Acts 15:28,29 - Joseph Benson’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and, consequently, to us This may include the decision which the Holy Spirit had given by his descent on Cornelius and his friends, but seems more directly to express the consciousness which this assembly had of being guided by his influences on their minds in the present determination. It cannot, however, be extended to any ecclesiastical councils that have not inspired apostles to preside, as this here had. To lay upon you no greater burden They allude to the yoke spoken of Acts 15:10. So far were they from delighting to impose on the churches any mere human and unnecessary institutions, that they dreaded enjoining any thing which God had not required, and was not calculated to promote the faith and holiness of the new converts; than these necessary things Some of the things here mentioned are of perpetual obligation upon Christians of all nations and ages, and they were all necessary for the peace of the church at that time, namely, to avoid giving offence to the converted Jews, and to promote brotherly love between them and the converted Gentiles. The first of them, however, was not necessary long, and the direction concerning it was therefore afterward repealed by the same Spirit, as we read in the former epistle to the Corinthians. With regard to abstaining from blood, concerning which there has been much controversy among divines, we may further observe here, that the eating of it was never permitted the children of God, from the beginning of the world. For, 1st, From Adam to Noah no man ate flesh at all; consequently, no man then ate blood. 2d, When God allowed Noah and his posterity to eat flesh, he absolutely forbade them to eat blood; and accordingly this, with the other six precepts of Noah, was delivered down from Noah to Moses. 3d, God renewed this prohibition by Moses, which was not repealed from the time of Moses till Christ came. 4th, Neither after his coming did any presume to repeal this decree of the Holy Ghost, till it seemed good to the bishop of Rome so to do, about the middle of the eighth century. 5th, From that time, those churches which acknowledged his authority held the eating of blood to be an indifferent thing. But, 6th, In all those churches which never did acknowledge the bishop of Rome's authority, it never was allowed to eat blood, nor is it allowed at this day. This is the plain fact; let men reason as plausibly as they please, on one side or the other. From which keeping yourselves, ye will do well That is, ye will find a blessing. This gentle manner of concluding was worthy the apostolical wisdom and goodness. But how soon did succeeding counsels, of inferior authority, change it into the style of anathemas! Forms which have proved an occasion of consecrating some of the most devilish passions under the most sacred names; and, like some ill-adjusted weapons of war, are most likely to hurt the hand from which they are thrown. The reader that wishes for further information on the subject of the prohibition of eating blood will find ample satisfaction in an excellent work of Dr. Delaney, entitled, Revelation examined with Candour; a work of great merit, although but little known. See vol. 2. p. 18, &c.