Why were the restrictions of Acts 15: 29 placed upon Gentile believers?

The context of Acts 15: 29 is the rejection of Jewish pressure for Gentile converts to be circumcised. The common judgment instead was they were simply to “abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from fornication”.

   Critical to the understanding of the book of Acts is the re-offer of the public kingdom on earth after the death of Christ (see Acts 3: 19-21) and its rejection, as foretold in the parable of Luke 19: 11-14. Now while that offer remained open, there could be no presentation of the mystery—Jew and Gentile equal in one body with their differences removed and joined to the Head in heaven in the one new man (see Eph. 2: 15; 3: 6 etc.). The Gentiles being introduced to the Assembly is not the mystery, for while the mystery is not known in the OT (see Rom. 16: 25; Eph. 3: 5; Col. 1: 26) Gentile blessing in the future was prophesied (see Deut. 32: 43; Ps. 72: 11; Is. 11: 10; 49: 6; Ezek. 38: 23; Zeph. 3: 9; Rom. 15: 9-12 etc.). This was blessing in relation to the earthly kingdom (see Is. 2: 2; Jer. 3: 17; Mic. 4: 1, 2), but only with the Gentiles in association with, and subservient to, the Jews (see Is. 60: 3; Zech. 8: 23; 14: 16). Clearly, while this was the case there could be no public revelation of the mystery, and there is no indication that it was known, understood, or taught by Christians generally at the time. Hence in Acts 15, it is not the truth of the mystery that is brought forward to explain Gentile blessing but “with this agree the words of the prophets” (v15).

   Now if OT prophecy foretold the blessing of Gentiles in association with Jews, were these Gentile believers to be placed under the law and become Jewish proselytes? The conclusion arrived at in Jerusalem was a definite rejection of this idea (see vs. 10, 24, 28)—the Gentiles were to retain their Gentile distinctiveness. However, the same God that gave the law to Israel also gave much earlier instructions to all men, to which attention was now drawn. To abstain “from blood, and from what is strangled” (v29—the latter being killed without shedding blood) stems from Gen. 9: 4 and the restriction placed on Noah (a Gentile) and all his posterity. Abstinence “from pollutions of idols” (Acts 15: 20) refers to not even eating food contaminated by idolatry (see v29)—for idolatry is an outrage against the Creator (see Rom. 1: 19-25; 1 Cor. 10: 21). Finally, the sin of “fornication” (Acts 15: 20; see also 1 Thess. 4: 3) is against the Creator’s provision of marriage for mankind (see Gen. 2: 22-24) in which each is to “have his own wife” (1 Cor. 7: 2). In summary, all four prohibitions have nothing explicitly to do with Christianity but relate to what is binding on all men in relation to honouring their Creator. What was proposed was not new, but simply a reminder to the Gentile believers of their responsibilities to God as men on this earth—very pertinent now that God had linked them with the Jewish believers in Christ’s Assembly awaiting the coming kingdom on earth.

   Now the common judgment arrived at by the Jerusalem assembly was for the Gentile believers only: “to the brethren who are from among [the] nations …” (Acts 15: 23). The Jewish believers were not so addressed, because the instructions about not eating blood were incorporated into the Mosaic law (see Deut. 12: 23 etc.). The Gentiles are not referred to the law, and the Jews are not reminded of their responsibilities under Gen. 9: 4. This difference is illustrative of how, throughout Acts, Jew and Gentile are still viewed as distinct subsets within the Assembly. Thus in Acts 21 the elders in Jerusalem advise Paul to take four men and “be purified with them” (v24—the apostle had already taken a vow in Acts 18: 18 which required him to visit the Temple in line with Num. 6: 18). Why did the elders give this advice? In order for Paul to show “that thou thyself also walkest orderly, keeping the law” (Acts 21: 24). By contrast, the word to the Gentiles in the same passage is “that they should [observe no such thing, only to] keep themselves both from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication” (v25). Now on a personal level, Paul was acting in accord with what he said about himself in 1 Cor. 9: 21, 22—as under law that he might gain those under law—but more generally, Jewish believers were characteristically “zealous of the law” (Acts 21: 20). That Paul was falsely accused of teaching that Jews “should not circumcise their children, nor walk in the customs” (v21) shows that, at this point, the apostle was not teaching that Jewish believers should abandon Judaism itself. Certainly, there came a point when Judaism was to be deserted (see Heb. 13: 13) but that time had not yet been reached. Thus in the book of Acts Jew and Gentile are linked in blessing but remain distinct (in accord with the two wave-loaves of Lev. 23: 17, and also with what is said about the coming kingdom). The time for the public revelation of the new man in which “there is not Greek and Jew” (Col. 3: 11) had not yet been reached.