2.c. The Letter with No Title
The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
In Acts 15, we are told these words in an Untitled Letter by James, the Apostles, and elders--with Paul as a witness: "28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." The letter tells us Gentiles that we are to abstain from "meat sacrificed to idols," "from blood," and "from things strangled." James and the Apostles used the word abstain, meaning, From Thayer's, "3. Middle - to hold oneself off, abstain: ἀπό τινος, from anything, Acts 15:20 [R G]; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:22 (Job 1:1; Job 2:3; Ezekiel 8:6); τινός, Acts 15:29; 1 Timothy 4:3; 1 Peter 2:11." Interestingly, as previously alluded to, Paul uses the same word in 1 Thessalonians 5:22, saying "we are to abstain from all appearance of evil." What we know now is that Paul actually means, "Don't let other see you and judge your 'liberty' of conscience." The true Apostolic regulation is to be estranged from, distant from meat sacrificed to idols (See Mounce Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament ©2011). James and the Apostles said this was "Good" to the Holy Ghost as well as necessary. Many will interpret this prohibition as one that concerns separate issues ("meat sacrificed to idols," "the blood," fornication," and "things strangled); many will also assume that the Leviticus 11 clean and unclean meat designations are also intended, meaning that "clean meat" is acceptable. But I contend that the prohibition includes abstinence from meat entirely. I come to this conclusion based on a number of things. I will remind you of what Peter said in the Homilies, Chapter 8: “The unnatural eating of flesh-meats is as polluting as the heathen worship of devils, with its sacrifices and its impure feasts, through participation in which a man becomes a fellow-eater with devils.” To Peter, James, the other Apostles, and ultimately Jesus himself, "flesh meats" in general are "as polluting as the heathen worship of devils, with its sacrifices...through participation in which a man becomes a fellow-eater with devils." There is no distinction between "clean" and "unclean" meat as one might expect if they're under the assumption that Levitical distinctions are the true. Rather, we see that the very concept of eating meat in general is regarded as a sacrifice and feast with devils--idol worship. Idol worship is often synonymous with "fornication" (Jeremiah 3:6-9; Ezekiel 16:15-17; Ezekiel 23:37; Hosea 4:12-13; Revelation 17:1-2; Revelation 18:3). Therefore, it can't be disputed that the prohibitions we find in the Untitled Letter are "distinct" issues. Paul taught the opposite: that eating meat "sacrificed to idols" as rebuked by Peter is actually "ok according to conscience." Let's now consider "the blood" and "things strangled."
James and the Apostles command in Acts 15 that Gentiles turning toward God (the faithful remnant of mankind) must abstain from meats sacrificed to idols, from the blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. If you abstain from blood, you abstain not just from eating blood, but from bloodshed in general--"never mind" the fact that all meat, no matter how it's processed, contains trace amounts of the animal's blood. This is a well known fact in Epidemiology, a "branch of medical science that studies the distribution of disease in human populations and the factors determining that distribution, chiefly by the use of statistics" (Britanica). Timothy Sly, Epidemiologist and Professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, tells us,
Remember capillaries? Very tiny blood vessels that provide every last bundle of muscle fibres in the extremities with a supply of oxygenated red blood cells. Where does the rationale come from that suggests that meat has ‘no’ blood in it? Research shows that Approximately 60% of blood is lost at sticking (bleeding), 20-25% remains in the viscera (in spleen, liver, kidneys, etc.), while a maximum of 10% may remain in carcass muscles (the 'meat'). Different stunning methods may modify these proportions, (electrocution, stun gun, CO2, etc.), the method of bleeding, and the condition and position of the animal at the time of slaughter. Electrically stunned sheep lose more blood than those stunned with a captive bolt, but they also have more ‘blood splashes’ (petechial hemorrhages) in their carcasses. The Jewish (and Moslem) ritual slaughter methods, which bleed without first stunning the animal, claim to reduce the blood left in the carcass to a much lower level, because the heart is still pumping, and thus the exsanguination is more effective. But blood (albeit a small amount) is always present in the meat.
So your methods for obtaining "clean" meat still leaves blood in the meat? James said to abstain "from the blood." Logically, that means abstain from all meat. Not convinced? The entire process of obtaining any meat, including "clean meat," should be condemned due to the simple fact of bloodshed! Sly: "Electrically stunned sheep lose more blood than those stunned with a captive bolt, but they also have more ‘blood splashes’ (petechial hemorrhages) in their carcasses." This particular method is to first torture, then cut the throat and spill blood, then slaughter and spill "the rest." Supposedly, the "Biblical method" is more "humane" and "effective" at ridding the carcass of blood. But Sly said, "The Jewish (and Moslem) ritual slaughter methods, which bleed without first stunning, claim to reduce the blood left in the carcass to a much lower level, because the heart is still pumping, and thus the exsanguination is more effective. But blood is always present." The fact is that there is still much blood, within and without the meat that you crave, no matter what!
Now on to "things strangled." The common interpretation is that this prohibition refers to eating animals killed without draining their blood first, as strangulation would leave greater quantities of blood in the body. This is what Sly was debunking in his analysis. First, he told us that there will always be blood present in the meat of the animal, even the "cleanest" ones under "best" methods. Besides, this, even the "slitting of the throat" effectively means that the animal victim suffocates on its own blood. Isn’t this, in essence, a form of strangulation? The distinction between "suffocation" and "strangulation" is a matter of terminology, not the suffering or outcome for the animal. The prohibition on “strangled” animals, therefore, doesn’t merely point to the method of death but emphasizes a broader principle: the taking of life itself. Recalling the discussion regarding "fish" and whether or not Jesus ate them, consider the logic of “strangulation” and how it extends to fish. Removing a fish from water suffocates it, which should also be considered a form of strangulation. Like terrestrial animals, fish rely on oxygen from water to survive, and when deprived of it, they suffocate. This suggests that “strangulation” in Acts 15:20 is not limited to terrestrial animals but could also encompass the suffering of aquatic ones. This strengthens and broadens the scope of the prohibition, showing that the council’s directive points to a general aversion to the violent act of taking life, which is what meat consumption requires, regardless of the species involved.
Jesus, James, and the Apostles as revealed in The Gospels, The Clementine Homilies, and other "apocryphal" writings, confirm what should be obvious in Acts 15, that we Gentiles are to abstain from meat (sacrifices to, and fornication with, devils) and fornication (sexual deviance). This is what we see Jesus rebuking in Revelation 2.