There are textual problems regarding certain aspects of this verse and two related verses (15.29; 21.25), and the difficulties relate primarily to the nature of the prohibitions contained in the apostolic decree, whether ethical, ceremonial, or a combination of both.

The demands which James suggested should be placed upon the Gentiles were of four kinds. The first two demands related to sins for which the Gentiles were notorious, that is, idolatry and sexual immorality; while the other two related to matters which would endanger (table) fellowship between the Gentiles and Jewish Christians, that is, eating animals that had been strangled and eating blood. Most commentators agree that the expression “pollutions of idols” has a specific reference to food that is unclean because it has been offered to idols. This would be a quite difficult command for the Gentiles to obey, inasmuch as it demanded that they no longer participate in any of the feasts given in the names of pagan gods, and it would possibility mean that they could no longer purchase meat from the public markets, since much of the meat sold in the public markets had come from idol temples.

The term unclean in this context must not be rendered as “dirty.” The meaning is “religiously defiled,” that is, from the standpoint of the standards of the Christian community. In a number of languages this passage may be most conveniently and effectively translated as “not to eat any food that should not be eaten because it has been offered to idols.”

The expression offered to idols may be translated as “brought as a gift to idols” or “sacrificed in honor to idols.”

The command to keep themselves from immorality may refer (1) to the marriage relationships such as were forbidden in Leviticus 18.6-18 or (2) to sexual immorality, since this was often connected with idolatrous worship.

The Jews believed that the life essence of an animal was contained in its blood, and therefore people were forbidden to eat it. This is why they could neither eat strangled animals, since these still had the blood in them, nor could they eat blood by itself. In order to avoid a possible breach in the (table) fellowship between the Jews and the Gentiles, James thought it wise to forbid the Gentiles to continue to eat blood.

The expression not to eat any animal that has been strangled may require some marginal explanation, or it may be more appropriate in some languages to speak of “not eating any animal whose blood has not been drained out.” It is the “draining out of the blood” which is obviously the essential element, and strangled is only of indirect reference to the existence of the blood in the meat. One can, however, retain strangled and the functional equivalent, as in “not eating any animal whose blood has not been drained out, since it was strangled.”

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Acts of the Apostles. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .