THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 36, Chapter 15 continued 3
Last time we looked closely at Acts chapter 15 verse 20, where the supreme leader of The
Way, Yeshua’s brother James, says this referring to the new gentile Believers living in
Antioch:
Acts 15:20 CJB
20
Instead, we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from
things polluted by idols, from fornication, from what is strangled and from blood.
This statement was part of a momentous decision by the Jerusalem Council to not require
circumcision of gentiles who want to worship Yeshua as Savior and God. Essentially this
meant that they could remain as gentiles and not covert to Jews. We also learned that far from
some newly concocted set of rules for Christians, this list of 4 prohibitions was taken directly
from the Law of Moses, which we traced to Leviticus chapters 17 and 18. But even more, the
concept of gentile proselytes at first not being expected to follow the entire Jewish
Halakhah, nor even the part of Halakhah that was the Law of Moses, was already well
understood within Judaism as evidenced by recorded case law in the Talmud. Rather, the
concept was that the new gentile Believers would be given a few basic commandments to
obey (the most fundamental ones that were directly related to ritual purity), and over time as
they grew and matured in the faith they would be taught the Torah in synagogues and more
would be required of them; but each at his or her own pace. So the point of requiring
immediate implementation of those 4 rules was this: without keeping ritually clean, the gentile
Believers couldn’t enter into a synagogue or have table fellowship with Jews.
Is this not a most wise approach even if we don’t see such a method necessarily given to us in
the Scriptures as a direct commandment? Modern day Christians and Messianics need to take
note of this as we evangelize and mentor new Believers. People who have only recently come
to know the Lord are like toddlers who have only recently learned to walk and talk. It would be
foolish, if not unkind, to next expect them to quickly graduate to marathons and give eloquent
speeches or elaborate explanations of their faith. Or better, to expect their behavior to change
overnight to something that meets our standard of godliness. Rather they must be embraced,
given some basic instructions to follow, and then fed a steady diet of God’s Word. As they
grow in God’s Word they can be gradually encouraged to follow more of God’s
commandments fully and with more consistency. This does not mean that their sin is excused
or papered-over; but it may mean that sins due mostly to an ignorance of God’s ways are
explained in a merciful and loving manner rather than the new Believer being condemned for
his or her trespasses. It is really no different than how we raise children; we don’t expect
kindergarteners to behave like high school students. Maturing is a long process that takes
nurturing, time and patience.
Let’s re-read Acts 15 starting in verse 22.
1 / 8

RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 15:22 – end
Once the leadership council had made their decision and decided on a course of action, the
next step was to communicate it the Antioch congregation; this was customarily accomplished
by sending an official written letter. So the leadership announced their decision to the local
Messianic Jews in Jerusalem, and together they recommended some men to go to Antioch
and deliver the letter. They sent a fellow named Y’hudah (Judah) also called Bar-Sabba and
also another man named Sila; Judah was this person’s Hebrew name, while Bar-Sabba was
his Aramaic name. These men were not part of The Way’s leadership council but they
probably were more or less the first rung of leadership on the leadership ladder. Why did they
elect to send men from Jerusalem to go with Paul and Barnabas? Because they wanted to
authenticate that this edict came directly from the leadership council. After all; what
precipitated this council meeting in the first place was that a self-appointed group of Believers
who firmly believed that gentiles had to be circumcised and thus converted to Jews, went out
from Jerusalem to Antioch implying that what they demanded was a doctrine subscribed to by
the Jerusalem leadership of The Way. Since this letter was a reversal of that doctrine, then the
Jerusalem Council must have felt that the strongest possible proof of authenticity was needed.
Let’s talk for a minute about the first of the 4 prohibitions for the gentile Believers. The words
are: to abstain from “things” polluted by idols (or in the letter it says “sacrificed to” idols). This
is usually taken to pertain to food; but food isn’t the only thing that was offered to idols.
Everything from family pets, to clothing, to wine, to jewelry and charms were offered to pagan
idols. So this rule is rather all encompassing. That said, food was perhaps at the top of the list
as concerned ritual purity for Jews so at the least this instruction included food and likely was
zeroing in on food items that had been offered to idols. Nonetheless, underlying this rule is the
issue of idolatry and idol worship was the mainstay of all pagan religions.
As we discussed last time, the rule against fornication is used in the sense to mean any kind of
immoral sexual activity (immoral according to the Torah of course). Let that sink in for a
moment when we think about James establishing 4 rules, but according to Christian doctrine
he was also abrogating the remainder of the commandments of the Torah for gentile Believers.
There are many laws in the Torah that when used together define immoral or illicit sexual
activity; there is not just one. God is careful in His Word to define these terms but you have to
search the Torah from Genesis through Deuteronomy to pull out and list all of God’s rules
about human sexual activity. So by whose standard of sexual morality did James intend that
gentile Christians were to go by when determining what is lawful and what it not for them? How
does a person define what fornication is and what it is not? According to what set of law
codes? Roman law codes? Of course not; Believers are to go by God’s law code and that is
found in the Torah. So while this rule about fornication might seem like only 1 simple
commandment, in fact it necessarily incorporates several laws of Moses.
The rule against strangling a food animal is similar; it may sound like only 1 simple rule, but
there are several laws of Moses that deal with how to kill food animals for the sake of ritual
purity. There are also the aspects of killing food animals that deals with being humane to
God’s creatures. So once again, while we see one general rule about killing a food animal in
fact the standard for this one rule is contained by aggregating a number of the laws of Moses,
2 / 8

which is of course what these new Believers would have been expected to abide by.
So what we see is that the 1
st
rule and the 3
rd
rule are mostly aimed at food. It breaks God’s
food laws to eat an animal that was offered to an idol (that is, to a false god). It also breaks
God’s food laws to strangle a food animal to death before eating it. And then finally there is the
4
th
rule, and it too at least partially applies to food. That 4
th
rule says to abstain from blood. So
3 of the 4 rules applies to what makes food kosher; and what makes food kosher is all about its
ritual purity, at least beyond what God says is permitted versus prohibited items to eat in the
first place. I’ll say it again: 3 of the 4 rules set down in Acts 15 for gentile Christians to obey
are related to food and diet. And all these rules are derived directly from the Torah. Interesting;
I thought the Christian doctrine was that all kosher food laws were done away with, at least for
gentile Christians? But here are 3 standard kosher food laws that gentile Christians are told
that they must obey, says the Jerusalem Council.
But that is not all that the issue of blood deals with. “Blood” is a sort-of Jewish shorthand that
deals with several issues. Whether animal or human, blood is sacred. The spilling of human
blood has to be dealt with in a certain way or it is against God’s Torah, just as the spilling and
use of animal blood has to be dealt with in a certain way or it is against God’s Torah. Different
commentators will argue that the prohibition against blood in Acts 15 is speaking only of
murder, or it is speaking only about blood as relates to food; still other commentators say it is
covering both. No doubt this rule in Acts 15 is ambiguous in its scope. What we can know for
sure, however, is that the sentence is constructed in a way such that the prohibition against
blood is directly connected to animals that are strangled (such that the blood from the animal is
not drained from it); however that doesn’t necessarily mean that it doesn’t also include
homicide and other matters of human blood. So my opinion is that it is certain that it refers to
how food animals must be slaughtered and then the treatment thereafter of the animal blood
(such as not using the blood as food); but it is likely that it also intends to extend to the laws
concerning the spilling of human blood. And this rule against blood is encompassed by
numerous Torah laws that call out what murder versus manslaughter is; what unjustified
versus justified killing of a human is; even down to the matter of menstrual blood and blood
that is spilled during child birth. So the issue of blood is quite broad and is defined by several
separate laws and commandments in the Torah, some involving food, some involving humane
treatment of animals, and others still that deal with homicide.
The bottom line is that these 4 laws that James pronounced are in fact but the naming of
categories that include dozens of laws in the Torah. Not only are these categories derived from
the Torah, but without the Torah definitions and instructions we have no standard for even
knowing what these 4 laws mean or how to apply them. So it is quite ingenuous for
commentators to claim that by James establishing these 4 rules that he has effectively
replaced and abolished the Law of Moses for gentiles.
The heading of the letter to the gentile Believers begins in verse 23 and it opens by saying that
the leadership of The Way (sometimes they are called the emissaries, which is a designation
for the original 12 disciples), and some other leaders called the elders, are the authorized
writers of the letter and that they consider themselves as “brothers” to the gentile Believers.
This is meant in a warm and friendly way to indicate a close relationship; not that suddenly
3 / 8

these gentile Believers share a gene pool with the Jewish leadership as a result of all involved
having received the Holy Spirit.
And they begin their letter by distancing themselves from their fellow Jewish Believers who
went to Antioch without proper authority and telling the gentiles that they had to be
circumcised. The important point is that it is specifically stated here that indeed the
Circumcision faction went out from this group of Believers and members of The Way; and that
we learn that some of them were Pharisees doesn’t alter that fact (Paul was also a Pharisee).
Thus in Galatians 2, when Paul says in verse 4 that these men of the Circumcision faction are
“pretenders”, we need to understand that Paul is being typically Paul; he uses a harsh tone
with his choice of terms. But we also need to realize that while he seems to question these
men’s faith because of their belief in circumcision for gentiles, James the leader of The Way
obviously doesn’t question their faith; he just doesn’t agree with their doctrine about
circumcising gentiles. And the letter also confirms that the men who are delivering the letter are
fully authorized to do so.
Then verse 28 essentially tells the gentiles what we already know; that the first 4 things that
are immediately required of them are abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, blood,
strangling animals and sexual immorality. When we carefully read this passage we find that not
one word is said to directly refute the claim of the Circumcision faction that gentiles must be
circumcised in order to worship Yeshua; the subject of circumcision is not even mentioned.
Rather the issue of circumcision is only implied by saying that if the gentiles will obey these 4
prohibitions that they will be doing the right thing. This is where things have, in my opinion,
taken a strange and unwarranted turn in Christianity. I can recall telling my teenage sons that
going to school and getting good grades is what they should focus on because it would form
the basis for so much of their future. So to put that thought in the vernacular of this letter to the
gentiles, if my sons would go to school, study hard and get good grades, then they would be
doing the right thing. Does that sound to you like I meant that all other house rules or
requirements for their lives are hereby abolished and the only requirement I have for them is to
go to school and get good grades? Or that all boundaries and limits for them are hereby
erased as long as they go to school and get good grades? I can promise you that they didn’t
take it to mean that. They still had to be obedient, they still had to be home at the time given to
them, they still had to bathe, they still had to clean their rooms, etc. The point is this: does this
instruction actually imply that the gentiles should abide ONLY by these 4 things and to
permanently ignore all else? Does it say or imply that nothing else matters for gentiles, or that
everything else has been nullified for gentiles? No it doesn’t; it just says that if the gentile
Believers will do these 4 things they will be doing well in the sense that the gentiles will be on
the right track. That these 4 rules are the alpha and omega of everything that a gentile
Believer (a Christian) should or should not do from now on is in no way implied here; but that
meaning has been erroneously read into the passage by Christianity for many centuries in
order for Christians to separate themselves from Jews and from the Old Testament.
I pray that you are seeing that on every level it is illogical to take this letter in Acts 15 to the
extreme that Christians now have only 4 new rules to follow, and thus the Law of Moses has
been abolished by James, brother of Christ. For one thing, without knowing the Law of Moses
we don’t even know what these 4 rules mean or how to carry them out. And if the Law of
4 / 8

Moses is abolished, these 4 rules are necessarily abolished right along with it (as well as the
10 Commandments, for that matter). And by the way, there is something I want to alert you to
that is most pertinent to us in our day and time. Due to the rapidly increasing influence of Islam
in the West, it is now common to find meats in our markets and at restaurants that are clearly
labeled as “halal”. A good Muslim will not eat meat unless they are certain that it is halal.
Halal is essentially the Islamic version of Kosher. The issue is this: part of what makes meat
halal for Muslims is that during the meat processing it has to be dedicated to Allah. Specifically
during the process, a Muslim religious authority will recite a prayer over the meat; this prayer of
dedication to Allah is called the tasmiya or shahada. I hope that unnerves you because since
Allah is a false god, then doesn’t that seem to be at the heart of the matter of the Acts 15 rule
against eating things dedicated to idols, since idols are nothing but depictions of false gods?
Until recently, we’ve not had to be concerned about eating meat dedicated to idols (something
that Christianity has long seen as an irrelevant relic). But up pops Islam, along with a
movement of tolerance to appease their religion, and suddenly this rule becomes quite
pertinent to us again. Let me state this clearly; if you eat halal approved meat, you are eating
meat that has been dedicated to an idol…to a false god….Allah. I strongly advise you against it.
The story of Acts 15 winds down quickly; we are told that the 2 envoys Judah and Sila
accompanied Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch, a congregation meeting was convened, and
the letter read to them. The people, we are told, were delighted with its encouragement. No
doubt the term “the people” meant both Jews and gentiles because this ruling solved issues
for both groups. It meant that adult gentile males did not have to go through the grueling
experience of circumcision, and it meant that they did not have to disavow their gentile identity
and become Jews, which could have far reaching effect on their families, friends, and
businesses. For the Jews it was clear that their religious authorities, the Jerusalem Council,
decided that if the gentiles would obey those 4 rules then the issue of ritual purity was
overcome, and so the Jews no longer risked defilement by associating with these gentile
Believers.
We’re told that Judah and Sila were prophets and so they said much to encourage and
strengthen the brethren. The term prophet as used here doesn’t mean someone who could
predict the future, and it doesn’t mean a man that God called to deliver a new oracle. By now
the term had evolved such that it mostly meant a person who taught God’s written word.
Prophets were usually itinerant preachers, if you would, and considered as among the most
authoritative, knowledgeable and wise when it came to discerning the Holy Scriptures; so they
were welcomed and honored.
In time Judah and Sila left to go home to Jerusalem, but Paul and Barnabas remained in
Antioch. These 2 disciples have created quite a bond with the synagogue in Antioch, and we
can see their allegiance to the people there on display. But after a little more time passed, Paul
suggested to Barnabas that it would be good if they went and visited the other congregations
of Believers that they had set up in a number of towns. Barnabas wanted to include his relative
John Mark in the mission trip. It is pretty clear that the leadership in Jerusalem was not
controlling Paul and Barnabas’ ministry; rather Paul and Barnabas decided in concert with the
Antioch congregation what they would do. It would be too strong to characterize this as a split;
but at the same time it is clear that in Jerusalem the Believers’ main concern is the Jews,
5 / 8

while Paul’s main concern is the gentiles. How one went about preaching the Gospel, making
new Believers, discipling and mentoring them, would necessarily be different depending on if
you were witnessing to gentiles or to Jews. And it would also be different depending on if the
Jews lived in the Holy Land or in some foreign land. So there were disagreements in doctrine
and we need to take that into account as we read Paul’s Epistles. Paul is always coming from
a certain perspective due to his mission and agenda, and it wasn’t always the same
perspective as Peter’s or James’s. And when we hold their writings up to comparisons on
common issues, we’ll see subtle but important differences.
I want to pause for just a moment to make a point about evangelizing. It is one thing to bring
the Good News to our gentile friends and neighbors in America, and it is another to bring that
same Good News to Jews in Israel. And, yes, depending on the circumstances there can also
be a 3
rd
variable when bringing the Good News to Jews in America. To take different
approaches, using different people, to evangelize these different groups is not only wise it is
Biblical as we see here in Acts.
Many years ago, after several trips to Israel, I began to understand why the success rate of
Christians coming to Israel to spread the Gospel was so poor. It was because most Jews in
Israel don’t want to hear much of anything from a Christian, and it is very hard for comfortable
and structured Americans to relate to the never ending turmoil and chaos of Jewish Israel. The
Israelis also see Christian naivety in believing that we can take our American gentile methods
and assume that we can just transplant them to Israel. There are other reasons as well for
failure that is certainly not all the missionaries’ fault, but rather also results from the closed
ears of those to whom the message is being brought. But the point is that there is no one-size-
fits-all method for spreading the Gospel. And the extent to which certain doctrines are
exercised and how they are followed also necessarily varies depending on your audience, their
culture, and present circumstances.
I realized that the only way that would bring true success in taking the Good News to the Jews
of Israel was if Believing Israeli Jews were the ones doing the evangelizing. It also must be
done in the language of Israel: Hebrew. Adding those two elements break down many barriers
for which gentile Christians have no means to attack so the list of those who can do this task
effectively is quite narrow. For example I personally know a few American missionaries who
have lived in Israel for years and years; and they have learned little to no Hebrew. And they
live in neighborhoods where other Americans live so that they feel more comfortable, English is
spoken, and there are stores that accommodate their Western tastes. What do you think that
says to the people of Israel? Does that say I’m one you, and I’m in solidarity with you? Or
does it say not only am I not one of you, but I don’t find it worth my while to learn to speak
your language or live under the same conditions as you live. But, thanks be to God, Seed of
Abraham Ministries has 2 ministries in Israel, completely staffed by Believing Jews most of
whom were either born in Israel or immigrated to Israel, and all who speak Hebrew. They are
having good success in establishing relationships and in demonstrating the love and care that
comes with knowing Yeshua as Savior. They are also rehabilitating a very tarnished reputation
that Christians have created over the centuries in dealings with Jews. But their approach
wouldn’t be very recognizable in America, and probably wouldn’t be very effective for taking
the Gospel to American gentiles. But even more, it is quite culturally specific and so our staff
6 / 8

does things that many Churches simply would not approve of.
And I will tell you honestly that because of these cultural differences there is always a bit of
underlying tension present because dealing with Israeli Jews is so different than dealing with
American gentiles. While it is immensely gratifying that Seed of Abraham is so diverse, yet
cohesive, in our goals, it is also no easy trick to keep these various parts operating within
different cultures, with the proper level of co-operation that is needed, and teaching the proper
doctrine. It is necessary to give the 2 missions in Israel as much freedom as possible to
operate within their unique culture, allowing them to choose how best to achieve their goal of
bringing Yeshua back to Israel, and not to burden them with ways and thoughts that seem so
normal and ordinary here, but are foreign and at times counter-productive over there.
I tell you this to better help you understand the philosophy and goals of Seed of Abraham
Ministries, but also to offer a good modern day metaphor for what we see happening at this
juncture in Acts 15. There are indeed underlying tensions between Paul in Antioch and those
Believing Jews who operate out of Jerusalem and have James and Peter as their leaders. And
now we see that there is an underlying tension between Paul and Barnabas over family issues.
This doesn’t mean that someone is right, so the other must be wrong. It is just the typical
social dynamics of humanity at work; and being a Believer in Yeshua…..even an
Apostle….doesn’t immunize us from having these challenges.
Barnabas wants his nephew John Mark to come with them; Paul doesn’t because he doesn’t
feel he can count on him since on their last missionary journey John Mark abandoned them (at
least that’s how Paul spoke about it). Frankly, I’m not entirely certain that John Mark is a
Believer; nothing explicitly says he is. Rather his mother is a Believer, and his uncle Barnabas
is as well, but one isn’t a Believer merely through association. It’s like a friend said the other
day: sleeping in the garage doesn’t make you a car. Paul is a stickler for loyalty and for pretty
rigid adherence to doctrines he thinks are right. No doubt this is largely the result of his
Pharisee background, but I think it is also partly due to his inherent personality. Paul is all
business, and it seems John Mark isn’t. So Paul and Barnabas part company, with Barnabas
and John Mark taking a ship to Cyprus.
It was customary for the disciples to travel in pairs, so with Barnabas out of the picture, Paul
asks Sila to join him. They departed for Syria and Cilicia where Paul had established Believing
congregations. Back in verse 33 we’re told that Sila and Judah returned home from Antioch,
so apparently Paul sent word to Jerusalem and asked Sila if he would join him. The wording of
verse 40 suggests that Paul left Antioch alone, and must have met up with Sila somewhere
along the journey.
Paul left armed with an important new doctrine to use as he sought to make new Believers of
the gentiles, especially. It was that they didn’t need to convert to being a Jew to accept the
Gospel message. Paul no doubt also had to convince the Jews that if the gentiles would
abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from sexual immorality, from strangling food animals to
death and from blood, an official Halakhic ruling made in Jerusalem said that these gentiles
would be ritually clean. This was critical for rapid growth in the number of gentiles that would
join the movement.
7 / 8

While the circumstances of Paul and Barnabas’s split are nothing righteous or edifying, the
end result was that instead of a single team of Paul and Barnabas going out, now two teams
began plowing the fertile ground of the gentile world. While this dispute that was serious
enough to break up the very effective team of Paul and Barnabas is somewhat uncomfortable
for us to read about (we want to think better of our faith fathers), it reminds us that they are not
special or different; they’re just human. Whatever set them apart from others was their God,
not their merit. Yet, God used their acrimonious parting for good, and each team went on to
win many souls for the Kingdom of Heaven.
We will begin Acts chapter 16 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8