Rom 3:25<\/span>. This reason existed before any ceremonial law; it is founded in the nature of things; it has no particular reference to any custom of the Jews; and it is as forcible in any other circumstances as in theirs. It was proper, therefore, to forbid it to the early Christian converts; and for the same reason, its use should be abstained from everywhere. It adds to the force of these remarks when we remember that the same principle was settled before the laws of Moses were given, and that God regarded the fact that the life was in the blood as of so much importance as to make the shedding of it worthy of death, Gen 9:4-6<\/span>. It is supposed, therefore, that this law is still obligatory. Perhaps, also, there is no food more unwholesome than blood; and it is a further circumstance of some moment that all people naturally revolt from it as an article of food.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 20<\/span>. But that we write unto them<\/B><\/I>] Four things are prohibited in this decree:<\/P> 1. Pollutions of idols;<\/P> 2. fornication;<\/P> 3. things strangled;<\/P> 4. blood.<\/P> By the first<\/I>, POLLUTIONS of<\/I> IDOLS, or, as it is in Ac 15:25<\/span>, meats offered to idols<\/I>, not only all idolatry<\/I> was forbidden, but eating things offered in sacrifice to idols, knowing that they were thus offered, and joining with idolaters in their sacred<\/I> feasts<\/I>, which were always an incentive either to idolatry<\/I> itself, or to the impure acts generally attendant on such festivals.<\/P> <\/P> By the second<\/I>, FORNICATION, all uncleanness of every kind was prohibited; for not only means fornication<\/I>, but adultery,<\/I> incestuous mixtures<\/I>, and especially the prostitution<\/I> which was so common at the idol temples, viz. in Cyprus<\/I>, at the worship of Venus<\/I>; and the shocking disorders exhibited in the Bacchanalia,<\/I> Lupercalia<\/I>, and several others.<\/P> <\/P> By the third<\/I>, THINGS STRANGLED, we are to understand the flesh<\/I> of those animals<\/I> which were strangled<\/I> for the purpose of keeping<\/I> the blood in the body<\/I>, as such animals were esteemed a greater delicacy.<\/P> <\/P> By the fourth<\/I>, BLOOD, we are to understand, not only the thing itself, for the reasons which I have assigned in the note on Ge 9:4<\/span>, and for others detailed at the end of this chapter; but also all cruelty, manslaughter, murder<\/I>, c., as some of the ancient fathers have understood it.<\/P> <\/P> Instead of , blood<\/I>, some have conjectured that we should read , swine’s flesh<\/I> for they<\/I> cannot see, first<\/I>, that there can be any harm<\/I> in eating of blood; and, secondly<\/I>, that, as the other three<\/I> things neither have nor can have any moral evil in them, it would seem strange that they should be coupled with a thing which, on all hands, is confessed to have much moral turpitude. Answers to such trifling objections will be found at the end of the chapter. It is only necessary to add that this , which is the critical emendation of Dr. Bentley<\/I>, is not supported by one MS. or version<\/I> in existence.<\/P> <\/P> At the close of this verse, the Codex Bezae<\/I>, and several others, add a fifth<\/I> thing, And not to do to others what they would not<\/I> have done to themselves<\/I>. Though this is a very ancient<\/I> reading, it does not appear to be genuine.<\/P> <\/p>\n That they abstain from pollutions of idols; eating of meat that was offered to idols, as Act 15:29<\/span> in a case of scandal, and for the present state of the church, was forbid, though afterwards in other cases indulged, 1Co 10:27<\/span>. <\/P> Fornication is here mentioned amongst indiferent things; not that it ever was so, but because it was amongst the Gentiles reputed to be so, even by them who punished adultery severely. By these two, some think all sins against both the tables of the law to be forbidden, because by one sin against each table all the sins against any command may synecdochically be understood. <\/P> From things strangled; such creatures as had not their blood let out, and therefore were not to be fed upon, by the law of God, Gen 9:4<\/span>, given as soon as the use of flesh was allowed for food. <\/P> And from blood; they were also much more to abstain from blood, when shed out of the body of any slain creature, Lev 3:17<\/span>; Deu 12:23<\/span>. That blood was forbidden might be to teach them meekness, and to abstain from revenge. It is certain, that such nations as feed on blood are most barbarous and cruel. It is also probable, that these being included in the precepts which they called, The precepts of Adam, or Noah, and to which all the proselytes of the gate were obliged to yield obedience, the apostle would have the observance of them to be continued upon them that came from amongst them over unto Christianity. For though all these ceremonies were dead, (with Christ), yet they were not then deadly, and did wait a time for their more decent burial. If any wonder that the council did not treat of and write about greater matters; as of worshipping God the Father, through the Son; of denying of ourselves, and taking up the cross; he ought to consider, that the question they met upon was about other matters, and that those great things were never in question amongst such as feared God. <\/P> <\/p>\n 20. But . . . that they abstain frompollutions of idols<\/B>that is, things polluted by having beenoffered in sacrifice to idols. The heathen were accustomed to giveaway or sell portions of such animals. From such food James wouldenjoin the Gentile converts to abstain, lest it should seem to theJews that they were not entirely weaned from idolatry. <\/P> and from fornication<\/B>Thecharacteristic sin of heathendom, unblushingly practiced by all ranksand classes, and the indulgence of which on the part of the Gentileconverts would to Jews, whose Scriptures branded it as an abominationof the heathen, proclaim them to be yet joined to their old idols. <\/P> and from thingsstrangled<\/B>which had the blood in them. <\/P> and from blood<\/B>in everyform, as peremptorily forbidden to the Jews, and the eating of which,therefore, on the part of the Gentile converts, would shock theirprejudices. See on Ac 15:28<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n But that we write unto them<\/strong>,…. Or send an epistle to them, to this effect, concerning the following things:<\/p>\n that they abstain from pollutions of idols<\/strong>; that is, from eating things offered to idols; see Ac 15:29<\/span> for not idolatry, or the worshipping of idols itself, is here spoken of; for that was no indifferent thing; and besides, these converted Gentiles were turned from that, and there was no danger of their returning to it; but eating things sacrificed to idols was an indifferent thing; but yet inasmuch as it had a tendency to lead to idolatry, and gave offence to the Jewish believers in the churches, and was a stumbling block to weak minds, who by the example of stronger Christians, were led to eat them as sacrificed to an idol, and so their weak consciences were defiled, therefore it was very proper to abstain from them;<\/p>\n and from fornication<\/strong>; not spiritual fornication or idolatry, but fornication taken in a literal sense, for the carnal copulation of one single person with another, and which is commonly called simple fornication: the reason why this is put among, things indifferent is, not that it was so in itself, but because it was not thought to be criminal by the Gentiles, and was commonly used by them, and which must be offensive to the believing Jews, who were better acquainted with the will of God; this is omitted in the Ethiopic version:<\/p>\n and from things strangled<\/strong>; that is; from eating them, and design such as die of themselves, or are torn with beasts, or are not killed in a proper way, by letting out their blood; but their blood is stagnated or congealed in the veins: the Jews might not kill with a reaper’s sickle, nor with a saw, nor with the teeth, or nail; because these , “strangled” a: and what was not slain as it should be, was reckoned all one as what dies of itself; and whoever ate of either of these was to be beaten b; the law respecting these things was of the ceremonial kind, and peculiar to the Jews, and was not binding upon the Gentiles; for that which died of itself might be given to a stranger, and he might eat it, or it might be sold to an alien, De 14:21<\/span> this has been wanting in many copies, and it was not read by several of the ancient fathers:<\/p>\n and from blood<\/strong>: which is not to be understood of the blood of men and shedding of that, which is of a moral nature; but of the blood of beasts, and of eating of that. There were several laws about eating of blood, and which are different, and ought to be carefully distinguished. The first is in Ge 9:4<\/span> “but flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood there of, shall you not eat”; which forbids the eating of flesh with the blood; but not the eating of flesh separately, nor the eating of blood separately, provided they were properly prepared and dressed, but the eating of them together without any preparation. As this was the first hint to man that we know of, that he might eat flesh, it was proper that the manner in which he should eat it, should be suggested to him; that he should not take the creature alive and eat it, or tear off any of its members and eat it whilst alive, or eat raw flesh; but should prepare it by roasting or boiling, or some way, in which it might become proper food: and it is the constant sense of the Jewish synagogue c, that this law is to be understood of the member of a living creature, torn from it, and eaten whilst alive; six commands, the Jews say, were given to the first man Adam, the first five forbid idolatry, blasphemy, shedding of blood, uncleanness, and theft, or robbery, and the sixth required judgment against offenders; to these were added, for the sons of Noah, a seventh, which forbid the eating of the member of a living creature, as it is said, Ge 9:4<\/span> d. So that this law has nothing to do with eating of blood, simply considered, and no more forbids eating of it separately, than it does eating of flesh separately: in like manner is the law in De 12:23<\/span> to be understood, and is so interpreted by the Jewish writers e: another law is in Le 19:26<\/span> “ye shall not eat anything with the blood”; which according to our version, seems to be the same law with the former, but is not; for it is not said here, as before, , “in”, or “with”, but , “upon”, “over”, or “by” the blood. This is differently understood: some think the sense is, that no one should eat of the sacrifices, before the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar f; or until it stands or is congealed in the basons g; others, that it is a caution to judges, that they do not eat until they have finished judgment; for whoever judges or passes sentence after he has eat and drank, is as if he was guilty of blood h: another observes i, that next to this clause, it is said, “neither shall ye use enchantment”; meaning that they should not use enchantment by eating, in the way that murderers do, who eat bread over the slain, that the avengers of the slain may not take vengeance on them; this author smells something superstitious or diabolical in this matter; and indeed this is the case; the truth of the matter is, it refers to a practice among the Heathens, who fancied that blood was the food of the demons, to whom they sacrificed; and therefore when they sacrificed to them, they took the blood of the beast and put it into a vessel, and sat down by it, and round about it, and ate the flesh; imagining that whilst they ate the flesh, the demons eat the blood, and by this means friendship and familiarity were contracted between them; so that they hoped to receive some advantage from them, and be informed of things to come k. Hence, this law is placed with others against enchantments and observing times, to which may be added, Eze 33:25<\/span> “ye eat with the blood”, or “over it”, or “by” it; “and lift up your eyes to your idols”: which is to be understood in the same light, and with these compare 1Sa 14:32<\/span>. But besides these, there was a third law, which is frequently repeated, Le 3:17<\/span> which absolutely forbids the eating of blood, as well as fat; the Jews except the blood of fishes, and locusts, and creeping things, and the blood of men, and the blood that is in eggs, and that which is squeezed out of flesh, or drops from it, which a man may eat and not be guilty of the breach of this law l the reason of this law was, because the blood, which is the life, was given in sacrifice for the life of men, to be an atonement for them; wherefore, to keep up a just reverence of the sacrifice, and to direct to the blood of the great sacrifice of the Messiah, blood was forbidden to be eaten, till that sacrifice was offered up; and then that blood itself was to be spiritually eaten by faith: and now if eating of blood in general was morally evil in itself, it would be a monstrous shocking thing in the Christian religion, that the blood of Christ is to be drank; though it be to be understood in a spiritual sense: the law against eating blood was very strictly enjoined the Jews, and severely punished; whoever ate of blood, but the quantity of an olive, if he ate it wilfully, was guilty of cutting off; if ignorantly, he was to bring a sin offering m: James knew that the breach of this law would give great offence to the Jews, and therefore for the peace of the church he moves that the Gentiles might be wrote to, to abstain from blood; and which was agreed to and done: and this was attended to with much strictness by the primitive Christians, who seemed to have observed this advice in the form of a law, and thought it criminal to eat blood; but in process of time it was neglected; and in Austin’s time abstinence from blood was derided, as a ridiculous notion; and it is at least now high time that this, and everything else of a ceremonial kind, was dropped by Christians; though where the peace of the brethren is in danger, this, and everything of an indifferent nature should be abstained from: Beza’s ancient copy adds, “and whatsoever they would not have done to themselves, do not unto others”; and so two of Stephens’s: the Ethiopic version is, “whatsoever they hate should be done to themselves, let them not do to their brethren”.<\/p>\n (God forbids his people from eating the blood of any animal. Blood carries both infections and toxins that might circulate in the animal’s body. Therefore, by eating an animal’s blood, one exposes himself needlessly to potential toxins and infections. The harmful effects of eating blood can be illustrated by tribes in Africa who consume large amounts of blood in their pagan culture. These people have developed the chronic diseases seen in our elderly while still teenagers. Their life span is approximately 30 years. Rex D. Russel, M.D. p. 229, “Proceedings of the 1992 Twin-Cities Creation Conference”. Editor’s note.)<\/p>\n a Misn. Cholin, c. 1. sect. 2. b Maimon. Hilchot Maacolot Assurot, c. 4. sect. 1. c Targum Jon Jarchi, Aben Ezra & Abendanae not. in Sol. ben Melec in loc. d Maimon. Hilchot Melacim, c. 9. sect. 1. e Jarchi and Baal Hatturim in loc. T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 56. 2. & 59. 1. & Cholin, fol 102. 2. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 95, 4. f Jarchi & Aben Ezra in loc. g Targum Jon. in loc. h Zohar in Exod. fol. 50. 3. Vid. Maimon. Hilchot Sanhedrin, c. 13. sect. 4. i Baal Hatturim in Lev. xix. 26. k Maimon. Morch Nevochim, par. 3. c. 46. Kimchi in I Sam. xiv. 32. & in Ezek. xxxiii. 25. l Misn. Ceritot, c. 5. sect. 1. Maimon. Maacolot Asurot, c. 6, sect. 1. Jarchi in Lev. xvii. 10. Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora, pr. pag. 137. m Maimon. Maacolot Asurot, c. 6. sect.7<\/p>\n But that we write unto them <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). By way of contrast (<\/SPAN><\/span>). First aorist active infinitive of <\/SPAN><\/span>, old verb to send to one (message, letter, etc.). Our word <\/SPAN><\/span> (<\/SPAN><\/span> as in verse 30<\/span>) comes from this verb. In the N.T. only here, He 13:22<\/span>, and possibly Ac 21:25<\/span>.<\/P> That they abstain from <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). The genitive of the articular infinitive of purpose, present middle (direct) of <\/SPAN><\/span>, old verb, to hold oneself back from. The best old MSS. do not have <\/SPAN><\/span>, but the ablative is clear enough in what follows. James agrees with Peter in his support of Paul and Barnabas in their contention for Gentile freedom from the Mosaic ceremonial law. The restrictions named by James affect the moral code that applies to all (idolatry, fornication, murder). Idolatry, fornication and murder were the outstanding sins of paganism then and now (Re 22:15<\/span>). Harnack argues ably against the genuineness of the word <\/SPAN><\/span> (strangled) which is absent from D Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian. It is a nice point, though the best MSS. have it in accord with Le 17:10-16<\/span>. The problem is whether the words were added because “blood” was understood as not “murder,” but a reference to the Mosaic regulation or whether it was omitted to remove the ceremonial aspect and make it all moral and ethical. The Western text omits the word also in verse 29<\/span>. But with the word retained here and in verse 29<\/span> the solution of James is not a compromise, though there is a wise concession to Jewish feeling.<\/P> Pollutions of idols <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). From <\/SPAN><\/span> only in the LXX and this substantive nowhere else. The word refers to idolatrous practices (pollutions) and things sacrificed to idols (<\/SPAN><\/span>) in verse 29<\/span>, not to sacrificial meat sold in the market (1Co 10:27<\/span>), a matter not referred to here. Cf. Le 17:1-9<\/span>. All the four items in the position of James (accepting <\/SPAN><\/span>) are mentioned in Acts 15:17<\/span>; Acts 15:18<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n Write [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Originally, to send to, as a message; hence, by letter. The kindred noun ejpistolh, whence our epistle, means, originally, anything sent by a messenger. Letter is a secondary meaning. <\/P> Pollutions [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. A word not found in classical Greek, and only here in the New Testament. The kindred verb ajlisgein, to pollute, occurs in the Septuagint, Dan 1:8<\/span>; Mal 1:7<\/span>, and both times in the sense of defiling by food. Here the word is defined by things sacrificed to idols (ver. 29); the flesh of idol sacrifices, of which whatever was not eaten by the worshippers at the feasts in the temples, or given to the priests, was sold in the markets and eaten at home. See 1Co 10:25 – 28<\/span>; and Exo 34:15<\/span>. <\/P> Fornication. In its literal sense. “The association of fornication with three things in themselves indifferent is to be explained from the then moral corruption of heathenism, by which fornication, regarded from of old with indulgence, and even with favor, nay, practiced without shame even by philosophers, and surrounded by poets with all the tinsel of lasciviousness, had become in public opinion a thing really indifferent” (Meyer). See Dollinger, “The Gentile and the Jew,” 2, 237 sq. <\/P> Strangled. The flesh of animals killed in snares, and whose blood was not poured forth, was forbidden to the Israelites.<\/P> <\/p>\n 1) “But that we write unto them,”<\/strong> (alla episteilai autois) “But that instead we write an advisory to them,” a statement of moral and ethical nature, send a written resolution, dogma, or decree of recommendation nature, later referred to as a decree, only in the sense of an advisory, Act 16:4<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “That they abstain from,”<\/strong> (tou apechesthai) “Directing or counseling them to abstain or refrain from,” avoid, forego, have no part in or with, Eph 5:3<\/span>; Col 3:5<\/span>; 1Pe 4:3-4<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “Pollutions of idols, and from fornication,”<\/strong> (ton alisgernaton ton eidolon kai te proneias) “Pollutions of idols, even the fornication,” associated with them, and the fornication that normally accompanied these feast of idol orgies, 1Co 6:9<\/span>; 1Co 6:15<\/span>; 1Co 6:18<\/span>; 1Th 4:3<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “And from things strangled, and from blood.”<\/strong> (kai pniktou kai tou haimatos) “And that they abstain from a thing strangled and from blood,” that is they were to avoid eating blood or animals strangled to death, (unbled) as food, as specifically forbidden by the Mosaic law, because of the sacredness of life, “the blood thereof,” Lev 17:10<\/span>; Lev 17:12<\/span>; Deu 12:16<\/span>; Deu 12:23<\/span>; Deu 15:23<\/span>; Act 21:25<\/span>. It is said that heathen drank blood and mingled it with their food at idolatrous feasts, hence because such was both offensive to the Jews and identified believers with heathen idolatrous feasts, they were advised to abstain from the practice. Until today the Jews have their own butcher shops, overseeing the butchering of meat, so that it is well bled, may be called Kosher or sanctified and proper food on the basis of the Law of Moses.<\/p>\n − <\/p>\n But here appeareth a manifest reason why they gave particular commandment concerning things offered to idols, blood, and that which was strangled. They were, indeed, of themselves things indifferent; yet such as had some special thing in them more than other rites of the law. We know how straitly the Lord commandeth to eschew those things which are contrary to the external profession of faith, and wherein there is any appearance or suspicion of idolatry. Therefore, lest there should any blot of superstition remain in the Gentiles, and lest the Jews should see anything in them which did not agree with the pure worship of God, no marvel if, to avoid offense, they be commanded to abstain from things offered to idols. − <\/p>\n The word αλισγημα, which Luke useth, doth signify all manner of profanation; therefore I have not changed the common translation, which hath pollution or filthiness. Yet it is sometimes taken for sacrifices; which sense should not disagree with James’ purpose; and, peradventure, it shall be more plain and natural so to expound it in this place; because, where Luke doth shortly after repeat the same decree, he will put ειδωλοθητα , or things sacrificed to idols. − <\/p>\n As concerning blood and that which was strangled, not only the Jews were forbidden by the law of Moses to eat them, ( Deu 12:23<\/span>\ud83d\ude09 but this law was given to all the world after the flood, ( Gen 9:4<\/span>,) whereby it came to pass, that those which were not quite grown out of kind − (137) did loathe blood. I do not speak of the Jews, but of many of the Gentiles. I confess, indeed, that even that commandment was but temporal; yet, notwithstanding, it was extended farther than unto one people. No marvel, therefore, if there might arise greater offense thereupon, which to cure seemed good to the apostles. But there ariseth a harder question concerning fornication; because James seemeth to reckon the same among things indifferent, whereof they must beware only in respect of offense; but there was another cause for which he placed fornication among those things which were not of themselves unlawful. It is well known what unbridled liberty to run awhoring did reign and rage everywhere; and this disease had got the upper hand principally among the men of the east country, as they be more given to lust. Assuredly the faith and chastity of wedlock was never less observed and kept any where than among them. Moreover, he doth not intreat indifferently, in my judgment, in this place of all manner [of] fornication or whoredom, as of adultery, and wandering, and unbridled lusts, whereby all chastity is violate and corrupt; but I think he speaketh of concubineship, as they call it; which was so common among the Gentiles, that it was almost like to a law. − <\/p>\n Therefore, whereas James reckoneth up a common corruption among things which are of themselves not corrupt, there is therein no inconvenience; − (138) so that we know that it was not his meaning to place those things in one order which are very far unlike among themselves. For, whereas unclean men do thereby color and cloak their filthiness, they may easily be refuted. James, say they, coupled eating of blood with whoredom; but doth he compare them together as things that are like, at least which disagree not in any point. Yea, he doth only respect − (139) the wicked and corrupt custom of men, which was fallen away from the first law and order of nature appointed by God. As concerning the judgment of God, the knowledge thereof must be let [sought] out of the continual doctrine of the Scripture; and it is nothing doubtful what the Scripture saith; to wit, that whoredom is accursed before God, and that the soul and body are thereby defiled, that the holy temple of God is polluted, and Christ is rent in pieces; that God doth daily punish whoremongers, and that he will once pay them home. − (140) The filthiness of whoredom, which the heavenly Judge doth so sore condemn, can be covered with no cloaks by the patrons of whoredom how witty and eloquent soever they be. − <\/p>\n (137) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Qui non prorsus erant degeneres,” who were not wholly degenerate. <\/p>\n (138) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n In eo nihil absurdi,” in that there is an absurdity. <\/p>\n (139) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Respicit,” refers to. <\/p>\n (140) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Et horrendum semel fieri ultorem,” and that he will one day take fearful vengeance on them. <\/p>\n (20) But that we write unto them.<\/strong>The grounds on which the measure thus defined was proposed are not far to seek. (1) It was of the nature of a compromise. The Gentiles could not complain that the burden imposed on them was anything very grievous. The Pharisee section of the Church could not refuse admission to those who fulfilled these conditions, when they had admitted the proselytes of the gate on like conditions to their synagogues, and had so treated them as no longer unclean. (2) The rules on which stress was now laid found a place among the seven precepts traditionally ascribed to Noah, and based upon the commands recorded in Gen. 9:5<\/span>. These were held to be binding upon all mankind; while the Law, as such, was binding on Israel only. These, therefore, had been thought sufficient for the proselytes of the gate before, and were urged now as sufficient for the Gentile converts by the teacher who represented the most rigid type of Judaism. (See, once more, the history of Ananias and Izates in the Note on Act. 9:10<\/span>.) Special reasons attached, as will be seen, to each precept.<\/p>\n From pollutions of idols.<\/strong>The Greek of the first noun is found only in the LXX. and the New Testament; and perhaps its primary idea is that of wallowing in blood and mire, and so incurring pollution. As distinguished from the acts that follow, it indicates any participation, publicly or privately, in idolatrous rites. One who acted on the rule would have to refrain from entering a temple, and to dislodge busts or statues of the gods from his house and gardens. The presence of such things, when they presented themselves on entering a house, was a great stumbling-block to devout Jews, and the Gentile convert who, left to himself, might have been disposed to keep them, though no longer as objects of worship, but as works of art, was required to renounce them. The statues of Zeus and Artemis and Hermes were to be to him henceforth as abominations. In the decree itself, however, we find things sacrificed to idols instead of the more general term, and we may accordingly deal here with that question also. So interpreted, the rule brings before us a new phase of the life of the early Christian converts. Under the religion of Greece and Rome, sacrifices were so common that it might fairly be taken for granted that the flesh at any festive meal had been so offered. But a small portion of the flesh was burnt upon the altar, and the rest was cooked for the household meal, or sent to the market for sale. Such meat was, in the eyes of the strict Jews, polluted, and the history of Daniel and his companions (Dan. 1:8<\/span>) was regarded as a precedent to avoiding it. Partly on this ground, partly on that referred to in the next Note but one, the Jew never bought meat in the market, nor of other than a Jewish butcher. He travelled with his cophinus, <\/em>or basket, on<\/em> his back, and carried his provisions with him. So Juvenal (Sat. iii.<\/em> 14) speaks of<\/p>\n Judis, quorum cophinus fnumque supellex. Here, therefore, was a new stumbling-block, and the Gentile was required to avoid this also. It involved many sacrifices, and what would seem privations. The convert had to refuse invitations to birthday, and marriage, and funeral feasts; or, if present, to refuse to eat at them. A man with a sensitive conscience would refuse to partake of what was set before him in a private house or offered for sale in the market, unless he had satisfied himself that it had not so been offered. It was natural that this restriction, which did not rest directly on a moral ground, should give rise to some resistance, and the controversy connected with it assumed many different phases. At Corinth men claimed the right to eat what they chose, and St. Paul conceded the right in the abstract, but urged abstinence on the ground of charity (1 Corinthians 8-10.). At Pergamos and Thyatira, somewhat later in the apostolic age (Rev. 2:14<\/span>; Rev. 2:20<\/span>), the lawfulness of eating things sacrificed to idols was openly maintained in contravention alike of the teaching of St. Paul and of the apostolic decree, and was joined with a like claim to be exempted from the law which forbade illicit sexual intercourse. At Corinth, it would seem from 1Co. 8:10<\/span>, the assertion of freedom had led men so far as not only to eat of the flesh that had been sacrificed, but actually to sit down to a feast in the idols temple. (Comp. Rom. 2:22<\/span>, as expressing the Jewish feeling.)<\/p>\n And from fornication.<\/strong>We are surprised at first to find, what seems to us, a moral law placed in juxtaposition with two rules which, like those that follow, seem purely positive and ceremonial. We have to remember, however, (1) that the first command was moral also, and that we may fairly recognise something like a practical, though not a formal distinction, by thinking of the first two precepts as grouped together; (2) that the sin named, involving, as it did, the absence of any true sense of self-respecting purity or reverence for womanhood, was the wide-spread evil of the ancient world, against which Israel had from the first been called to bear its witness (Gen. 34:31<\/span>; Lev. 19:29<\/span>; Deu. 23:17<\/span>; Pro. 7:6-27<\/span>). The increasing laxity of morals throughout the Roman empire, showing itself in the well-known line of Terence<\/p>\n Nihil peccati est adolescentulum scortari, <\/p>\n had led men to think of it as natural and permissible, bringing with it no sense of wrong or shame (comp. Horace, Sat. i.<\/em> 2, 119), and it might well be that the ethical standard of the Gentile converts was not all at once raised to a true ideal of purity. The old license may have seemed venial, and the disciples may have thought, as Christians have too often thought since, that it did not call for any deep repentance, or exclude them from fellowship with Christ. And yet it was clear that to the Jewish Christian, trained from his childhood to condemn the sin severely, this, too, would legitimately be a very grave stumbling-block in the admission of Gentile converts. How could he feel any assurance that they might not have come from the embraces of a harlot to the Feast of Charity or to the very Supper of the Lord? (Comp. 1Co. 6:15<\/span>; Rev. 2:14<\/span>.) Such a state of things required to be dealt with by a special enactment. The moral command had to be re-enacted, and brought into a new prominence. The Church had to take its first step in purifying the morals of mankind, not only by its general teaching, but by canons and rules of discipline. Stress has often been laid on the fact that in many cases, as in those of the Hetr?, <\/em>or harlot-priestesses, of Aphrodite at Corinth and Paphos, prostitution was in closest alliance with idolatry, as a reason for the prohibition, and it is, of course, true that in such cases the sin assumed, in the eyes of Jews, an aggravated character. The man identified himself, by his sinful indulgence, with the coltus<\/em> of the woman who was its avowed devotee. We can scarcely think, however, that the sin was forbidden, not on account of its own intrinsic evil, but only or chiefly, with a view to this ulterior and incidental consequence.<\/p>\n Things strangled.<\/strong>Literally, of that which has been strangled.<\/em> The prohibition rested on Gen. 9:4<\/span>, and was connected with the symbolic meaning of the blood as representing life, and therefore consecrated to Jehovah. It was repeated in the Law (Lev. 3:17<\/span>; Lev. 7:26<\/span>; Deu. 12:16<\/span>; 1Sa. 14:33<\/span>), and has been maintained with a wonderful tenacity. For this reason, long after sacrifices have ceased, the Jew will still, if possible, only eat what has been killed by a butcher of his own persuasion. Meat so killed, which may be eaten without defilement, is known technically as Kosher.<\/em> Here the moral element falls entirely into the background, and the prohibition has simply the character of a concordat<\/em> to avoid offence. St. Paul and St. Peter were alike persuaded that there is nothing unclean of itself (Act. 10:15<\/span>; Rom. 14:14<\/span>). Practically, the effect of the rule would have been to compel Christians to buy their meat, poultry, &c., from a Jewish butcher or a Christian who followed the Jewish mode of killing, and in some places this must have entailed considerable inconvenience.<\/p>\n From blood.<\/strong>As distinguished from the preceding rule, this forbade the separate use of blood, as with flour and vegetables, or in the black-puddings of modern cookery, as an article of food. Dishes so prepared were common in the cuisine<\/em> both of Greeks and Romans, and here also, therefore, the restriction would have involved a frequent withdrawal from social life, or a conspicuous singularity. On the history of the observance, see Note on Act. 15:28<\/span>.<\/p>\n 20<\/strong>. <\/strong> Write<\/strong> Four things are to be prohibited on the grounds of being specially offensive to Jews, namely: 1, idolatrous meats; 2, fornication; 3, flesh of strangled animals; and, 4, eating of blood. These grounds, of course, permit both cautions against committing acts offensive to the ceremonial feelings of the Jews, as the first, third, and fourth, or offences against true morality specially offensive from ritual reasons, as the second.<\/p>\n 1 . As to idolatrous meats: <\/em> after parts of the animal idolatrously offered were given to the priests, others were eaten in a banquet, or salted for use, or even sold in the market. From idolatrous feast and market meat the Jew abstained with abhorrence. For he held the meat to be offered to devils, and that the eater ceremonially consecrated himself to the devil so honoured. 2. Fornication <\/em> was held by the heathen in many cases to be not a sin, but a religious rite performed to some voluptuous deity. Antioch was celebrated for its temple and groves of Daphne, in which licentiousness was a consecrated religious rite. There was no one thing in which Christianity produced a greater revolution than in re-creating the virtue of chastity. But it is against unchastity as connected with idolatry, and avowed to be sacred, that the caution is here directed, and the present grounds are its special offensiveness to the Old Testament conscience. 3 and 4. The shedding of blood was, in the Mosaic ritual, the sacred sacrificial mode of death. Without the shedding of blood there was no remission. Hence, the blood was the symbolical, if not the physical, seat of life. Christians can see that thus the type and the antitype were to harmonize. And as the seat of life, the Jew was taught to hold it sacred from his eating. And as the strangled animal retained his blood, so he was not to be eaten. All these views of reverence for blood were cherished to educate the Jewish mind to the great thought that death is the wages of sin; and that by a death realized by the shed blood is to be the remission, both typical and real. So far as the special reasons for giving these cautions in the document to be issued are concerned, they soon ceased, and the prohibitions ceased with them. But reasons immutable render the second prohibition immutable.<\/p>\n “But that we write to them, that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood. For Moses from generations of old has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath.”<\/p>\n Four major principles were, however, to be required of Gentile Christians. The first two were basic. They involved the avoidance of open contact with and participation in idolatry, including the avoidance of meat offered to idols and thus constituting part of the sacrifices made to them, and the avoidance of all sexual misbehaviour, the latter often being directly connected with pagan worship. The former would have been a denial of the oneness of God, and have involved them in contact with evil spirits. The latter was basic to the maintaining of human society on a godly basis, and especially necessary as a requirement in a Gentile world where casual sex was treated carelessly and even sometimes approved of and made into something which brought religious benefit. We can see how easily the latter could arise and be misused in a religious context in Rev 2:20<\/span> where committing fornication and eating food sacrificed to idols is seen as very much the result of Jewish-Gentile syncretism.<\/p>\n But in wanting to get over this latter point the Christians could hardly limit the restriction to religious fornication. That might have given the appearance of allowing non-religious fornication. The ban thus had to be absolute.<\/p>\n The second two were necessary if Jewish and Gentile Christians were to be able to eat together, and as Christians were to have ‘all things in common’ this was essential. The two complement each other. The eating of blood had always been forbidden because it represented the life, and the life belonged to God alone (Gen 9:4-6<\/span>). And to eat meat that had only been strangled, and not slaughtered in a way that would let the blood drain out, would have been to eat the blood. No Jew could eat with a non-Jew unless he could be sure that the meat had been properly drained of blood. Thus the importance of the regulations. It was not a question of whether these things were necessary for salvation. It was whether they were necessary for fellowship in common.<\/p>\n A later generation would seek to make these precepts more relevant. While retaining the first two it turned the food precepts into a reference to blood violence, and it added the golden rule.<\/p>\n ‘For Moses from generations of old has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath.” This might be intended to indicate that these requirements would be necessary because there would always be in every city those who proclaimed Moses, and there would therefore always be Jewish Christians who, having been brought up to these principles, would assiduously attend on such teaching. The result would then be that for them fellowship with fellow-Christians would not be possible unless the requirements were strictly observed. Thus in order to maintain the important fellowship meal the correct slaughtering of meat would be essential. Indeed his words might also be seen as an encouragement by him to Jewish Christians to make use of such facilities as those provided by the synagogues in order to demonstrate their loyalty to Moses.<\/p>\n Or he may be intending to point out in a conciliatory fashion that this did not mean that Moses would therefore be forgotten as there would always be those who preached him in every city every Sabbath. While Christians also used Moses and the prophets as their Scriptures just as much as Jews did, their emphasis would be very different. But Jewish Christians would not be devoid of help with the Law from a Jewish viewpoint because they could also go to the synagogues. There was therefore no danger of Moses not being preached as an aid to Jewish Christians.<\/p>\n He might simply have been indicating that anyone who wanted to know what the Pharisees taught could find out in the synagogues, while it was no part of Gentile Christians to promote Pharisaism The intention may have been to soothe the ruffled feelings of those to whom the proclamation of Moses’ Law was important by emphasising that there was still a vehicle for its propagation.<\/p>\n Note On Whether Baptism Replaced Circumcision.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n The question is often raised as to whether baptism was to be seen as replacing circumcision. But this is quite apparently not so.<\/p>\n 1) When Christian Jews had children they continued to circumcise them as they had always done. There was no thought in their case that baptism had replaced circumcision.<\/p>\n 2) Paul revealed his agreement with this position when he arranged for Timothy to be circumcised. It is difficult to believe that it was simply a cynical ploy.<\/p>\n 3) The fact that the idea of their equivalence is never suggested, neither here where it would have been a powerful argument in favour of the case being established, nor by Paul in his letters when dealing with the question of circumcision, where again it would have been a powerful argument against circumcision, must count strongly against it.<\/p>\n 4) Indeed it may be argued that in the case of Cornelius and his fellow-Gentiles the argument against the need to circumcise them was in fact that God had already made them clean. But if that was so, and baptism simply replaced circumcision, the argument would also have applied against baptising them. For if baptism is at all seen as making men clean it would, on Peter’s argument, have been wrong to baptise what God had already cleansed. The reason that it was justifiable was because baptism was not<\/em> seen as representing cleansing but as an outward sign of participation in the Holy Spirit Who had been poured out on them.<\/p>\n We must therefore conclude that baptism and circumcision were seen as two totally differing ceremonies with different aims in mind.<\/p>\n End of note.<\/p>\n 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from<\/em> fornication, and from<\/em> things strangled, and from<\/em> blood. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 20. And from fornication<\/strong> ] Which is here reckoned among things indifferent, , , because the Gentiles esteemed it (falsely) a thing indifferent. Non est flagitium (mihi credo) adolescentulum scortari, potare, fores effringere, <\/em> said he in Terence. So in the Turk’s Koran, the angel being demanded concerning venery, a<\/em> is brought in answering, that God did not give men such appetites to have them frustrate, but enjoyed, as made for the satisfying of man, not for his torment, wherein his Creator delights not. But what saith the Scripture? “Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”<\/p>\n<\/p>\n a<\/em> The practice or pursuit of sexual pleasure; indulgence of sexual desire. D <\/p>\n 20.<\/strong> ] <\/strong> , to send an : then ., of the purpose of such epistle, Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
[Basket, and wisp of straw to serve as pillow,
Thats the Jews luggage.]<\/p>\nFuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n