Notes

Notes

Notes

Abbreviations

[1]. The citations give double enumerations where the OTP translation (listed first) and the standard Greek text differ.

[2]. The citations first give the OTP reference, then the enumeration in Schermann’s Greek text.

[3]. Where editions diverge, I cite the enumeration in both Spittler (in OTP) and Kraft.

[4]. Chai’s enumeration followed parenthetically by the original enumeration.

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

[1]. See esp. Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 146n23 (citing, e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.41–85; Jos. Ant. 6.31–67). Writers sought to show the excellence of their constitutions; thus, e.g., Cicero portrays Rome’s as better than Plato’s ideal (Asmis, “Model”), though technically Rome lacked the sort of constitution found in the Greek city-states (Judge, First Christians, 111).

[2]. For reception history, specifically medieval and especially Luther’s readings of Acts 15, see Brockmann, “Apostelkonzil.” For sample applications, see, e.g., the application to the Indian church in Kariamadam, “Council”; an emphasis on the productivity of dialogue in Malcolm, “Conversion.”

[3]. The issue had not completely receded even in Ign. Phld. 6.1 (cf. Magn. 8.1; 10.3), but docetic and other problems were far more significant than some Jewish Christians seeking to impose circumcision. For the circumcisionist faction’s persistence, see also sources in Talbert, Romans, 98.

[4]. C. Williams, Acts, 24–30. I have switched the sequence of his first and second views to avoid confusion, since I will take up his second view first.

[5]. Bunine, “Réception,” suggests that Luke even moved the Jerusalem Council from Acts 11:30 to Acts 15.

[6]. Skarsaune, Shadow, 169, notes a mediating position held by some—namely, that Luke “telescoped into one meeting in Acts 15 decisions really taken at two meetings, the second after the writing of Galatians.”

[7]. In this case, the famine and circumcision issues must have coincided chronologically; this is possible, but in view of Luke’s having better access to the original traditions than we do, Luke’s distinction between the two events seems likelier. Cf. Schoeps, Paul, 65 (with Acts 11 representing a somewhat confused doublet). After the “pillars” requested that Paul remember the poor (Gal 2:10), Paul and Barnabas may have returned from Antioch with the offering (the return trip to Antioch perhaps also explaining how Silas returned there); in this case Luke may have simply not known the precise chronology except that the trip occurred during Claudius’s reign (Acts 11:28).

[8]. Knox, Acts, 40–53; C. Williams, Acts, 30; Longenecker, Acts, 236–38; idem, Ministry and Message, 39; Faw, Acts, 170; Larkin, Acts, 218; Trebilco, “Itineraries,” 453–55; Witherington, Acts, 90–97, 375, 440–43; Hoerber, “Galatians and Acts”; Morgado, “Paul in Jerusalem”; Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:4–5 (in this case, based on his understanding of Paul, not Anatolian archaeology); Bock, Acts, 487–90 (very tentatively); Peterson, Acts, 420; see especially the detailed cases of Schnabel, Mission, 988–92; Wenham, “Corpus,” 234–43 (having summarized [228–34] arguments for the other view); cf. Emmet, “Tradition,” 281–82. Rainer Riesner, “Pauline Chronology,” 20, attributes this view to a “growing number of exegetes.” See further comment at Acts 11:30.

[9]. Longenecker, Acts, 236 (the decrees would supply Paul’s “coup de grâce”).

[10]. E.g., Schnabel, Mission, 987.

[11]. Witherington, Acts, 449, also argues that Paul in Galatians points to recent events as in 1 Thessalonians. But Gal 1–2 is narratio for the issue at hand, starting with his conversion (some fourteen to seventeen years earlier); the events need not be “recent.” For an early date for Galatians (perhaps ca. 48 C.E.), see, e.g., Hemer, Acts in History, 270; Witherington, Acts, 449, 817–20; Longenecker, Paul, 258; Ramsay, Teaching, 383–403. Others, including me, date it later (perhaps ca. 57 C.E.), e.g., Fee, Presence, xxii; Lightfoot, Galatians, 36–56; Ridderbos, Galatia, 78–80; Bligh, Galatians, 1, 3; Ropes, Galatians, 46. Some others survey the various positions and doubt that the matter can be decided conclusively (Tenney, Galatians, 59–63). On the destination of Galatians, see “The Province of Galatia” in this commentary’s introduction to Acts 14:1–23 (Keener, Acts, 2:2115–19).

[12]. Knox, Acts, 44.

[13]. E.g., Bruce, Commentary, 298; Bauckham, “James,” 468–69.

[14]. This would especially be true if the famine visit is Luke’s adaptation of Paul’s later collection, as some argue, which would date it after the Jerusalem Council; but Barnabas would not have been with him then (unless we collapse it into the Acts 15 trip, making the famine and circumcision issues coincide chronologically), and I believe that this takes Luke’s historiographic freedom further than his typical use of historical data elsewhere warrants (see comment on Acts 11:30). Cf. further Robinson, Redating, 40.

[15]. Further, that details sometimes slipped Paul’s memory elsewhere (1 Cor 1:14–16) allows that he need not have recalled every detail, relevant or not; some of his epistles (especially Galatians) were probably written more on the spur of the moment and with less forethought than was Acts.

[16]. Lester, “Galatians 2:1–10,” 238, further points out that little is known of the famine visit and hence those who defend its correspondence with Gal 2:1–10 ought to provide better evidence for the connection.

[17]. Paul’s treatment of Jerusalem in his letters suggests that he, though interested in the church’s unity and respectful of Jerusalem’s priority, probably preferred local control. Even Rome in this period delegated many local matters to local cities, provided they paid taxes and observed laws; Paul supported the Roman system (Rom 13:1–7) but was aware of its potential for abuse (1 Thess 2:18; 2 Thess 2:4).

[18]. With, e.g., Chance, Acts, 250.

[19]. Some may find it appealing for apologetic purposes to claim that Paul’s basic gospel was the same during his entire career; but the difference in time between earlier and later datings of the letter is less than a decade, in any case, and most elements of his gospel are spread throughout his letters.

[20]. With, e.g., Fee, Presence, xxii. This is not to claim that Paul never taught justification by faith before circumstances forced this emphasis; the essential lines of thought are implicit as early as 1 Thessalonians (see comment on Acts 13:38–39; further Kim, New Perspective, 85–99). Galatians may also address the period of Paul’s Jerusalem collection and hence the time of 1–2 Corinthians and Romans, but this surmise depends on the interpretation of Gal 2:10 (some would add 6:10; cf. Hurtado, “Collection,” 53–56), which can be understood differently.

[21]. They could have targeted areas mentioned in Paul’s testimonies (15:3–4, 12) and hoped to secure favor with Jewish communities Paul had allegedly alienated on the way (13:45–51; 14:2–5, 19).

[22]. Paul’s “first” visit (πρότερον, Gal 4:13) may be contrasted with the later visit of 1 Cor 16:1 (Acts 18:23; cf. 19:1), which would be after the Jerusalem Council, but one defending the early date could make a good case for a second visit in Acts 14:21. The converse argument, that “first” must mean the first of only two times (hence Paul has not yet undertaken the visit of 1 Cor 16:1; Acts 18:23; Ramsay, Galatians, 405), would falter if Paul wrote from Antioch in the period of Acts 15:30–36, even if we press the sense of “former,” which we probably should not in Koine (cf. comment on πρῶτον in Acts 1:1; it can simply mean “earlier”).

[23]. Although the decree was reported in southern Galatia orally (Acts 16:4), that region was not specified in the decree.

[24]. D. Williams, Acts, 259, also notes that the apparent conflict over whether it was Paul’s second or third visit constitutes “a problem only if we accept the premise that Paul was enumerating his visits,” which he does not explicitly do.

[25]. Luke’s similarly ambiguous “many days” could span significant periods of time, as in Acts 9:23 (see comment there).

[26]. Luke presents the council as expecting its agents to accompany the letter (Acts 15:25–27) as far as Cilicia (15:23); but disseminating a circular letter from Antioch, the center of the northern mission, clearly did not require all the agents to circulate beyond Antioch (15:32–33), and Paul becomes explicit about plans to visit Phrygia-Galatia only in 15:36.

[27]. It does not decisively refute it, as I wrongly assumed in Keener, Background Commentary, 517–18.

[28]. Unless, as has been argued, Titus and Timothy are the same person; but this would place the visit to Jerusalem after Acts 15, not before, confusing the chronology of our sources further.

[29]. Unless Titus left after Cyprus, but then we would expect some rancor as with John Mark (Acts 13:13); by 2 Corinthians, the epistolary Paul was fond of Titus.

[30]. We should keep in mind that the period of Paul’s ministry where Titus is prominent is summarized by Luke in only a few verses (Acts 20:1–2); though we would expect his name in the list of 20:4, it might be omitted because, unlike that of the others listed, his commission is translocal. Otherwise, Luke and Titus might have been on bad terms (they would have surely known of each other in Macedonia, 2 Cor 2:13); Titus may have had another name in Acts (but what? Gaius of Derbe?); or Titus might have turned out badly (cf. 2 Tim 4:10, but if the passage meant this, it is surprising that an entire pastoral letter should be devoted to him).

[31]. See Kistemaker, Acts, 534.

[32]. Ibid.

[33]. Because I date Paul’s conversion earlier than many do, I could accept either date, depending on whether entire years are meant (part of a given year counting as a whole), the exact year of Paul’s conversion (probably not in, yet not long after, 30 C.E.), and whether Paul intends his chronology in Gal 1:18–2:1 to be complete.

[34]. E.g., Rackham, Acts, 238–43; Knox, “Evidence of Acts,” 44; Stagg, Acts, 154–59, 267–73; Stein, “Galatians 2:1–10 and Acts 15:1–35”; Lester, “Galatians 2:1–10,” 238; Betz, Galatia, 81–83; Finegan, Apostles, 40 (probably); Hansen, Galatians, 17–22 (probably); Lüdemann, Christianity, 171; D. Williams, Acts, 256–61; Ridderbos, Galatia, 78–80; Kistemaker, Acts, 533–36; Barrett, Acts, 2: xxxviii–xxxix; Fitzmyer, Acts, 540; Rolin, “Pierre”; Hill, Hellenists, 111–13; Dunn, Acts, 196; idem, Beginning, 446–50; Krieger, “Abendmahlsgemeinschaft”; Pervo, Dating Acts, 79–96; idem, Acts, 369 (though viewing Acts as dependent on Galatians); Nepper-Christensen, “Apostelmodet” (similarly); Meeks and Fitzgerald, Writings, xxiv; see the comparison in Tatum, “Galatians 2,” highlighting differences and the distinct agendas of Luke and Paul. Earlier, see, e.g., Bede Comm. Acts 15.2.

[35]. The contrast that some offer on details—such as Acts 15 addressing table fellowship conditions (15:20) and Gal 2 dividing the mission between Peter and Paul (2:7–8) and Paul committing to raise a collection (2:10; Johnson, Acts, 270)—is forced-choice logic; why, then, not contrast the agendas of comity (Gal 2:7–8) and collection (2:10) in Gal 2:1–10? Acts 15 and Gal 2 address the same basic issue, but there is no more reason to assume that only one issue was raised during the visit than to insist that each later church council could include only a single order of business on its agenda.

[36]. Kistemaker, Acts, 534.

[37]. The famine visit does address Jerusalem believers’ poverty—but addresses it before the putative conversation.

[38]. Luke is less interested in staging and more in the narrative’s content; cf. his relative disinterest in the transition between the upper room and apparent preaching in temple courts in Acts 1–2. I read the “multitude” (15:12) as that of the apostles and elders, rather than the entire assembly, which would prove even more confusing.

[39]. Johnson, Acts, 269.

[40]. See esp. ibid. Johnson also contrasts the amicable conclusion of Acts 15:22–29 with continuing conflict in Gal 2:11–14; but Gal 2 does not relate the meeting’s outcome (even if it were the same meeting; if it is an earlier meeting in Acts 15:1–2, it remained unresolved at that point even in Acts).

[41]. The theological incident probably would have contributed to the strain that affected the split over Mark (or vice versa), but Paul does not present it as decisive: “even” Barnabas followed their hypocrisy, leaving Paul completely (from his rhetorical standpoint) isolated. But “even” suggests something unexpected; the Galatians had no reason to expect Paul and Barnabas to differ on the principles involved.

[42]. Dunn, Acts, 196. Gal 2 may also report the more “confidential conferences with the leading people behind the scenes” whereas Luke focuses on the public assembly and its conclusions (Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 66; cf. Emmet, “Tradition,” 275–76).

[43]. Stendahl, Paul, 67–68.

[44]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 540; cf. Rackham, Acts, 239.

[45]. Johnson, Acts, 270. The range of approaches may be illustrated by Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 375, who supports a middle way regarding Acts 15 between the skepticism of M. Dibelius and E. Haenchen, on the one hand, and the confidence of W. Dietrich and R. Pesch, on the other.

[46]. Like Acts, Galatians uses “history to make theological points” (Hall, “Inference,” 320), against those who insist that Galatians is a far more accurate source (e.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 132–33; Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 100–101). On Paul’s narrative self-defense in Galatians, see Lyons, Autobiography.

[47]. Cf., e.g., Krieger, “Abendmahlsgemeinschaft” (for Luke’s account being compressed and Paul’s being partisan).

[48]. E.g., Esler, Community, 97; Barrett, Acts, 2:xxxviii–xxxix.

[49]. So Nanos, Mystery, 83–84, 166–238 (though note “for example,” 246).

[50]. Jervell, Theology, 4.

[51]. Hill, Hellenists, 112; cf. Catchpole, “Paul, James, and Decree,” who thinks that Paul reacted strongly against the decree. This argument seems the opposite of the argument that Paul would have felt compelled to cite the decree in his support had he known of it. Some of the passage’s strictures Paul in fact already accepted even before the council (such as opposition to sexual immorality), and he does argue against idol food later (see comment above).

[52]. Cf. Jørgensen, “ACTA 15:22–29.”

[53]. Johnson, Acts, 270 (reporting the question).

[54]. Though Paul has been construed as claiming that the Jerusalem leaders added no further requirements to him in Gal 2:6, προσανατίθημι need not carry this sense; cf. 1:16.

[55]. Certainly Acts 15:20, 29 represents a compromise position that allows for a minimal, practical acceptance of Gentile adherents as God-fearers without needing to resolve the theological question of whether they are now members of God’s people (as Paul’s letters maintain). But Paul would have understood this situation from the start. That the Jerusalem leaders simply went back on their word is less likely, requiring a diminution of their honor.

[56]. Esler, Community, 97, cites Phil 3:2–3; but this passage is much too short to sustain an argument based on omission, and if there was a decree at all, Paul certainly would know about it by the time of his Roman imprisonment (the likeliest setting for Philippians). Rakocy, “Problem datacji,” dates the council after 1 Corinthians, but this makes it hard to explain both Luke’s different chronology and Gal 2:1.

[57].  Compare, for example, the miscalculated conservative rhetoric that alienated Israel in 1 Kgs 12:9–16.

[58]. The difficulties that Rome and Constantinople experienced during the initial centuries in securing compliance in their respective dominions suggest that such compliance does not always come naturally.

[59]. Though we cannot know whether Paul’s opponents in 2 Cor 11 may have mentioned it. Galatians 2:2 suggests Paul’s recognition that Jerusalem was at least perceived to have some jurisdiction over other churches, but this is not a matter that he seems eager to emphasize.

[60]. Cf. also his opposition to idolatry in Rom 1:18–23 and 1 Thess 1:9 and his opposition to sexual relations outside marriage in Rom 1:24–27 and 1 Thess 4:3–8.

[61]. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 119; Fitzmyer, Acts, 552–53; Hill, Hellenists, 113; Crowe, Acts, 113; Malina and Pilch, Acts, 105. This approach resembles the conflation of two events often proposed for 1 Kgs 18 (esp. Bright, History, 287, 298–309; but cf. Yamauchi, Stones, 77–78); though possible, such solutions may simplify some questions by complicating others.

[62]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 552–53. Admittedly, even ancient commentators (the third-century C.E. Didascalia apostolorum), in matters such as the abruptness of Acts 15:3–4, noted some disarray (Taylor, “Texts and Critics”), but in modern terms, this could simply mean that Luke needed a good copyeditor at such points.

[63]. Apart from a mention of one of Israel’s tribes in Rev 7:7, Luke is the only NT writer to use the name (Luke 2:25, 34; 3:30; Acts 13:1), which he may think is equivalent to “Simon” (Luke 5:8; 6:14; cf. 2 Pet 1:1), which Luke conjoins with “Peter” in Acts only in regard to the Cornelius account (Acts 10:5, 18, 32; 11:13), as here (15:7–9), perhaps because Peter was then staying with a different “Simon” (9:43; 10:6, 32). (See further comment at Acts 15:14.)

[64]. Dunn, Acts, 197.

[65]. E.g., Hill, Hellenists, 113.

[66]. Jefford, “Acts 15 and Didache 6,” suggests that Did. 6.1–3 and Acts 15:23–29 drew from common sources but that Luke has adapted the decree for his purposes. Certainly Luke is stylistically capable of composing a periodic sentence (Acts 15:24–28; cf. Luke 1:1–4). Possibly the decree drew from common Jewish traditions (see comment on Acts 15:20), but if both Luke and the author of the Didache depend on the decree (which is possible), the historical genre of Acts leads us to expect a closer preservation of a quoted document than mere theological dependence such as appears in the Didache.

[67]. Often emphasized (Fitzmyer, Acts, 538; Conzelmann, Acts, 115; cf. Barrett, Acts, 709; Butticaz, Identité, 463; esp. Eisen, Poetik, 187–202). More than 500 verses of Greek text appear before it, and more than 440 verses after it; the count in words is even closer. Since it is doubtful that Luke counted the words, this represents a reasonable proximity to the center.

[68]. It is “the transition from the primitive church to the ‘contemporary’ church” (Conzelmann, Acts, 115); the move away from dependence on Jerusalem (Haenchen, Acts, 461). Others see more continuity: it shows not that Christianity is a new Gentile religion, superseding Judaism, but that it remains rooted in Israel’s history, uniting Jewish and Gentile believers (Dunn, Acts, 202; cf. Jervell, Unknown Paul, 19); Luke apparently saw the Davidic promises of Luke 1–2 fulfilled in Acts 15 (Acts 15:16; Turner, Gifts, 56).

[69]. Gaventa, Acts, 211.

[70]. Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 167 (citing Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.89.3–4).

[71]. Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 173.

[72]. Gal 2:1 suggests fourteen years after the first visit, three years after Paul’s conversion. Because the number of years in neither the fourteen nor the three needs to represent complete years, this could be as short as thirteen to fourteen altogether or as long as seventeen (cf. also Witherington, Acts, 88–89).

[73]. Rakocy, “Problem datacji,” dates the council to 51 C.E., i.e., after Paul’s stay in Corinth; although this solution would explain why 1 Corinthians does not discuss the decrees, it is harder to make it fit with Gal 2:1 or to explain Luke’s narrative sequence.

[74]. Barrett, Acts, 709.

[75]. E.g., the consensus after one speech and debate after another in Tac. Hist. 4.43; consensus with a few exceptions in Ann. 14.49; temporary acceptance in Hist. 1.85; consensus the effect of which was afterward limited by the emperor, Ann. 11.6–7; a defeated motion in Ann. 3.35.

[76]. Barrett, “History.”

[77]. Longenecker, Acts, 5.

[78]. Barrett, “History.” Many still hold that Acts is a consensus document reconciling earlier competing strands of Christian thought (Tyson, “Legacy”) and think that Luke plays down serious conflict in Acts 15 (Tyson, “Themes”).

[79]. Keener, Matthew, 45–51; idem, John, 171–85, 194–228.

[80]. See Tyson, Luke, Judaism, and Scholars, 12–29.

[81]. The outcome is also reported in Acts 21:25, an occasion for which the “we” author (in my view, the author of Acts) was present (21:18).

[82]. Most scholars do recognize this as a compromise solution (noted by Wood, “Ethics,” 256).

[83]. After noting Peter-Paul parallels (Zwiep, Community, 166–67), Zwiep argues (170) that Luke regularly aligns Paul with and even subordinates him to the Twelve, thus undercutting Paul’s detractors who preferred the Jerusalem leaders (cf. also 174).

[84]. Cf. Bruce, Peter, 14: Acts “presents an accommodation, not to say fusion, of Pauline Christianity and various forms of non-Pauline Christianity.”

[85]. Some argue that Acts 15 presents Paul in a way more amenable to those who mistrusted him (Walker, “Acts and Corpus Revisited,” 85). Tyson, Marcion, 73 (who dates Acts to the second century), thinks that Luke rewrote the events of Gal 2 in such a way as to “counter” its Marcionite interpretation.

[86]. See Mason, Josephus and New Testament, 202–3.

[87]. Hill, Hellenists, 114, notes that although Galatians reveals that the Jerusalem church apparently agreed with Paul in the end, Jerusalem’s prerogative to decide the matter appeared to Paul as if his call were at stake.

[88]. Emphasizing Paul’s independence, Galatians sounds as if Paul took the lead by himself (Gal 2:5–6); but he is also clear that Peter, James, and John agreed with him (2:7–9).

[89]. Disagreement did not keep them from acknowledging each other’s apostleship (cf. Gal 2:9; Lohse, “Apostleship”).

[90]. Johnson, Romans, 227, complaining that theories about “a sustained animosity” between Paul and Jerusalem apostles “need to yield to the actual evidence of the text.” The “fifteen days” of Gal 1:18 were more than a “courtesy visit,” for which half a day would have been sufficient even in that culture; such a lengthy time together would produce serious bonding (Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 144–50, esp. 146; cf. the analogy with Goethe, 150).

[91]. See Balch, “Ἀκριβῶς,” 244–48.

[92]. Cf. Jos. Ant. 20.102 (see Bruce, Peter, 35; Riesner, Early Period, 280). Some scholars believe that help from foreigners (Helena and Izates) relieved some pressure from those with Hellenist ties (Reicke, Era, 212–13), but royal proselytes differed from uncircumcised sectarians.

[93]. Jervell, Unknown Paul, 23, sees the church’s attitudes toward Gentiles as harder than in Acts 11:1–18, as exemplified by James’s decree (15:13–21), noting that Peter accepted but did not propose it.

[94]. Hill, Hellenists, 115, doubts that the hard-line conservatives later came to control the church, but he also acknowledges the diversity of opinion.

[95]. Jervell, Unknown Paul, 18–19, suggests that the Jerusalem church exercised authority over the other churches; this was probably Jerusalem’s perception and was perhaps felt in Antioch, though probably not in Paul’s churches.

[96]. In the early second century, Ignatius of Antioch opposed Christians practicing Judaism (a practice with which he appeared familiar; Meeks and Wilken, Antioch, 19–20), and Jews and Christians continued in active contact there (21–24) into the fourth century (35–36).

[97]. A matter praised in a central location (e.g., Rome, Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.1.9.26) could not be presumed to elicit the same response everywhere. Some have argued that Paul experienced conflict with circumcisionists in Antioch like a thorn in the flesh (Deehan, “Thorn”).

[98]. Bauckham, “James,” 468–69.

[99]. Johnson, Acts, 269, thinks that Luke has reversed the sequence.

[100]. Bruce, Commentary, 303.

[101]. Bruce, Peter, 37, revising his earlier position. For false apostles elsewhere, see 2 Cor 11:4, 13; Rev 2:2.

[102]. Haenchen, Acts, 442–43, thinks that Luke changes this to Judea in Acts 15:1 to weaken the danger of assuming a connection with the leaders of the Jerusalem church. Even for Luke, everything circles back to Jerusalem (Johnson, Acts, 11). To Diaspora Christians, emissaries coming from Jerusalem would bear the status of those assumed (rightly or wrongly) to have the best training in the faith, somewhat like Arab Muslims tutoring recent Muslim converts, or Western Christian missionaries tutoring recent Christian converts in West Africa in the early twentieth century.

[103]. Cf. Munck, Acts, 232.

[104]. E.g., Rom 16:21–23; 1 Cor 1:11; 16:19; Col 4:7–16; in a later period, Christians in Asia and Palestine are connected in Lucian Peregr. 13. For travelers carrying news, see, e.g., Eurip. El. 361–62; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 47.1; P.Oxy. 32; see further comment in Keener, Acts, 1:187.

[105]. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 65. See comment on Acts 11:27.

[106]. Theissen, Setting, 28–35, roots itinerancy in socioeconomic factors and (35–40) contrasts this with Paul, who established organization. I believe that this distinction is inaccurate (see Keener, Matthew, 57; see comment on Acts 11:27); one reason is that itinerancy characterized Paul no less than his opponents.

[107]. See esp. Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 60–65; comment on Acts 10:2. In view of Isaiah, they could hardly deny Gentiles conversion, but they could debate the appropriate approach (Skarsaune, Shadow, 165–66).

[108]. Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 275 (citing t. Sanh. 13:2; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3b; Yebam. 24b); Falk, Jesus, 75–76; Flusser, Sage, 50. Donaldson suggests the possibility (also entertained by others; see discussion at Acts 22:3) that Paul was a Shammaite (Paul and Gentiles, 278), a view that fits the characterization of pre-Christian Paul as a zealot (284–92; cf. Wright, Founder, 26).

[109]. See Riesner, Early Period, 280.

[110]. Proselytes were instructed (Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 276, citing Tac. Hist. 5.5.2; Juv. Sat. 14.101–2; Jos. Ant. 20.34–35, 41; b. Šabb. 31a).

[111]. Paul reacted to even this nuanced position harshly (e.g., Gal 1:7–9; 3:1; 5:12), doubting that it reckoned adequately with the sufficiency of Christ’s salvific work; his reaction makes all the more sense if he associated this position with the more extreme position of Acts 15:1, to which it might lead.

[112]. Johnson, Acts, 259, points to hints of saving faith for Gentiles in the preceding context (Acts 14:9, 22, 23, 27) that dictate the wording here.

[113]. E.g., Keener, Matthew, 552–53 (though Luke 11:44 might come closer to Jesus’s original point than Matt 23:27); cf. p. 205 (which could go either way). This is not to say that Luke necessarily obscured the basic point of such sayings or misapplied their principles (Matthew was more apt to engage in midrashic adaptation), but it is possible that he sometimes missed more of the nuances available to Jesus’s first hearers.

[114]. Schmithals, “Abfassung”; idem, Paul and Gnostics, 13–64; cf. Wilson, Gnosis and New Testament, 43. Ropes, Galatians, 9–10, 43–44, argues that Paul faced both Judaizers and their libertine opponents; Jewett, “Agitators,” 212, that they were charismatic and libertine, but not gnostic. For the Valentinian reading of Galatians, cf. Pagels, Paul, 101.

[115]. See, e.g., the summary in Campbell, “Judaizers,” 515.

[116]. Cf. Lull, Spirit in Galatia, 31 (they viewed law-works as compatible with faith in Christ, completing it). Proposals vary widely, however; cf., e.g., Martyn, “Mission” (arguing that they emphasize the law over Christ); Brinsmead, Galatians, 200 (they could accept Jesus as a new lawgiver like Moses). The opponents could have believed that Paul, in fact, shared their opinions (Howard, Crisis in Galatia, 9), although, given our dating of the letter after the Jerusalem Council (which I take as historical), this is unlikely.

[117]. E.g., Meeks, Urban Christians, 115; Cousar, Galatians, 4. Paul thus argues not against Judaism per se here but against a competing faction within the Jewish Jesus movement (Sanders, Law and People, 19–20). Some have proposed that the Judaizers were Gentiles (Ropes, Galatians, 25). For a useful historical survey of views about Paul’s opponents, see Brinsmead, Galatians, 9–22 (for a survey of methodological approaches for reconstructing them, 23–33).

[118]. E.g., Cousar, Galatians, 5; Carson, Triumphalism, 23. The opponents probably misunderstood the teaching of the Jerusalem apostles (Tyson, “Opponents,” 253). Munck, Salvation, 130, thinks that their position was a misinterpretation of the OT and Paul.

[119]. Cf. Agnew, “Adversary”; Lull, Spirit in Galatia, 31. Reconstructing Paul’s opponents solely from his answers (as in Tyson, “Opponents,” 249), then, misunderstands the nature of Paul’s rhetoric (see Lyons, Autobiography, 82–121; see warnings against mirror-reading in Sumney, Opponents; Aune, Environment, 207; cautions in Porter, “Introduction to Opponents,” esp. 2–4). For a survey of proposals about who opponents were (in various letters), as well as evaluation and critique and emphasis on methodology, see Sumney, “Studying Opponents.” In a society emphasizing honor rivalry (Pliny Ep. 2.9.2, 5–6), polemic against adversaries was standard.

[120]. With Witherington, Corinthians, 346; Sumney, Opponents, 85. The Judaizing opponents in Phil 3:2, not necessarily yet arrived in Philippi, probably do represent the same perspectives as the opponents in Galatians.

[121]. Cf., e.g., Johnson, Acts, 259; Sanders, Law and People, 18, 20; idem, Jesus and Judaism, 276; Nanos, “Spies.” Some strict Jews did, however, apparently require full conversion (Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 275).

[122]. Sanders, Law and People, 18; cf. Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 60–65.

[123]. Many other early Christians whose works remain extant (e.g., 1 Pet 2:9–10; Rev 5:9–10) shared Paul’s embrace of Gentiles in God’s people, though we cannot be sure to what extent this may have been true in the 40s. Paul’s voice as a theologically articulate practitioner undoubtedly proved influential (and Diaspora churches probably viewed him as their major advocate).

[124]. Keener, Acts, 2:2079–90.

[125]. As Ferguson, Backgrounds, 434, points out, circumcision’s very centrality (revealed in revolts against Antiochus IV and Hadrian) explains the level of hostility that Paul’s teaching could have engendered.

[126]. Cf. Hays, Conversion, 140, on the influx of Gentiles as an eschatological “sign” in Pauline theology.

[127]. See Moore, Judaism, 2:16ff.; Dunn, Beginning, 439–41; cf. later, e.g., Pesiq. Rab. 23:4.

[128]. Cf. also Sir 44:20; Jub. 15:13; t. Ber. 7:13.

[129]. Safrai, “Home,” 767; cf. Luke 1:59.

[130]. E.g., m. Ned. 3:11; t. Ned. 2:5–7; b. Ned. 32a, bar.; Gen. Rab. 11:6; Exod. Rab. 5:8. Uncircumcision, conversely, became a reproach (Gen. Rab. 80:8).

[131]. E.g., Gen. Rab. 26:3; 84:6; but see esp. Kalimi, “Born Circumcised”; idem, “Geboren.” When occasionally a child was born without a foreskin, however, he would still be made to bleed (b. Šabb. 135a; Gen. Rab. 46:12).

[132]. Cf. CD XVI, 4–6. God supposedly withheld circumcision till Abraham’s time because it was so important (Gen. Rab. 46:3). The three angels came to Abraham only when he was circumcised (Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 18:1).

[133]. On creation’s continuance depending on the blood of circumcision, see also t. Ber. 6:13, ed. princ.

[134]. E.g., Pesiq. Rab. 13:8 (later but representative). Scholars (e.g., Moore, Judaism, 1:49) often opine that the conspicuousness of circumcision in a Greek gymnasium was a major problem (1 Macc 1:14–15; cf. a pagan preferring death to entering a gymnasium castrated in Epict. Diatr. 1.2.25). It is possible that in some settings, however, Jews had their own gymnasia where they could exercise nude yet circumcised (see Kerkeslager, “Identity,” on CPJ 3.519). Circumcision was considered characteristic of Jews just as bored ears were for Arabians (Petron. Sat. 102).

[135]. 1 Macc 1:15; Jos. Ant. 12.241; cf. Hall, “Circumcision in Reverse”; idem, “Epispasm and Dating.” Later rabbis regarded this sin as unforgivable (y. Sanh. 10:1, §1; Šebu. 1:6, §5) or the cause of exile (Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 5:2) and could apply it to a biblical sinner such as Achan (b. Sanh. 44a) or Jehoiakim (one rabbi in Lev. Rab. 19:6). Test. Mos. 8:3 may speak of forced surgical uncircumcision of children in the final tribulation.

[136]. 2 Macc 6:10; 4 Macc 4:25; cf. 1 Macc 1:60–61; Jos. Ant. 12.256.

[137]. E.g., Mek. Pisha 16.169–70; Exod. Rab. 17:3; 19:5; 38:8; Lev. Rab. 21:6; 31:4; Ruth Rab. 6:1; Pesiq. Rab. 52:4; Tg. Neof. 1 on Exod 4:25; cf. Pesiq. Rab. 15:17. They were set apart for God partly through this means (Pesiq. Rab. 29/30A:3); Jacob feared that the Shekinah would abandon his bier if an uncircumcised person helped carry it (Gen. Rab. 100:2).

[138]. In later rabbinic developments, circumcision related to personal salvation so thoroughly that extremely wicked Israelites’ circumcision would be obscured or effaced to prevent Abraham from saving them (b. ʿErub. 19a; Gen. Rab. 48:8; Exod. Rab. 19:4; cf. Herford, Christianity, 191–92). Those who rejected circumcision were among the certainly damned (b. Šebu. 13a).

[139]. E.g., ANET 326 (though references are rare); Hdt. 2.104; Diod. Sic. 1.28.3; Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.169; specifically their priests (P.Tebt. 293.11–22; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.141; Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 199n4, citing P.Wash.Univ. inv. 138; Lewis, Life, 92); King, “Circumcision” (also noting West Semites); Hess, “Joshua,” 8–29; cf. Diop, “Origin,” 48, suggesting archaeological corroboration for Hdt. 2.104. Unlike Hebrews, Egyptians did not circumcise infants (perhaps they employed it in coming-of-age ceremonies) and did not remove the entire foreskin (Sasson, “Circumcision,” 474). In various traditional cultures today, see Eliade, Rites, 21–25; Nadal, “Descent,” 348; Beidelman, “Incest,” 185, 196; Mbiti, Religions, 160, 165; under Islamic influence, see Mbiti, Religions, 329.

[140]. So, e.g., Hdt. 2.104; Diod. Sic. 1.28.3. Artapanus (in Euseb. P.E. 9.27.10) claims that Egyptians and Ethiopians learned it from Moses instead of (as in Herodotus) the other way around. Sasson, “Circumcision,” 476, thinks that north Syria practiced it in the third millennium B.C.E., influencing Egyptian custom.

[141]. As often noted (e.g., Jayakumar, “Circumcision”; Schiffman, “Crossroads,” 126; an emphasis in many of Dunn’s works). It achieved the function of the chief boundary marker during the Maccabean era (Cohen, Maccabees, 52). Whereas various peoples in the East practiced circumcision, it appeared distinctively Jewish in Rome (Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 438).

[142]. Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 80–85, cites many sources regarding circumcision as distinguishing Jews (or sometimes revealing their Egyptian origin): Strabo 16.2.37; Diod. Sic. 1.55; Hor. Sat. 1.9.68–70; Pers. Sat. 5.184; Petron. Sat. 68.8; 102.14; frg. 371; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.13.137; Mart. Epig. 7.30.5; 11.94; Juv. Sat. 5.14.96–106; Tac. Hist. 5.5.8–9; Celsus in Origen Cels. 1.22; 5.43; Suet. Dom. 12; SHA, Hadrian 14.2; Dig. 48.8.11.1. Circumcision constituted the decisive mark of Judaism in Roman satirists (Gager, Anti-Semitism, 56–57). For negative pagan teaching toward Jewish circumcision, see Sevenster, Anti-Semitism, 132–36.

[143]. So t. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:12. Samaritans are also prohibited (in y. Yebam. 8:1, §10).

[144]. With Hellerman, “Purity.”

[145]. E.g., Exod 12:48; Jdt 14:10. On its necessity for proselytes, see also t. Ber. 6:13, ed. princ.; b. Ber. 47b; Šabb. 135a; 137b; Yebam. 46ab; 71a; ʿAbod. Zar. 59a; Exod. Rab. 30:12. The Testament of Levi affirms that it was not wrong to kill the wicked Shechemites, but to circumcise them and then kill them was wrong (Test. Levi 6:3, 6–7).

[146]. Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 275 (citing t. Sanh. 13:2; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3b; Yebam. 24b; Pesiq. Rab. 161a). He suggests that Paul held such a view before his conversion (284–92). Circumcision appears as the means of salvation in the Kabbalah (Ginsburg, Kabbalah, 132), but the text is from the thirteenth century.

[147]. Jos. Life 113, 149; cf. Ant. 13.257–58, 319.

[148]. The views portrayed in Acts 15 fit the range of known first-century Jewish views (Segal, “Acts 15”; Le Cornu, Acts, 818; Balch, “Ἀκριβῶς,” 244–48).

[149]. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 71–73 (on the large numbers of sympathizers, see 61–70).

[150].  Barreto, Negotiations, 99–101, following Collins, “Symbol,” 163–86. Barreto also notes that a majority of outsiders’ descriptions of Jews omit mention of circumcision (Negotiations, 104).

[151]. Jos. Ant. 20.34–35, 38–40.

[152]. Jos. Ant. 20.41–42. Later rabbis debated particular, usually temporary, exceptions to circumcision (t. Šabb. 15:9; b. Pesaḥ. 69a; Song Rab. 7:2, §3; cf. b. Šabb. 135a).

[153]. So Gilbert, “Convert.” If so, this was probably a minority and individual perspective rather than an official one. Watson, Gentiles, 75–78, supplements Josephus’s story with Philo QE 2.2, but because exceptions might be made for a king, Philo (who could be eccentric in this case) constitutes the primary basis for the argument.

[154]. See Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 58–59; most Jews accepted “natural law” proselytes without viewing them as members of Israel (60–65). Nevertheless, Philo’s usage was sometimes ambiguous (see 63–64). Cf. Lull, Spirit in Galatia, 32. For strategic reasons, God-fearer status was sometimes preferable, but full conversion remained the ideal (Segal, Convert, 99–101).

[155]. Jos. Life 113, 149–50. Naturally, we would expect Josephus to emphasize his objection. Part of Life 113 is quoted below.

[156]. Some have suggested that some Galatian Christians may have sought circumcision to belong to a legal religion and hence escape persecution (Winter, Welfare, 133–43), but Paul’s polemic sounds directed more against those who sought it to join the covenant.

[157]. Best attested in Rome; see, e.g., Parkes, Conflict, 25–26; Gager, Anti-Semitism, 59–61.

[158]. Plut. Cic. 7.5; a view reported in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 3:6. Hadrian’s treatment of circumcision as castration provoked the revolt of 132–35 C.E. (Herr, “Sybwtyw”; cf. Robinson, Criminal Law, 52). (Cordier, “Circoncision,” doubts that Romans viewed it as castration before the late second century.)

[159]. As Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 229, observes, “What marked off his [Paul’s] position as distinctive was the insistence that the Gentiles need not become proselytes to Judaism”; Paul, James, Peter, and John agreed on the rest. Paul denied that circumcision and food laws were necessary to join God’s people (276). Dunn, New Perspective, 38, suspects that believers in Jerusalem considered Gentile converts as merely God-fearers until their numbers became a concern.

[160]. The specific claim is probably influenced by polemical considerations, since Paul (Gal 1:13, 23) and others (1 Thess 2:14–16) had persecuted Christians earlier, presumably before circumcision had reason to become an issue. But their numbers had probably made Jerusalem’s Christians more mainstream as a Jewish sect by this period, and relations to Gentiles were increasingly an issue.

[161]. For a sample of the social alienation that circumcision would cause: Cicero could mock a Judaizing Gentile regarding castration and pigs (Plut. Cic. 7.5). Some associated circumcision with despising gods, country, and family (Tac. Hist. 5.5). In general, “exposing the glans was considered vulgarly humorous, indecent or both” (Smith, “Translation,” 332); for Greeks and Romans, it was like becoming a “barbarian” (331).

[162]. On Rev 2:9 and 3:9, see Keener, Revelation, 115–16; for the Sitz im Leben of John, see idem, John, 176–79.

[163]. E.g., Rom 2:25–29; 4:9–12; Gal 2:3; 5:2–3, 6, 11; 6:12–15; cf. also 1 Cor 7:18–19; Phil 3:2–3; Eph 2:11; Col 2:11.

[164]. See also Philo Spec. Laws 1.8–11; 1.304–5 (Johnson, Acts, 259). Philo’s perspective provided fodder for church fathers (Niehoff, “Circumcision,” arguing that Genesis Rabbah responded to early Christian polemics).

[165]. Cf., e.g., Hellerman, “Purity.” Strong, “Jerusalem Council,” 206, notes that even today contextualization often raises conflict because it can challenge deep “levels of cultural identity.”

[166]. A logic strong enough, in fact, that the conflict apparently persisted into the next century, although outside what had become the mainstream Christian position (e.g., Ign. Phld. 6.1).

[167]. With Sanders, Law and People, 18; Dunn, Acts, 198. Literal circumcision appears in far fewer biblical texts than one would expect from its later emphasis (although it is crucial in most of these, esp. Gen 17; Exod 4:26; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2–8); spiritual circumcision appears in Lev 26:41; Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:25; cf. Ezek 44:7, 9.

[168]. That it was symbolic identification rather than ontologically efficacious is clear from where it had been omitted (Josh 5:2–8; cf. Exod 4:25). Without the Israelite writers rejecting physical circumcision, spiritual circumcision (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Lev 26:41; Jer 4:4; 9:25–26; cf. Ezek 44:7, 9) was, however, necessary and more crucial than the physical covenant “sign.” See fuller comment on Acts 7:51.

[169]. See Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 55–60; this is probably true even for the views of Ananias in Ant. 20.41 (see 58–59).

[170]. Dunn, Acts, 198–99.

[171]. From Paul’s letters we may also glean that they probably used Lev 18:5 (Rom 10:5; Gal 3:12), which Paul countered with Deuteronomy’s understanding of covenant grace (Rom 10:6–10, from Deut 30:11–14); and they almost certainly used the contrast between Ishmael’s and Isaac’s attachment to the covenant (countered in Gal 4:21–31; cf. Rom 9:6–7), though both were circumcised.

[172]. See Howard, Crisis in Galatia, 52–53, 61–62; cf. Gal 2:8–9; 5:6; 6:15 (cf. the similar formula in 1 Cor 7:19). Maccoby, “Rejoinder,” contends that Paul portrays circumcision as mutilation (cf. the wordplay in Gal 5:12, but this does not identify the two and is limited to the polemical situation). But Paul specifically avoids the Gentile portrayal of the act as unaesthetic (Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 151) and fails to make castration part of his rhetorical arsenal in general (despite the possible one-time association of Galli with Galatia in Gal 5:12, noted above; cf. Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 135).

[173]. Rom 2:29; 7:6; 8:2; 14:17; 2 Cor 3:6–8, 17–18; Gal 3:2–5, 14; 4:6, 29; 5:5, 16–22, 25; 6:8; Phil 3:3; Titus 3:5; cf. also Gal 6:15. On the centrality of the Spirit to Paul’s argument in Galatians, see also, e.g., Fee, Paul, Spirit, and People, 102–3. For Paul as a change agent, see Halcomb, “Agent.”

[174]. He did preserve baptism, an outward sign of conversion in Judaism that carried over into Christian practice, but even here may have been less insistent in practice than many assume (1 Cor 1:14–17).

[175]. Isa 32:15; 42:1; 44:3; 59:21; Ezek 36:27; 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28–29. Paul echoes Ezek 36:26–27 in 2 Cor 3:3 (and probably Rom 7:6) as well as a parallel text in Jer 31:31 in 2 Cor 3:6; he probably echoes Joel 2:28–29 (MT 3:1–2; or possibly Zech 12:10) in Rom 5:5.

[176]. On this tradition’s missing many features of later controversies, see, e.g., Stein, “ ‘Criteria,’ ” 225–28; Wright, People of God, 421; Stanton, Gospel Truth?, 60–61; Keener, Historical Jesus, 143–44.

[177]. See Winter, Left Corinth, 37–38 (citing Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9; cf. Philo Names 10; Heir 246; Flacc. 41; Worse 45; Prelim. Studies 129; Bowersock, Sophists in Empire, ch. 7).

[178]. E.g., Hor. Sat. 1.9; Plut. Demosth. 15.1–2; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.22; Winter, Left Corinth, 38; Meeks, Urban Christians, 66.

[179]. See Winter, Left Corinth, 64–66 (citing esp. Epstein, Enmity, 34).

[180]. Cf. Horn, “Verzicht”; Skarsaune, Shadow, 168; according Paul a particularly prominent role (see, e.g., Turner, “Paul and Globalisation”).

[181]. See Campbell, “Elders of Church” (emphasizing a shift toward Rome).

[182]. Note that the Didache (11.3–6) independently corroborates the wider usage of “apostles” in Paul; the narrower usage of other church fathers differs from Luke in including Paul (e.g., 1 Clem. 5.3–5; 47.1, 4; Ign. Rom. 4.3; Poly. Phil. 9.1), whereas Luke does so only in one passage (the title does apply to the Twelve in the Didache’s title; 1 Clem. 42.1–2; but these uses do not exclude their acceptance of Pauline or, in the case of the Didache, other apostleship elsewhere). Luke reflects not simply second-century usage but a stream of tradition (or perhaps, in his Gospel, a source) of much second-century usage (probably also reflected in Papias frg. 3.5; 5.2). Luke probably reflects a terminology earlier than his own writing, but the difference between his usage and Paul’s is a semantic issue, not one of substance. Even if Luke writes for some who are reticent about Paul holding the title (perhaps related to the Pauline apologetic for which I argue in this commentary, on a first-century date; also in Keener, “Apologetic”), Luke clearly parallels Paul with Peter and the Jerusalem apostles, with obvious implications.

[183]. Longenecker, Acts, 245.

[184]. After that war, such loyalties could become more problematic politically; for a somewhat analogous historical situation, American Methodism flourished after severing direct hierarchical links with British Methodists, in the context of the colonies’ revolt (Cracknell and White, Methodism, 46–47). After the Judean-Roman war, of course, no Jerusalem church remained in Jerusalem in any case, but questions might arise as to the extent to which the Diaspora churches would wish to appeal to earlier Jerusalem connections.

[185]. Certainly before 70, Jerusalem retained special prestige, influence, and in some spheres, authority in Galilee; see, e.g., Jos. Life 62, 310, 315, 341, 393 (though the authority here probably represents a power vacuum, not relevant, e.g., to when Antipas was tetrarch).

[186]. See Gerhardsson, Memory, passim. His model is not, however, exclusively rabbinic; cf. Egyptian priests and scriptoria from the pharaonic period through the fourth century C.E. (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 239–41, citing Rufinus Eusebii Historia ecclesiastica 2.26; Clem. Strom. 6.4.35.3–37.3).

[187]. Cf. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 68. It might evoke this sense more figuratively in 2 Macc 6:23; Wis 19:2; cf. the idea in Pliny Ep. 5.19.9. To host, or show a favor toward, a person prestigious in one’s circle was normally deemed an honor, as in, e.g., Eurip. Alc. 1039–41; Pliny Ep. 3.4.5; 5.19.7–8; 6.14.1–2; 6.28.2; 7.16.5; Lucian Dem. 63; Affairs 9; Jos. Asen. 3:2–3/3:3–4.

[188]. Witherington, Acts, 452 (noting here esp. Peterman, “Giving,” 104ff.).

[189]. For the route from Caesarea into Samaria, see Zangenberg, “Samaria,” 401–2.

[190]. Okoronkwo, Compromise, 83, notes Luke’s frequent use of summaries in this section (15:3, 4, 12, 14, 32, 35) as “word economy.”

[191]. Wall, “Function,” emphasizes the allusion back to Acts 13:41. Wall, “Intertextuality,” 549–51, finds an allusion to Hab 1:5 in Acts 15:3. The term appears in the LXX primarily in Sirach (Sir 1:24; 18:5; 31:11; 34:9; 36:7; 39:12; 42:15, 17; 43:31; 44:8), but one of its other four uses is in Hab 1:5, which Acts 13:41 is quoting. The term is not rare per se; it appears in Philo (Heir 206; Mos. 1.58, 235) and more often in Josephus (Ant. 1.4; 3.198; 5.279; 6.40; 17.345; 18.75; War 1.281, 619; 4.624; 5.567; 7.404).

[192]. Although the term is not rare, Luke elsewhere prefers the verb without this prefix (Luke 8:39; 9:10; Acts 8:33; 9:27; 12:17; elsewhere, e.g., Mark 5:16; 9:9; Heb 11:32; 1 Clem. 16.8; 27.7; 35.7; Diogn. 11.2; forty-one times in Josephus; twenty-five times in Philo).

[193]. Cf., e.g., the public thanksgivings decreed when the senate learned of Caesar’s exploits (reported by Caesar himself in Gall. W. 2.35; 4.38; a consummate politician, he was by no means excessive in modesty). On the correct perspective in Luke’s geography here, see Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 69. Talbert, Acts, 128, argues that the positive reception in Acts 15:3 lies at the heart of a chiasmus in 15:1–5 (circumcision in 15:1, 5; Paul’s journey to Jerusalem in 15:2, 4).

[194]. See Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 74, summarizing Arist. N.E. 8–9 (one-fifth of the work).

[195]. Cf. also the common practice in antiquity of showing approval to speeches (e.g., Jos. Ant. 6.22; Hom. Il. 23.539; Appian Bell. civ. 2.8.52; Plut. Caes. 30; Tac. Hist. 2.90; Suet. Vit. 11).

[196]. P.Oxy. 1676.4–5; Sib. Or. 3.583 (μέγα χάρμα); Matt 2:10; 28:8; Phil 4:10; 1 Pet 1:6, 8; 3 John 4.

[197]. Gerhardsson, Memory, 245–61, compares rabbinic general sessions (he compares Qumran [251], but he finds later rabbinic parallels closer). Useful though this is, the background is likely wider; for example, Greek cities also had general assemblies.

[198]. Paul acknowledges Peter’s call and effectiveness (Gal 2:7–8) and cites the welcome finally of James, Peter, and John and the agreement that Paul go to the Gentiles; he also claims that they agreed on central matters (Gal 2:9–10).

[199]. Perhaps “multitude” in Acts 15:12 refers to the leaders; otherwise, the crowd may be envisaged as present the entire time. One would normally expect “multitude” to refer to the entire assembly (as in 4:32; 5:14; 6:2, 5; 15:30), but Acts employs the term other ways as well (2:6; 5:16; 14:1, 4), though usually for “the people” (excepting 28:3). The elders could meet privately in 15:6 and the multitude be addressed again in 15:7, or the elders might convene again after 15:12. The letter is officially only from the apostles and elders (15:23), but is also approved by the entire assembly (15:22), so Luke does not specify a private time separate from it.

[200]. Later rabbis, and perhaps their tradition-sensitive Pharisaic predecessors, ranked rabbinic tradition and consensus above miracles (e.g., t. Yebam. 14:6; cf. b. B. Meṣiʿa 59b; Dibelius, Tradition, 149–50). (On rabbinic “rule miracles,” see, e.g., Theissen, Miracle Stories, 106–12; cf. Guttmann, “Miracles.”)

[201]. Shiell, Reading Acts, 175, suggesting “a harsher tone” and presumably “the gesture for refutation and argumentation.”

[202]. There were then, as today, also people who would pick apart points on which there was no real disagreement; see Theophr. Char. 13.3.

[203]. Sometimes conflicts between aristocrats and democrats in early Rome could even turn violent (Plut. Coriol. 17.1–4). On rivalry as a way of life in Greek culture, see Instone and Spawforth, “Agōnes.”

[204]. Robbins, “Test Case,” 192–93, who is applying this description to the regular depiction of the Pharisees in the Gospel.

[205]. Van der Horst, “Macrobius,” 226; idem, “Hierocles,” 157.

[206]. See Acts 5:17; 26:5; Jos. Life 10, 12 (comparing Greek philosophic “sects”), 191, 197; Ant. 13.171, 293; 20.199; War 2.118, 122, 137, 142, 162. Cf. also Reicke, Era, 152.

[207]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 171.

[208]. For their interest in the law, see, e.g., Jos. War 1.110; 2.162; Life 191; in ancestral tradition, Ant. 13.297, 408. The phrase “law of Moses,” employed here (and in Acts 13:39; 28:23), is pervasive, e.g., Josh 8:31–32; 23:6; 1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Kgs 14:6; 23:25; 2 Chr 23:18; 30:16; Ezra 3:2; 7:6; Neh 8:1; Dan 9:11, 13; Tob 1:8; 7:13; Bar 2:2; 1 Esd 8:3; 9:39; 1QS V, 8; VIII, 22; CD XV, 2, 9, 12; XVI, 2, 5; 4Q266 8 I, 3; 11 6; 4Q269 16 4; 4Q270 6 II, 5, 18; 7 I, 20; 4Q271 4 I, 12; 4 II, 4, 6; 4Q513 3–4 5; Jos. Ant. 10.63; 13.74, 297; 20.44; Test. Zeb. 3:4; Ign. Smyrn. 5.1.

[209]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 101, cite Jos. Ant. 18.15.

[210]. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus appears to the disciples in Galilee; omitting this, Luke reports the establishment of the apostolic church in Jerusalem. Contrast Goulder, Matthew, 141, who speculates that Peter, James, and John remained in Jerusalem when the others returned to Galilee, providing two independent traditions.

[211]. Cf. Judge, Pattern, 60–61.

[212]. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 56–57; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 292; Neusner, Crisis, 38. This does not mean that no Pharisees may have been Galilean; see Horsley, Galilee, 150–52, 256; Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 66; perhaps Eleazar in Jos. Ant. 20.43.

[213]. For Pharisaic conflicts with Sadducees, e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.17; m. Yad. 4:7; t. Ḥag. 3:35; Nid. 5:3; ʾAbot R. Nat. 5 A; 10 B; b. Nid. 33b; Sukkah 48b; some scholars also think that Qumran texts condemn Pharisees as “speakers of smooth things” (Roth, “Subject Matter of Exegesis,” 65; cf. Kugel and Greer, Interpretation, 79; contrast Meier, “Halaka”; the arguments are not compelling on either side). Even later rabbis condemned many kinds of Pharisees (m. Soṭah 3:4; ʾAbot R. Nat. 37 A; 45, §124 B; b. Soṭah 22b, bar.; y. Soṭah 5:5, §2; see further Moore, Judaism, 2:193; Sandmel, Judaism, 160–61).

[214]. Cf. Keener, Matthew, 535–37; cf. Johnson, “Slander”; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:260–67.

[215]. For Paul as a fairly consistent Pharisee who believed that the new era had arrived in Jesus, see Davies, Paul, 216; cf. idem, Introduction, 27–28; earlier, Ramsay, Other Studies, 89; for Pharisees becoming “Christians without relinquishing their distinctive beliefs,” see Bruce, Commentary, 305. Some perushim may have been minim (Rivkin, Revolution, 165), but it is possible that not all the rabbis’ perushim were “Pharisees” (Rivkin, Revolution, 165, 175) and not all minim were Christians (e.g., m. Ber. 9:5; t. Ber. 6:21; b. Ber. 29a; Sanh. 90b; see Moore, “Canon,” 106–8; Urbach, “Self-Isolation,” 290; Pritz, Nazarene Christianity, 103; Keener, John, 198; cf. Basser, “Practices”).

[216]. Theissen, Gospels, 230.

[217]. For the plausibility of the Gospels’ conflict narratives, against many scholars, see esp. Holmén, Covenant Thinking, esp. 88–332, on Jesus and traditional covenant markers.

[218]. Given the pervasive agonistic tone of ancient rhetoric, we should not press the idea of conflict too far (cf. Dewey, “Oral-Aural Event,” 151n13), especially given the claim for consensus at the end (Acts 15:19–29; 21:25), even if it did not ultimately hold.

[219]. Cf. Seccombe, “People,” 365 (the issue is whether they need circumcision to enter the covenant).

[220]. The statement in Acts 15:5 is closer to the typical Pharisaic position than is 15:1. (The teachers in 15:1 may belong to the sect in 15:5, but they do not encompass all of it.) Paul’s “false brothers” (Gal 2:4) could refer to the speakers of Acts 15:1 or 15:5 or both, but neither Luke (23:6) nor Paul (Phil 3:5) was anti-Pharisaic per se.

[221]. Dunn, Beginning, 446, suggests that uncircumcised God-fearers had long been welcomed in the Jesus movement, but when what had been exceptions began to outnumber circumcised Jewish believers, the issue became a theological and missiological crisis.

[222]. Later rabbis rejected the validity of miracles for establishing halakah (cf. Bauckham, “James,” 452; t. Yebam. 14:6; further, Keener, Acts, 1:548, under “Rabbinic Mistrust of Miracles”) and exalted halakists above miracle workers (see Dibelius, Tradition, 149–50). But behavioral precedents of the pious (cf. Acts 15:7) did function as legal precedent in later halakah (t. Piska 2:15–16; Sipre Deut. 221.1.1; y. B. Meṣiʿa 2:11, §1; Dem. 1:4; Nid. 1:4, §2; Sanh. 7:2, §4; Yebam. 4:11, §8).

[223]. Cf. Grassi, Laugh, 29; Darr, Character Building, 85–126; see further discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:471–72. In Acts, they appear more as positive legitimators (Gowler, Host, Guest, 301–5, esp. on their acceptance of the consensus in Acts 15:22; cf. Carroll, “Portrayal of Pharisees”; but contrast Kingsbury, “Pharisees in Luke-Acts”).

[224]. As Johnson, Acts, 11, notes, “Each movement of the Gospel away from Jerusalem also circles back to it (see 8:14; 11:1–18, 29–30; 12:25; 15:2; 18:22; 19:21; 20:16; 21:13; 25:1).”

[225]. Cf. decisions of others unintentionally supporting God’s plan in foundational biblical tradition (Gen 13:9–12; 36:6–8).

[226]. Cf. Diod. Sic. 19.66.6, where citizens killed any fellow citizens who had befriended the conquerors. Internal conflicts over mixing with other cultures was common in ancient societies (see Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 167–70; not to mention many modern societies).

[227]. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.210; t. Demai 2:5; Sipre Num. 71.2.1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:20; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 64b; cf. Jos. Ant. 20.41, 44; Philo Virt. 219; b. Šabb. 145b–146a; Gal 5:3; less relevant is CD XVI, 4–5 (on converts to the Essene sect); b. Bek. 30b, bar. (becoming a haber). Efficacious baptism required repentance (1QS V, 13–14; b. Taʿan. 16a; Pesiq. Rab. 44:1). Nevertheless, keeping all of a people’s regulations and customs was naturally easier for those who grew up with them (Plut. Lect. 2, Mor. 37EF).

[228]. Esp. b. Šabb. 31a (“while standing on one foot” may be idiomatic for doing something with ease; cf. Hor. Sat. 1.4.10), though the evidence for this story is much later than Hillel and Shammai (Sanders, Judaism, 258); cf. Theissen, Sociology, 83; more speculatively, Falk, Jesus, 49–53, 75. For these Pharisees’ insistence on law keeping as well as circumcision, cf. also the perspective in Knox, Jerusalem, 224–25.

[229]. This is not an appeal simply to “experience” in a general sense, then used to provoke a new reading of Scripture. The appeal is to dramatic and clear signs of God’s activity, such as undisputed miracles.

[230]. For questions of how public, see comment on Acts 15:4. North, “IDEIN PERI,” suggests that the expression “see concerning” is grammatically a Latinism. (About one-third of the uses of περί and ὁράω in the NT are in Luke-Acts, but this is their only link there in this form.)

[231]. Witherington, Acts, 450. See also Welborn, “Discord,” on Paul’s approach in 1 Cor 1–4; for “concord” as the opposite of στάσις, see, e.g., Jos. War 6.215; Dio Chrys. Or. 34.18–19 (in different words); 38.8; 40.26; Lucian Hermot. 22; for στάσις as a terrible evil, Dio Chrys. Or. 1.82; 38.15; 39.8; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.38; Ep. Apoll. 76.

[232]. Witherington, Acts, 451.

[233]. Ibid.

[234]. Unity between the groups would be important: when such different leadership groups came to different conclusions instead of acting in harmony, it made a group look disorganized (Dio Chrys. Or. 34.16).

[235]. In classical Athens and late republican Rome, an assembly of free male adult citizens made most decisions (see, e.g., Gizewski, “Comitia,” 621–22); in some other states, property owners did so (see discussion at Acts 6:5).

[236]. Dunn, Acts, 200.

[237]. On Peter’s speech generally, see, e.g., discussion in Neubrand, Völker, 92–107.

[238]. This was acceptable (see comment on Acts 10:36–42). On the narratio in 15:7–9, see also Okoronkwo, Compromise, 175–77. For rhetorically emphatic repetition of vocabulary throughout the chapter, see ibid., 89.

[239]. Soards, Acts, 90; Witherington, Acts, 453; Okoronkwo, Compromise, 174, 201.

[240]. For historical evidence from Galatians, see Theissen, Gospels, 222–23 (he also contends that the comity agreement was violated by the mid-50s, and thinks that the tradition is therefore earlier [224]). The agreement was, however, probably never exclusive (see Watson, Gentiles, 72–73; the introduction to Acts 10).

[241]. Heath, “Invention,” 91–92; see comment on Acts 11:17. See also, e.g., Soranus Gynec. 1.2.5.

[242]. Zwiep, Community, 172, rightly notes that Luke emphasizes the role of Peter and James rather than Paul in resolving the question of circumcising Gentiles. Paul’s account in Galatians offers a different emphasis.

[243]. See, e.g., Refoulé, “Discours de Pierre”; Hanson, Acts, 38. Again, against some interpreters, I do not believe that Luke’s emphasis or selection of data means that he fabricates the data he presents.

[244]. Those wishing to praise founders sometimes portrayed them as welcoming foreigners (Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 173, comparing Romulus).

[245]. Both Acts and Galatians present Peter, James, and Paul as moderates compared with the more stringent options (Acts 15:5; Gal 2:4), but with James more conservative than Peter, and Peter than Paul (Brown, Donfried, and Reumann, Peter, 162, including n. 343; Hengel, Peter, 52).

[246]. Perhaps like Pharisees refusing to eat with am haaretz, or perhaps (with Hill, Hellenists, 134, 141–42) Jewish Christians relaxing their own standard when eating with Gentiles.

[247]. Unless one reads “the faith” here in its usual sense in the Pastorals and in Acts 6:5, 7; 13:8; 14:22; 16:5 (with Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 173); but the articular use in Acts need not mean this (3:16) and, when speaking of salvation (15:11), likely does not (13:39, 48). The context (πιστεῦσαι in 15:7) clinches the usage here. Walker, “Paulinization,” contends that Peter is too “Pauline” here.

[248]. Gamaliel in Acts 5:35–39; Pervo, Story, 51.

[249]. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:284–86.

[250]. See Witherington, Acts, 456.

[251]. One Petrine text (2 Pet 3:15) speaks favorably of Paul; less disputedly, Paul speaks respectfully of Peter (1 Cor 15:5; Gal 1:18) despite their conflict in Gal 2:11–14.

[252]. See fuller discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:258–319.

[253]. Luke has already served notice in early speeches in his Gospel (Luke 3:18) and Acts (2:40) that speakers offered “other words”; he does not need to repeat that warning here.

[254]. For the value of functional redundancy here, see Witherup, “Cornelius Over Again”; for sensitivity to the internal narrator in depictions of retellings, see Kurz, “Effects of Variant Narrators.” For Luke’s usual schema of retellings, see Maloney, Narration of Works, 137–72. The one activity for which the angel preserved Peter (12:7–11) that is explicitly narrated by Luke is this defense of the Gentile mission (15:7–11, his only appearance after ch. 12), though of course Luke does not claim to offer more than samples of God’s activity (cf. 2:17–18). For Cornelius as a positive character in Acts, see esp. Flessen, Man.

[255]. E.g., t. Piska 2:15–16; Sipre Deut. 221.1.1; y. B. Meṣiʿa 2:11, §1; Nid. 1:4, §2; Sanh. 7:2, §4; Yebam. 4:11, §8.

[256]. See, e.g., Xen. Cyr. 8.6.10; Epict. Diatr. 4.8.31; Diogenes Ep. 14; 4 Macc 9:23; 1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; John 13:35; cf. Cic. Fam. 9.14.6; though Malherbe, Philosophers, 57, notes that most philosophers were hesitant to use themselves as examples (see, e.g., the disclaimer in Sen. Y. Dial. 7.18.1).

[257]. Le Cornu, Acts, 820. The Greek term can mean “beginning” but also simply “a long time ago” (BDAG).

[258]. Similarly, David’s role did not exalt David but fulfilled God’s purpose (13:36); likewise, power to share the Spirit was a divine gift that could not be purchased (8:19, 24) or earned. Peter knew from the point of his calling that his calling to be a fisher of people (Luke 5:10) depended not on his merit (5:8) but on the one who multiplied the fish accessible to human labor (5:4–6). Nevertheless, God’s determination of a person’s heart plays a role (Acts 1:24; here applicable, however, to Cornelius’s household, 15:8). Parsons, Acts, 211, rightly observes that “God is the subject of most of the verbs” in this speech.

[259]. E.g., Acts 1:16; 3:18, 21; 4:25; Luke 1:70; also Matt 18:16; 2 Chr 36:21–22; 1 Esd 1:57; 2:1; Ezra 1:1; Prov 11:11; Jer 44:26; 1 En. 108:6; cf. 3 Bar. 6:16; for the exact phrase, cf. Barn. 11.8.

[260]. Cf., e.g., Eph 3:5–6 (probably referring to the Spirit’s prophetic sort of revelation about Gentiles to God’s agents); perhaps presupposed in Gal 3:2–3, 5, 14.

[261]. Emphasized by others, e.g., Nunnally, Acts, 270. Menzies, Empowered, 215–18, suggests that Luke here identifies the gift of the Spirit with prophetic inspiration, not with salvation, because the sign on which Luke focuses is tongues-speech. He contends that the “cleansing” of Acts 15:9 constitutes the prerequisite for, rather than a synonymous or necessarily simultaneous experience with, the gift of the Spirit (217; cf. also Haya-Prats, Believers, 141–42). The question cannot be decided grammatically here but can be decided only by recourse to the fuller narrative in Acts 10 (see discussion there).

[262]. DeSilva, Honor, 287; cf. Wenham, Leviticus, 180–82.

[263]. Although Jesus performed physical “cleansing” of lepers (Luke 5:13–14; 7:22; 17:14; cf. 4:27) and others and cast out “unclean” spirits (e.g., 4:36; 6:18; 9:42), he emphasized moral purity (11:39–41) and did not feel constrained by traditional interpretations of cultic purity regulations (5:13; 7:14; 8:45–48, 54; but cf. 2:24).

[264]. Josephus finds both sorts of purification in the ministry of John the Baptist; see Ant. 18.116–17.

[265]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.17, 28; 4, p. 44.25; 16, p. 104.35; 18B, p. 118.4–5; Epict. Encheir. 33.6, 8; Iamblichus Letter 4.5–6 (Stob. Anth. 3.3.26); 13, frg. 2.7 (Anth. 2.2.7); 16, frg. 2.1–2 (Anth. 3.1.49); cf. Men. Rhet. 2.10, 416.7–8; cf. 1 Cor 6:11; 2 Cor 7:1; 2 Tim 2:21; Heb 9:14; 10:22; 2 Pet 1:9; 1 John 1:7, 9.

[266]. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 4.11.3, 5; Iambl. V.P. 16.70; Philost. Hrk. 7.3; Iamblichus Letter 16, frg. 4 (Stob. Anth. 4.39.23); Proclus Poet. 5, K49.30; Porph. Marc. 11.204; 15.255–56 (cf. also 23.368; 24.374–76; 26.402–3).

[267]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 44.25; Sir 38:10; 2 Cor 7:1; Jas 4:8; 2 Pet 1:9.

[268]. E.g., one who prostituted himself could not become a priest because his body was unclean (Aeschines Tim. 19).

[269]. One may debate whether the perfect participle ῥεραντισμένοι in Heb 10:22 is middle or passive, but passive seems likelier (as also with the body’s λελουσμένοι in the same verse); for something one does to oneself, cf. the hitpael verb for consecration in 4Q393 3 5. The description “pure heart” is also fairly common; see Gen 20:5–6; Ps 24:4 (LXX 23:4); Matt 5:8 (cf. Mark 7:19); 1 Tim 1:5; 2 Tim 2:22; variant in 1 Pet 1:22.

[270]. The image could involve judgment, sometimes eschatological; early Jewish texts also could describe the flood as a “cleansing” of the earth (1 En. 106:17) or speak of the Messiah purging (καθαριεῖ) Jerusalem to restore it in holiness (ἐν ἁγιασμῷ, Pss. Sol. 17:30).

[271]. Which a majority of scholars still associate especially with Essenes. The extant scrolls and fragments contain more than two hundred references to purity and purification.

[272]. See Daube, “Concessions to Sinfulness”; cf. Mark 10:5; 1 Cor 7:6.

[273]. Daube, “Concessions to Sinfulness,” 8 (citing b. B. Bat. 60b; cf. t. Soṭah 15:10).

[274]. Secular Greek uses πειράζω, “test,” for seeking to evaluate or prove character (Gibson, “Testing,” 1207–11; for a wide range of meaning, see further BDAG), which was acceptable behavior from a deity toward mortals but certainly not the reverse. See also comment on Acts testing at Acts 5:7–10.

[275]. Exod 15:24–25; 17:2, 7; Num 14:22; Deut 6:16; Ps 77:18, 41, 56 (78:18, 41, 56 ET); Isa 7:12; Wis 1:2; Fitzmyer, Acts, 547; Gaventa, Acts, 216.

[276]. Later rabbis emphasized being as lenient or strict with others as one was with oneself (ʾAbot R. Nat. 23, §46 B); but we need not suppose that everyone thought that law teachers always achieved this ethical ideal.

[277]. With Bruce, Acts¹, 293.

[278]. With Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 173; Barrett, Acts, 717.

[279]. Luke did not, however, invent the saying in Luke 11:46 (cf. Matt 23:4).

[280]. See Applebaum, “Economic Life,” 651, and sources there. For plows as early as the fourth millennium B.C.E. in Egypt and Mesopotamia, see Hruska, “Plough,” 405; for the design of Mediterranean plows, see Ruffing, “Plough” (and for various kinds of plows, 407, following Pliny N.H. 18.171–72).

[281]. A person who carried a yoke to pull other loads would lay it on his neck and shoulders, with his hands grasping chains or rope attached to each end of the yoke (Jeremias, Parables, 194). One would normally expect to find such a burden only on the shoulders of the poor (compare Test. Job 7:1 with Jastrow, Dictionary, 1:94).

[282]. Here the lector would likely gesture toward the neck (Shiell, Reading Acts, 176, suggesting also that the lector’s inflection could have guided early hearers’ understanding of the now-debated meaning of the law as a yoke).

[283]. Cf. a “millstone around the neck” as an encumbrance (b. Qidd. 29b, bar.; Vermes, Religion, 84).

[284]. E.g., Gen 27:40; 1 Kgs 12:9–14; 2 Chr 10:4–14; Isa 10:27; 14:25; Jer 27:8–12; 28:12, 14; 1 En. 103:11; Sib. Or. 3.391–92, 448, 508, 537, 567; cf. López Fernández, “Yugo.” God had lifted the yoke of literal slavery from his people (Hos 11:4) and promised to do so again at the new exodus (Isa 10:27; 14:25); the eschatological community dare not impose such yokes.

[285]. Babr. 37.1–2, 10–12. “Yoking” together in partnership or marriage was a quite different application of the metaphor (2 Cor 6:14; Phil 4:3; Val. Max. 2.9.6a).

[286]. On this humiliation, see also Tac. Ann. 15.15.

[287]. E.g., b. Moʾed Qaṭ. 16b (the yoke of repentance); y. Qidd. 1:2, §24; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:18; Gen. Rab. 67:7; Lam. Rab. 3:27, §9; Pesiq. Rab. 21:16; cf. also Maher, “Yoke,” 98–100; Urbach, Sages, 1:400–419.

[288]. See Jer 5:5; 2 Bar. 41:3; m. ʾAb. 3:5; Sipra Sh. pq. 12.121.2.5; Sipre Deut. 344.4.2; in later sources, b. Ber. 12b; 13a; 14b; Pesiq. Rab. 21:16; Exod. Rab. 15:11; Num. Rab. 19:26. It contrasts with the yoke of subjugation to Rome (m. ʾAb. 3:5) and to the four kingdoms (Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:18). See the yoke of Wisdom’s teaching in Sir 51:26.

[289]. M. Ber. 2:2, 5; Sipra Behar par. 5.255.1.9, 11; b. Ber. 13a; 14b–15a; y. Ber. 2:2, §2. It contrasts with the yoke of mortals in t. B. Qam. 7:5; y. Qidd. 1:2, §24; cf. the yoke of Babylon’s kingdom (b. Sanh. 89a, based on eisegesis).

[290]. B. Yebam. 47b. Later rabbis might also apply this language to Gentiles being unable to follow the law (Le Cornu, Acts, 823, cites Lev. Rab. 13:2).

[291]. So rightly many commentators (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 174; Fitzmyer, Acts, 548). Some teachers spoke figuratively of a “load” of one’s teaching that a disciple carried (Diog. Laert. 7.170; Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 84; cf. Luke 11:46).

[292]. Some later sages did warn against overburdening proselytes once they had converted (Le Cornu, Acts, 824, cites b. Yebam. 47ab), and the rabbis regarded as invalid any ordinance impossible for the people to keep (835, citing b. ʿAbod. Zar. 36a).

[293]. Le Cornu, Acts, 835.

[294]. E.g., most new Gentile converts who had to work daily (including slaves) would find the Sabbath, though a genuinely universal biblical principle (Gen 2:2), an impossible conflict with their originating culture, especially since they could not simply work as part of the Jewish community if they were not welcome there.

[295]. Note especially the contrast between Jesus’s rest in Matt 11:29 and the Sabbath controversy in 12:1–14; see Keener, Matthew, 348, 350.

[296]. See, at much greater length, Keener, John, 749–52, from which I have excerpted comments in this paragraph.

[297]. Lucan C.W. 7.445; Corn. Nep. 8 (Thrasybulus), 1.5; Cic. Att. 14.14; Phil. 3.5.12; 3.11.29; 3.13.33; 6.7.19; 14.14.37; Sen. E. Historical Frg. 1; Pliny Ep. 3.5.5; 8.14.2–3; Tac. Agr. 2–3; Ann. 1.7; Iambl. V.P. 32.220; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.15.498; 1.486; Jos. Ant. 19.227.

[298]. E.g., Lysias Or. 2.21, §192; Demosth. Philip. 3.36; 4.25; Isoc. Peace 105; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.23.20; Diod. Sic. 33.25.1; Sall. Jug. 102.6; Mith. 10; Vell. Paterc. 2.27.2; Appian Hist. rom. 8.9.56; Corn. Nep. 15 (Epaminondas), 5.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 38.27; 64.18; Tac. Hist. 4.64; Ann. 4.72; Hdn. 3.2.8; 1 Macc 2:11; Jos. Ant. 18.4; Sipra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.8; in Jos. Ant. 6.238–350, see Lavan, “Slaves.”

[299]. E.g., Arrian Alex. 3.11.2; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 8.7; 27.4; Plut. Lect. 1, Mor. 37E; Superst. 5, Mor. 167B (Plutarch includes Judaism among superstitions, Superst. 8, Mor. 169C). One is also a slave of goals that one serves (Philost. Hrk. 53.2). One should seek freedom from fearing death (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 80.4–6, esp. 80.6).

[300]. A pervasive topic, e.g., Aeschines Tim. 42; Xen. Oec. 1.22–23; Hell. 4.8.22; Apol. 16; Mem. 1.3.8, 11; 1.5.1, 5; 4.5.3, 5; Soph. Antig. 756; Wom. Tr. 488–89; Plato Phaedr. 238E; Isoc. Demon. 21; Nic. 39 (Or. 3.34); Arrian Alex. 4.9.1; Diod. Sic. 10.9.4; 32.10.9; Sall. Catil. 2.8; Speech to Caesar 8.2; Cic. Amic. 22.82; Off. 1.29.102; 1.38.136; 2.5.18; Senect. 14.47; Prov. cons. 1.2; Hor. Sat. 2.7.83–87; Tibullus 2.4.1–3; Appian Bell. civ. 5.1.8–9; Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.19; Sen. Y. Ben. 3.28.4; Ep. Lucil. 14.1; 39.6; 47.17; 110.9–10; 116.1; Nat. Q. 1.16.1; Epict. Diatr. 3.24.70–71, 75; Dio Chrys. Or. 4.6, 60; 18.9; 32.90; Plut. Bride 33, Mor. 142E; Pliny Ep. 7.26.2; Max. Tyre 36.6; Porph. Marc. 34.523–25; Ach. Tat. 1.7.2–3; 5.25.6; Longin. Subl. 44.6; Diog. Laert. 2.75; 6.2.66; Diogenes Ep. 12; Heraclitus Ep. 9; Socratics Ep. 14; Pyth. Sent. 21, 23; Apul. Metam. 11.15; Libanius Comp. 1.7; 5.8; Speech in Character 16.2; Invect. 7.7; Descr. 30.18–19; Sir 47:19. In Stoicism, see further Erskine, Stoa, 44–46; Klauck, Context, 372–77; Bobzien, “Freedom.”

[301]. E.g., 4 Macc 3:2; 13:1–2; Test. Ash. 3:2; 6:5; Test. Jos. 7:8; Test. Jud. 18:6; Jos. Ant. 1.74; 4.133; 15.88; War 1.243; Philo Abr. 241; Alleg. Interp. 2.49; Creation 165; Good Person 17; Heir 269; Unchangeable 111; cf. Decharneux, “Interdits”; Let. Aris. 211, 221–23; Test. Jud. 15:2, 5; Test. Sim. 3:4; John 8:33; Rom 6:6–23; 16:18; 1 Cor 6:12; Phil 3:19. See also Hezser, “Impact,” 420.

[302]. Odeberg, Gospel, 297–301; idem, Pharisaism, 50–52, 56; cf. Gen. Rab. 94:8; Wis 1:4. Cf. freedom from the hostile angel in CD XVI, 4–6; from the angel of death in late material in Exod. Rab. 41:7; 51:8; Num. Rab. 16:24; Song Rab. 8:6, §1; from astrological powers in t. Sukkah 2:6; b. Ned. 32a.

[303]. For discussions of freedom in Pauline thought, see, e.g., Chamblin, “Freedom”; Longenecker, Paul, 156–60, 170–208; Ridderbos, Paul: Outline, 288–93.

[304]. See, e.g., Pliny Ep. 5.6.44; Hermog. Progymn. 8, “On Syncrisis,” 18–20; Keener, John, 916–17, 966–69, 1183–84 and notes, at length. For “how much more” arguments, see Keener, John, 716–17, 742, 829, 931, 939, 1184. For the argumentative force of Peter’s interrogatio in Acts 15:10, see Okoronkwo, Compromise, 176–77.

[305]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. frg. 23; Amos 1:3–2:6; Rom 1:18–2:29.

[306]. Soards, Speeches, 90, 92.

[307]. E.g., Demosth. Philip. 3.15; Dion. Hal. Demosth. 54; Cic. Or. Brut. 40.137; Mus. Ruf. 15, p. 98.25–27; Jos. Life 340; Ag. Ap. 1.314–15. Most often these are (frequently imaginary) interlocutors’ objections to be refuted, e.g., Lysias Or. 10.22–23, §118; Cic. Rosc. Amer. 18.52; Sull. 21.60; Scaur. 11.24; Lig. 5.12; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 66.40; 92.14; 94.32; 102.8–10, 18; Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 46.13; 12, p. 86.20; 15, p. 98.18; Dio Chrys. Or. 50.9; Pliny Ep. 7.17.5; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.12; Max. Tyre 3.5; 25.4; 27.8. On answering one’s own rhetorical questions, see, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 14, 51.

[308]. Johnson, Acts, 263. For one example of the semantic range, inscriptions support the translation “gift” in patronal settings (deSilva, “Patronage,” 768; also 2 Cor 8:19).

[309]. Salvation is associated specifically with grace in Eph 2:5, 8 and probably in 2 Tim 1:9; frequently in undisputed Pauline texts, e.g., Rom 3:24; 4:16; 5:2, 8–9, 15–21. Luke’s use of “grace” for power (Acts 4:33; 6:8) is also familiar from Paul (Rom 1:5; 12:3, 6; 15:15; Eph 3:2, 7–8; 4:7). If one reads, “through grace we believe,” the phrase in Acts 18:27 may be parallel, but in 15:11 most read “through grace” with “are saved.”

[310]. Probably also 1 Pet 3:7; 2 Pet 3:18. In the sense of power, cf. 1 Pet 4:10.

[311]. See deSilva, “Patronage,” 768. For other senses of the term, see comment on Acts 6:8.

[312]. Cf. Danker, Corinthians, 117–18; Judge, “Rhetoric of Inscriptions,” 815.

[313]. Harrison, Grace, 2 (also very closely, 63); see more fully 50–53; in the papyri, 72–84; in philosophers, 166–209. It also applied to deities (85–87, 183–91, 349–50) and emperors (2–3, 87–90). It could refer to unmerited favor even when it was unjust favoritism (e.g., Men. Rhet. 2.10, 416.8–9, 15; see comment on Acts 24:27; 25:9).

[314]. Harrison, Grace, 114–33, including reciprocity (128–30); but he critiques the transaction view of benefaction characteristic of the inscriptions (130–32), especially showing that God’s χάρις differs (131).

[315]. Ibid., 133–35, 138–40, 145–46 (for the reciprocity ethic, see 140–45).

[316]. Robinson, Ephesians, 221 (treating χάρις more broadly in 221–28). In the first century, Philo and Paul often replace ἔλεος with χάρις (Harrison, Grace, 108–9). Judaism widely recognized the need to depend on God’s mercy and grace (Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 90, §237; Flusser, Judaism, 35).

[317]. Winger, “Grace,” argues that Paul weights this and other abstract nouns with the semantic content of cognate verbs.

[318]. Cf. Heb 2:9; 4:16; 13:9; 1 Pet 1:10, 13; Jude 4; 1 Clem. 7.4; 8.1; Ign. Eph. 11.1; Magn. 8.1; Philad. 8.1; 11.1.

[319]. It might be significant that Luke’s final and perhaps climactic use of the term σημεῖον is connected with testimony to the Gentile mission (as Matthew Sleeman has kindly brought to my attention). I do not believe, however, that Luke would restrict use of the term to events leading up to this point. By analogy, Scripture citations do not appear often after ch. 15, but Luke hardly believes that they are no longer useful in appropriate settings. Sometimes variations in style explain the presence of a term in some places but not in others; for example, the phrase τί σοι καὶ ἡμῖν is more dominant in particular sections of Epictetus than in others. Before 10.419, the Odyssey often prefers διοτρεφές, “fostered by Zeus” (e.g., Hom. Od. 4.26, 44, 63, 138, 156, 235, 291, 316, 391, 561; 5.378; 10.266, 419), but in books 10 through 14 διογενές, “born from Zeus,” becomes the preferred term regardless of the speaker (e.g., Hom. Od. 10.443, 456, 488, 504; 11.60, 92, 405, 473, 617; 13.375; 14.486). More specifically: σημεῖον is not always employed even in the sections that use the term elsewhere—thus, for example, it does not appear in Peter’s ministry to Aeneas or Tabitha, which brought Lydda, Sharon, and much of Joppa to faith. The sorts of miracles described as “signs” in other places, such as healing through contact with Peter in Acts 5:12–16, appear without that label elsewhere, such as healing through contact with Paul in Acts 19:11–12. By comparison, δυνάμεις, the term often translated “miracles,” appears only three times in Acts, two before this point and one afterward (2:22; 8:13; 19:11). Signs attested the message of grace (14:3); since Luke anticipates both that message and the Gentile mission continuing until the consummation, he presumably anticipates the same for the signs attesting it. Luke’s description of events with the same content as late as Acts 28:8–9, in fact, suggests that these works continue. Luke has attached the signs label to the same sorts of events frequently enough that he can no doubt expect his hearers to understand such events in this way even where he omits the label. Similarly, although he does not report baptism with most conversions, he presumably expects hearers to infer it from the earlier occasions in the work where it is narrated. Luke is not obligated to employ terms in the same way as Paul, but for what it is worth, Paul in Rom 15:18–19 seems to associate signs and wonders with his ministry from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and his ministry to Illyricum came after Acts 15.

[320]. See Keener, Acts, 1:538, 546–49.

[321]. Luke never uses “signs” for the false activity, even when reporting genuine signs in the context (e.g., Acts 8:6, 13). Interestingly, although Luke retains false messianic claimants from Mark 13:6 (Luke 21:8), he omits the false prophets’ “signs” (Mark 13:11).

[322]. Bauckham, “James,” 452; t. Yebam. 14:6 (see further the section “Rabbinic Mistrust of Miracles,” Keener, Acts, 1:548–49).

[323]. With Bauckham, “James,” 452.

[324]. By contrast, Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 32.5–17, insists (probably against a common practice) that there is no need to give multiple proofs, just strong ones.

[325]. For the use of this literary device in ancient texts, see Aune, Environment, 127–28 (citing various sources, including Jos. War 1.638; 2.33; 3.383).

[326]. See BDAG and sources there; used in Lucian Peregr. 11 with reference to Christian writings, though not as a technical term.

[327]. Luke’s use (five of six NT uses) is not unique, but it is consistent and distinctive. The verb appears eight times in the LXX, only sometimes (Judg 7:13; 2 Kgs 8:5; cf. 1 Macc 3:26; 2 Macc 2:13) in the sense that Luke uses consistently; cf. perhaps Herm. 23.5. It appears nineteen times in Josephus, not regularly in this sense; twice in Philo, not in this sense.

[328]. On the experience-informed hermeneutic, see, e.g., Alexander, “This Is That.” Neither institutional authority, nor Scripture alone (Shelton, “Epistemology”), nor experience alone produced the solution.

[329]. E.g., t. Piska 2:15–16; Sipre Deut. 221.1.1.

[330]. Le Cornu, Acts, 831.

[331]. Naming Barnabas first probably fits the Jerusalem perspective (Acts 15:25; Dunn, Acts, 203), but it probably also indicates that Barnabas takes the lead somehow (though this is not the impression that a reader gets in Galatians). Apart from 14:14, Paul is normally named first after 13:9 except here and 15:25 (mentioned in the not-yet-published observations of J. B. Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 4, shared with me by Ben Witherington III, May 10, 2013).

[332]. Cf. “the many” in the Qumran scrolls (Driver, Scrolls, 521; cf. 2 Cor 2:6). But again, Luke employs the term in a variety of ways.

[333]. Ancient rhetorical critics appreciated conciseness, but they condemned it when it made one’s writing obscure (Dion. Hal. 2 Amm. 2).

[334]. With Fitzmyer, Acts, 548, who takes silence as consent. Cf. Mus. Ruf. frg. 49, p. 142.19–28 (in van der Horst, “Musonius,” 309). Perhaps they were speaking (imperfect) once the multitude became quiet (aorist; or perhaps the multitude “fell silent” as they were speaking; though Robertson, Grammar, 18.2.b.γ, pp. 837–40, expects the distinction between aorist and imperfect to be significant, he acknowledges that the reasons for the distinction are not always obvious).

[335]. See comment on Acts 2:13. Holding the attention of an ancient public assembly took considerable skill (Plut. Demosth. 7.1–3). Heckling was, undoubtedly, disallowed here, though this assembly would be less strict than Qumran’s (cf. the danger of interrupting a fellow, 1QS VI, 10; VII, 9–10).

[336]. An analogous situation today might be when churches of dominant cultures (earlier sending cultures) hear reports from other cultures that challenge their presuppositions about the ways that God works (cf. González, Acts, 179–80).

[337]. Mus. Ruf. frg. 49, p. 142.21–28, adds an illustration from Hom. Od. 18.1–2.

[338]. For one recent and extensive discussion of James’s speech, see Neubrand, Völker, 108–249. For the characterization of God in the speech, see Cheng, Characterisation, 164–68.

[339]. With Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 252.

[340]. Despite Acts 1:14. Like others, James would remain a brother of the Jerusalem church (12:17; 15:13), but Luke does not specify his kinship to Jesus.

[341]. For appointing relatives, see, e.g., Xen. Hell. 3.4.29; 1 Chr 2:16; 27:34 (though cf. 11:6); Neh 7:2. See comment on Acts 12:17.

[342]. Euseb. H.E. 2.23; Reicke, Era, 215.

[343]. Davids, James, 19.

[344]. Jervell, Luke and People of God, 196–99, thinks that Luke’s audience is Jewish Christian and respects James but that Luke liberalizes him in support of Paul, whom it trusts less. Although I question this reconstruction of Luke’s audience (who may have already respected Paul), this was the appropriate technique for rhetorical invention: if, e.g., a cautious old man takes a hard line, it “carries more weight” than if it were “a younger, more impetuous speaker” (Heath, “Invention,” 91). Paul’s orthodoxy (Acts 18:18; 21:26) functions the same way.

[345]. Just as Caesar, being away from Rome, could not build his constituency, leaving him vulnerable to his critics (e.g., Suet. Jul. 28), though Caesar had more deliberate allies in Rome (e.g., Jul. 26–29).

[346]. Bruce, Peter, 91–92. Nevertheless, the speeches of Peter and James here reinforce one another; for a comparison, cf. Rost, “Aposteldekret,” 602.

[347]. Robertson, Luke, 225.

[348]. Cf. Bruce, Acts¹, 298. On LXX quotations and influence in the Epistle of James, see Dodd, Bible and Greeks, 40; Davids, James, 58–59, 103, 113, 150 (though noting that James does not follow the LXX slavishly and our evidence is limited, 10–11); this may be due to James’s Diaspora audience (Longenecker, Exegesis, 188–89; Painter, James, 24). Ropes, James, 25, calculates that of 570 words in James, only 25 (i.e., less than 5 percent) are missing from the LXX. James’s Greek is generally more sophisticated than that of the LXX (Sloyan, “James,” 29), not less.

[349]. Noted by Carter and Earle, Acts, 215.

[350]. My point is not that Jewish sources avoided citing Rahab as an example (they did not; cf. prophets descended from her in Sipre Deut. 357.2.1; Ruth Rab. 2:1; cf. further Jos. Ant. 5.8–30; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 13:5; Song Rab. 1:3, §3; Manns, “Jacques 2, 24–26”; Bamberger, Proselytism, 193–95; Johnson, Genealogies, 162) but that what little evidence we do have could suggest that James was not against receiving Gentiles (i.e., he did not follow the strictest approach toward Gentiles in Donaldson’s typology).

[351]. Bauckham, “James,” 462–63.

[352]. For a lengthy defense, see Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 154–84.

[353]. He may speak last as the church’s “senior” voice, settling the issue (Tanner, “Quotation,” 65). Cf. the rabbinic tradition that the younger members of the Sanhedrin would speak first lest the views of their elders intimidate and so restrict the expression of their opinions (cf. m. Sanh. 4:2; Stauffer, Jesus and Story, 126; Blinzler, Trial, 135), though this may project rabbinic values back onto a largely Sadducean body.

[354]. Speakers in Acts occasionally use “Men, brothers,” as opposed to geographic or ethnic indicators (such as “Men of Jerusalem,” “men of Athens,” “Men, Israelites”), for believers (Acts 1:16; 15:7, 13); but the address is by no means primarily restricted to them (2:29, 37; 7:2; 13:15, 26; 22:1; 23:6; 28:17).

[355]. Witherington, Acts, 456. For the theological unity of the speeches, see Okoronkwo, Compromise, 193–94 (less persuasively, for structural unity, 190–93).

[356]. Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 154.

[357]. So Fuller, Gospel, 179. This refutes the traditional dispensational schema in which taking the Gentiles must precede rebuilding David’s tent (Acts 15:16; Strombeck, Rapture, 62, whose argument would be fallacious, in any case, because, even in his view, the Gentiles should come in during the final tribulation with Israel’s conversion at the end); “after these things” does not refer to what James has said but is midrashic explanation of Amos’s “in that day” (Amos 9:11), like Peter’s “in the last days” for “afterward” (Acts 2:17). Kaiser (“Inclusion of Gentiles”; cf. esp. 107) sees the promise theme expanded in the OT and the NT, as an alternative to traditional forms of dispensational or covenant options.

[358]. As at the exodus (Exod 3:16; 4:31; Acts 7:23; see Tannehill, Acts, 187).

[359]. Conzelmann, Acts, 117.

[360]. With Kistemaker, Acts, 551.

[361]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 554, also cites the application to Israel in the Palestinian Targum to Exod 6:7.

[362]. With, e.g., Jervell, Luke and People of God, 190; Kaiser, “Inclusion of Gentiles,” 103. The exact expression appears in Amos 9:12 LXX, but “God’s name called on” his people appears in the MT of Deut 28:10; 2 Chr 7:14.

[363]. E.g., Parsons, “Progymnasmata,” 60, noting Acts 15:14 as the only exception (and that Luke’s first four uses appear in different cases, a rhetorical device for emphasizing a term); also Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 6 (from Witherington).

[364]. For Israel or Jewish people (following the usual LXX usage; occasionally specifically in contradistinction to Gentiles), see Luke 1:10, 17, 77; 2:10, 32; 3:15, 18, 21; 7:1, 16, 29; 8:47; 9:13; 18:43; 19:47–48; 20:1, 6, 9, 19, 26, 45; 21:23, 38; 22:2, 66; 23:5, 13–14, 27, 35; 24:19; Acts 2:47; 3:9, 11–12, 23; 4:1–2, 8, 10, 17, 21; 5:12–13, 20, 25–26, 34, 37; 6:8, 12; 7:17, 34; 10:2, 41–42; 12:4, 11; 13:15, 17, 24, 31; 19:4; 21:28, 30, 36, 39–40; 23:5; 26:17, 23; 28:17, 26–27; for both Jews and Gentiles in Luke 2:31 (in light of 2:32); 6:17. Even Acts 4:25 refers to Israel (see 4:27). Acts 18:10 might apply to God’s “people” in a sense that includes Gentiles (see comment there).

[365]. Conzelmann, Acts, 117 (contrasting Deut 26:18–19); similarly, Cerfaux, Church, 20; Dupont, “Peuple d’entre les nations”; Bruce, Acts¹, 297; Tannehill, Acts, 187. For the transformation of the content of the “people of God” concept in Luke-Acts, while emphasizing continuity, see Seccombe, “People,” 349–72, esp. 370–72.

[366]. See Tannehill, Acts, 187.

[367]. Williams, “Names,” 93; cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 554; Brown, Death, 915. A patriarchal name, it remained common in rabbinic literature. Greeks already used “Simon” (e.g., Lysias Or. 3.1, §96).

[368]. Witherington, Acts, 458, thinks that it also fits Luke’s interest as an ethnographic historian.

[369]. Since his name “Kephas” was known in Pauline churches (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14; cf. John 1:42), it is not impossible that Luke’s audience would also understand Peter’s original name “Simon” to reflect a Semitic original, i.e., the biblical “Simeon.”

[370]. 1 Macc 2:65; perhaps so named for the father’s grandfather (1 Macc 2:1). With Gaventa, Acts, 218.

[371]. 1 Macc 5:17, 20–21, 55; 9:19, 33, 37, 62, 65, 67; 10:74, 82; 11:59, 64–65; 12:38; etc. If the bulk of the material in the book was originally composed in Hebrew (Rost, Judaism, 76), the Greek name could come from the translation, but the Greek form was in any case the form in which the work was known in the first century C.E.

[372]. Cf. also Gaventa, Acts, 218.

[373]. Wall, “Comment(ary)ing”; also Chrys. Hom. Acts 33 (also noted in Gaventa, Acts, 218). Riesner, “Hymn,” 278, thinks the matter worthy of consideration (though not certain); Green, “Acts,” 754, also allows for the possibility. Wall, “Acts,” 213n518, acknowledges the possibility but also thinks (213, 217) that this is an Aramaic name for Peter (so that Wall may make the connection with Luke 2 on the level of Luke’s audience). More surprising is the allusion to the third-century B.C.E. priest Simeon the Just, via Sirach (Read-Heimerdinger, “Simeon”); this Simeon is blended with others in rabbinic sources (Amitay, “Shim‘on”).

[374]. Who might represent the at least putative source of Luke’s infancy traditions; cf. Acts 21:18, in the “we” narrative, though Luke has no private interview with James there.

[375]. Historians had some freedom to fill in a scene if their hard information was limited. Yet if not from Paul, then from Judeans Luke spoke with during his Judean visit, Luke should have heard some details about this dramatic decision of the church.

[376]. That the more conservative Jerusalem church, like its culture, would have valued Scripture no less than did Paul should go without saying (cf. Acts 21:20; Gal 2:9, 12).

[377]. Cf. Jervell, Theology, 74–75; Howard, Amos, 118. Braun, “Use of Amos,” 121, thinks that “James preserves Amos’s dichotomy” between Jews and Gentiles while inviting Gentiles into fellowship.

[378]. Bruce, Acts¹, 297. (The Twelve came to be called the Minor Prophets only later, in Latin patristic sources; see Sweeney, “Twelve,” 788; Schart, “Twelve,” 806.) Others prefer a reference to “Davidic covenant narratives” in Samuel and Chronicles (Glenny, “Septuagint,” 20).

[379]. On gezerah shevah, see Longenecker, Exegesis, 34; Keener, John, 305, 1184.

[380]. Bauckham, “James,” 453–54; see Glenny, “Septuagint,” 21–22, on Jer 12:16 and LXX Zech 2:14–15 (noting Bauckham). These allusions would fit the later reference to Lev 17–18 that many find behind the apostolic decree (Acts 15:20, 29).

[381]. See van de Sandt, “Acts 15.6–21” (who finds various echoes to Deut 4 throughout the backdrop of Acts 15). This passage (esp. Deut 4:29–30) might well be called on in midrashic exposition of Amos 9:11–12 LXX, for “seeking” the Lord; if it is specifically echoed, however, this is more due to the LXX translators of Amos than to Luke. But Meek, Mission, 93, reasonably questions whether clear evidence for any conflation appears in James’s Amos quotation.

[382]. E.g., Moessner, “Script,” 241–42; Fitzmyer, Acts, 555.

[383]. The LXX phrase ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος (often with an article) is common (e.g., Gen 6:4; 1 Chr 16:36; 29:10; Neh 9:5; Pss 24:6; 40:14; 89:2; 92:2; 102:17; 105:48; Jer 2:20; 25:5; 35:8; Joel 2:2; Dan 8:11; Tob 4:12; 6:18; Sir 14:17; 39:20; 44:2; 51:8; 3 Macc 5:11; cf. Pss 54:20; 73:12).

[384]. As a chronological structuring device, see, e.g., Judg 1:9; 16:4; 2 Sam 3:28; 8:1; 10:1; 13:1; 15:1; 21:18; 1 Chr 20:4; 2 Chr 20:1; 1 Esd 1:14; 5:1, 51; Tob 10:14; 1 Macc 1:5; 11:54; 13:20; 14:24; Let. Aris. 179; Xen. Anab. 6.4.12; cf. 1 En. 89:30; Jos. Life 427.

[385]. Haenchen, Acts, 448.

[386]. Some letters to the Diaspora might be in Hebrew (Le Cornu, Acts, 465, based on quotations in rabbinic literature; but this simply means that the quotations are Tannaitic; Rost, Judaism, 81, suggests that the correspondence in 2 Macc 1:1–2:18 was, if authentic, originally in Hebrew), but this would not be usual, certainly not to Gentiles (1 Macc 12:5) or to mixed congregations. The alliteration of an- sounds (helpfully noted in Parsons, Acts, 214) already appears in the LXX.

[387]. That Luke uses Amos quotations that appear in the Damascus Document (CD) must be more than coincidence; this probably reflects early Jewish tradition, though Luke himself works from the LXX and not a Hebrew Vorlage (Steyn, “Vorlage of Quotations,” 78–79). Luke could then change these readings on the basis of his knowledge of LXX terminology (79–80). But James could know the interpretive tradition without quoting the Hebrew.

[388]. Some have offered arguments for the pre-war replenishment of the Hellenist community (Mosser, “City,” 172–76).

[389]. Interaction with Pharisees probably would have demanded at least some Greek as well, though they were not usually as wealthy and do not appear as hellenized as the Sadducean aristocracy. Even if none of the scattered Hellenists of Acts 8:1 returned, others would have been converted, since non-Christian Hellenists did not leave Jerusalem; and even in 8:1, it is probable that not all those scattered were Hellenists.

[390]. See Horsley, Galilee, 247–49, for Jesus’s Lower Galilee; this was probably even more the case in Upper Galilee (cf. Meyers, “Judaism and Christianity,” 74).

[391]. On bilingualism in Palestine, cf. Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:255–68; comment on Acts 6:1.

[392]. Witherington, Acts, 457; Bock, Acts, 491 (noting that James’s use of Greek would have offered a conciliatory gesture consistent with the speech’s content); Blaiklock, Acts, 117.

[393]. Keener, Acts, 1:865; 2:1256–57; cf. idem, Matthew, 502–3.

[394]. That speech may also deliberately exclude his Greek-speaking accusers from Ephesus.

[395]. Cf. Davids, James, 10. Deriving from an artisan household (Matt 13:55), leading the church in urban Jerusalem for perhaps two decades after Acts 12:17 (nearly one decade before the putative date of this scene; for acquiring Greek, cf., e.g., Josephus in Rajak, Josephus, 46–64), and having access to the secretarial assistance such a role would provide him could account for the level of Greek (cf. Davids, James, 10–13, though he ultimately sees a redactional layer as well; cf. also deSilva, Teachers, 47–49).

[396]. Cf. Sevenster, Greek, 191: Josephus shows that those who desired to improve their written Greek or needed help for literary composition could acquire it. Sevenster adds that this would surely apply to prominent leaders in a major Jewish movement in contact with the Diaspora. Some Palestinian contributions to the Pseudepigrapha that were composed in excellent Greek, and Bar Kokhba’s letters in Greek as well as Hebrew or Aramaic, refute the idea that Palestinian Jews would not use Greek (Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and New Testament, 86).

[397]. Here, Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 161; idem, “James,” 455–56.

[398]. See, e.g., Glenny, “Septuagint,” 23, and discussion below.

[399]. McKeating, Amos, 70.

[400]. Cf. Ellison, Mystery, 44.

[401]. Deut 2:5, 12, 22–23; cf. 7:7–8; 9:4–5; 26:5; similarly, 2 Chr 6:32–33.

[402]. Cf. Cripps, Amos, 263. “Families of the earth” in Amos 3:2 probably plays on responsibility to the nations in Gen 12:3.

[403]. Coote, Amos, 120 (attributing Amos 9:7 to his “C stage” of redaction).

[404]. God’s “eyes” were against them (Amos 9:3–4, 8); the “face of the earth” may recall God’s sovereignty over earth in 9:6.

[405]. The pi’el participle for commanding judgment in Amos 9:9 alludes to God’s commands of judgment in 9:3–4 (employing a different form of the same verb). The “shaking” might also recall the earthquake of 9:1, 5 but probably is confined to the image of the sieve.

[406]. E.g., Snaith, Amos, Hosea, Micah, 49; Coote, Amos, 122; Ringgren, Religion, 10, 266; cf. Edghill, Amos, 93; Harper, Amos, 198. Sandmel, Scriptures, 55–56, concedes that the claim for redaction is subjective, yet doubts that the same prophet “could reasonably have uttered both statements.” For a survey of redactional approaches to Amos and their critics, see Möller, “Amos,” 10–13.

[407]. Ward, Amos, 87–88.

[408]. Clements, Prophecy, 44.

[409]. E.g., 2 Chr 34:24–25 with 36:21; and Hos 9:16–17; 10:7–8, 14–15 with Hos 2:14–23; 14:4–7; also Jer 16:13–15; cf. 2 Kgs 21:13; 24:20 with 25:27–30; among eighth-century prophets who include hope with judgment, McComiskey and Longman, “Amos,” 354–55, cite Isa 3:1–4:1 with 4:2–6; 8:16–22 with 9:1–7; Mic 2:1–11 with 2:12–13; 5:1 with 5:2–4; later Lam 3. For compatibility, see, e.g., Veldkamp, Farmer, 231. As in other prophets, God’s wrath is “redemptive,” not simply “vindictive” (Francisco, “Amos,” 425).

[410]. Soggin, Introduction, 244.

[411]. Ellison, Prophets, 70.

[412]. Schedl, History, 167; Harrison, Introduction, 892.

[413]. For a list of more recent scholars favoring authenticity, see, e.g., Smith, Hosea, Amos, Micah, 411–12; and esp. Hasel, Amos, 116–20 (cited in Smith, Hosea, Amos, Micah, 411).

[414]. It also connects with the people’s rebuilding their cities, as a sign of restoration (Amos 9:14); in other texts, God promised to “build” his people (see comment on Acts 9:31).

[415]. The “mountains” of Amos 9:13 might, but need not, evoke God’s sovereignty over the mountains in 9:3.

[416]. The positive use of “my people” in Amos 9:14 also contrasts with the negative use in 9:10; their positive “dwelling” in the cities may contrast with the mournful “dwelling” of 9:5, again with a reversal of conditions.

[417]. Sandmel, Scriptures, 56, doubts that the prophet would retract his statement later in the same verse. The differentiation appears highly subjective to me, since most other prophets include both judgment and hope, though Amos focuses more on the former (cf. most obviously Jer 46:28, again in successive lines).

[418]. Hasel, Remnant, 393; Craghan, “Amos,” 260.

[419]. Hasel, Remnant, 180–81; Lewis, Prophets, 20.

[420]. Bruggemann, “Amos IV 4–13.”

[421]. For examples of different positions, cf. Ramsey, “Amos 4 12,” 191; Youngblood, “Amos 4:12.” Even Amos 4:11 refers only to a supposed remnant already left before the judgment to come.

[422]. Bruggemann, “Intercessory Formula”; Williams, “Theology of Amos,” 401.

[423]. Jeremiah later learned not to even begin praying for God to withhold judgment (Jer 7:16; 11:14; 14:11; cf. 29:7), though Jeremiah’s oracles contained hope as well as judgment.

[424]. Williams, “Theology of Amos,” 402; Hasel, Remnant, 393; McComiskey and Longman, “Amos,” 354–55, 417; on Amos 5:15, see Asen, “Amos’ Faith,” 69–70. Cf. Rad, Theology, 2:138. In Amos 4:6–11, God sent judgments to turn Israel’s people (i.e., God desires their repentance), and in 5:14, God invites them to repent and be spared (the possibility may be more tentative in 5:15). Amos himself wished judgment to be avoided (7:1–6), albeit unsuccessfully (7:7–9).

[425]. Whether or not Amos would have personally given the latter the climactic location in the book, the book’s careful arrangement helps explain why the brief message of hope appears where it does.

[426]. McKeating, Amos, 67; Snaith, Amos, Hosea, Micah, 49; Cripps, Amos, 263; but cf. differently Crenshaw, Affirmation, 136.

[427]. With Crenshaw, Affirmation, 136–37.

[428]. McKeating, Amos, 67; Harper, Amos, 192.

[429]. Cf. Sandmel, Scriptures, 67; Rom 3:29–30.

[430]. Driver, Amos, 221; Harper, Amos, 197.

[431]. Mays, Amos, 161–62; Cripps, Amos, 266–67; Waard and Smalley, Handbook, 182; Snaith, Amos, Hosea, Micah, 50 (going too far in making Judah the new Israel).

[432]. McKeating, Amos, 70, dates it to the time of Zerubbabel.

[433]. Ellison, Prophets, 93, shows that the concepts are less developed than even in Isaiah (e.g., Isa 11:1). Even in a dating to Josiah’s reign, Deuteronomy’s emphasis on the covenant and grace allows a return from exile (Deut 4:30–31); one might delete as redactional all preexilic promises of restoration (including in Jeremiah), but this is a highly subjective approach.

[434]. Driver, Amos, 221–22; Cripps, Amos, 270–71.

[435]. Richardson, “SKT.”

[436]. Mentioned in Motyer, Lion, 202.

[437]. Wolff, Amos, 353. Cf. “breaches,” “ruins”; but this view necessarily presupposes a later date.

[438]. Cf. Isa 1:8; Jonah 4:5; in the festival, Lev 23:34, 42–43; Deut 16:13, 16; 31:10; 2 Chr 8:13; Ezra 3:4; Neh 8:14–17; Zech 14:16, 18, 19; in war, 2 Sam 11:11; 1 Kgs 20:12, 16. As in the festival, it remained compatible with restoration imagery (as in Isa 4:6). Amos 5:26 is not relevant without emendation; if it were pressed into service, we would probably expect the new-exodus motif to overshadow dilapidation in 9:11.

[439]. Cripps, Amos, 270–71; Driver, Amos, 222; Veldkamp, Farmer, 233; Kaiser, “Inclusion of Gentiles,” 101; Ellis, Message, 301; Lewis, Prophets, 22; Feinberg, Prophets, 123; Calvin, Prophets, 2:404; Henderson, Prophets, 181; Tanner, “Quotation,” 67–68. Cf. Mauchline, “Persistent Belief,” 290, suggesting a royal “canopy” or “pavilion,” hence the Davidic house. In view of 2 Sam 7 and Ps 89, presumably both the Davidic dynasty and the Davidic empire are implicit in the “house,” and this is a more seminal form of the idea in Isa 11:1.

[440]. The term appears in the qal in Amos 3:5, 14; 5:2; 7:17; 8:14; and 9:9, none participial; it usually signifies judgment.

[441]. Bailey, Prophets, 125; cf. Hasel, Remnant, 211.

[442]. Laetsch, Prophets, 190 (on the characteristic state); Hasel, Remnant, 208n301; LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Survey, 250; Kaiser, Theology, 195; idem, “Inclusion of Gentiles,” 101.

[443]. Mays, Amos, 164, notes that mention of the “days of old” often prefigures the time of salvation (Pss 77:5; 143:5; Isa 51:9; 63:9, 11; Lam 1:7; 5:21; Mic 7:14, 20; Mal 3:4).

[444]. The passage plays on various senses of David’s “house” (2 Sam 7:5, 7, 13, 27).

[445]. The verb appears in the qal in Amos 5:2; 7:2, 5; 8:14; in the hiph’il in 2:11; (participial) 5:2; 6:14. Some of these texts (5:2; 8:14) sound like irrevocable judgment, in contrast with the present passage, but 2:11 and 6:14 are closer to the usage in 9:11.

[446]. Cf. Cripps, Amos, 271. Kaiser, Theology, 195; idem, “Inclusion of Gentiles,” 101, connects the feminine plural suffix “their” with the two houses of Israel; it could, however, imply “cities” or other Greek feminine nouns. The rebuilding of “her” refers to the fallen booth; the raising of “his” ruins probably alludes to David himself.

[447]. Isa 58:12 may allude to this statement.

[448]. Based on למען, “so that, in order that,” with the imperfect, in Amos 9:12 (cf. also Driver, Amos, 222).

[449]. Kitchen, World, 94, suggests that even Toi became David’s subject, since unreciprocated gifts are tribute (Bright, History, 204n45, views this as probable but uncertain; cf. Gordon, Near East, 178; Aharoni, Archaeology, 192).

[450]. Some believe that Edom is singled out because of animosity toward Judah in 586 B.C.E. (Cripps, Amos, 273), but the conflict goes back much further than this (cf. Mauchline, “Persistent Belief,” 291–92; esp. Hasel, Remnant, 212).

[451]. Kaiser, Theology, 196–97, argues that this text provides the present verb’s main background.

[452]. This text may imply that when Judah and Israel are reunited, they will possess Edom; Isaiah might be clarifying Amos’s prophecy.

[453]. Kaiser, Theology, 196; idem, “Inclusion of Gentiles,” 103, suggests that the connective is epexegetical, since Edom is a representative example of “the nations.”

[454]. Cf. Lempp, “Nations,” 26.

[455]. A common practice in the ancient world (cf., e.g., Craghan, “Mari,” 48; Hayes, “Oracles”; 1 Kgs 22:12). For international codes of conduct, see Barton, Oracles, 51–61.

[456]. See Driver, Amos, 223; Cripps, Amos, 273; Kaiser, Theology, 196; Motyer, Lion, 204 (Motyer embraces the nuance of conquest as well); Tanner, “Quotation,” 69–70 (helpfully highlighting Deut 28:9–10; Isa 63:19). Such language applies to conquest in 2 Sam 12:28 (where it is used for the honor of the conqueror); but it applies to ownership of Israel in obedience (Deut 28:10; cf. Isa 63:19; more distantly, 43:1; 49:1) or disobedience (Jer 14:9; Dan 9:19), of the temple (1 Kgs 8:43; 2 Chr 6:33; Jer 7:10, 11, 14, 30; 32:34; 34:15), of Jerusalem (cf. Deut 12:5, 11; 14:23–24; Jer 25:29; Dan 9:18–19), and of God’s special prophet (Jer 15:16).

[457]. Harper, Amos, 198; Edghill, Amos, 93; Cripps, Amos, 273 (noting ownership and suggesting that this occurs here by conquest).

[458]. Laetsch, Prophets, 192; cf. Lempp, “Nations,” 24–25, 31. See references to the expression above.

[459]. Hasel, Remnant, 212.

[460]. Motyer, Lion, 202; Kaiser, “Inclusion of Gentiles,” 103.

[461]. Later, cf. Zech 2:11; 9:7; cf. Zeph 3:8–9; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 9:27. Although this is not the most common picture of Gentiles in Israel’s future, it is one option, and Amos’s apparent knowledge of the Abrahamic promise of blessing for the families of the earth (Gen 12:3; Amos 3:2; cf. later Zech 14:17) could stand theologically behind Amos 9:12.

[462]. Hasel, Remnant, 393. His case seems strong, but would Israel (or other nations) at the time have understood a difference? The nations’ being owned by God could indicate the reciprocation of a prior act (cf. Zech 3:9; Joel 2:32 [3:5 MT]), but probably “call” and “name” are expressions of God’s sovereignty (Amos 9:6) in his purpose in history.

[463]. The closest model available was probably that of earlier Gentiles who had joined the covenant in the OT; by Paul’s day, the equivalent would be proselytes, probably the background for his argument in Rom 11 (cf. Donaldson, “Riches”).

[464]. Mays, Amos, 168, parallels Lev 26:5. This would also be a reversal of the judgments that Amos had prophesied (Marsh, Amos, 74). Ellis, Message, 301, even compares fertility to a restoration of paradise (citing also Hos 2:19–24; 14:5–8; Isa 11:1–9; 54:1–12; 60; 65:17–25; Ezek 47; Joel 3:18; Zech 8:12). The language here may be based on Joel 3:18, or vice versa (Archer, Survey, 292, thinks that Joel 2:32 recalls Amos 9).

[465]. That is, the harvest in April and May will be so abundant that reaping will not be finished until the October and November rains (McKeating, Amos, 70; cf. Cripps, Amos, 274–75, noting that the context emphasizes abundance rather than speed).

[466]. That is, the crops will grow more quickly than they can be reaped (Wolff, Amos, 354; Driver, Amos, 224; Harper, Amos, 198).

[467]. Vineyards being mainly on mountain slopes (Cripps, Amos, 275).

[468]. The image nevertheless recalls that of YHWH’s royal theophany in enthronement psalms (Pss 96:10; 97:5; cf. 46:6; 75:3), presumably at his promised revelation that Amos already called YHWH’s “day” (Amos 5:18–20). But the parallelism with the above line shows that it refers to fertility and not to an earthquake (contrast 9:1, 5).

[469]. Waard and Smalley, Handbook, 187.

[470]. The most notable exception, Job 42:10, would not be an exception if Job addresses the disappointment of exiles returning from Babylon yet awaiting divine vindication (cf. Ps 126:4).

[471]. Cf., e.g., Pss 14:7; 53:6; Isa 52:8; Dan 9:25; Hos 6:11; Joel 3:1; Nah 2:2; Zeph 2:7 (with Harper, Amos, 199).

[472]. Harper, Amos, 199, thinks that this sounds postexilic, but the returned exiles’ hopes were frustrated, not fulfilled (Hag 2:3). Most of the supposed postexilic parallels that he cites can be preexilic just as easily, and late-dating them all by comparing them with one another is circular reasoning.

[473]. Productive vineyards reverse the prior curses (Amos 4:9; 5:11). Marsh, Amos, 73, sees a reference to 5:11 and 8:1–3, although he doubts that 9:14 was written by Amos. Mays, Amos, 168, envisions a reversal of Deut 28:30–31, 38–40 (esp. 28:30, 39); cf. Lev 26:16, 33. Drinking from vineyards that they planted and eating from gardens signify success.

[474]. The prophets and other ancient Israelite literature commonly employ these agricultural metaphors (e.g., Deut 29:29; 1 Kgs 14:15; 2 Chr 7:20; Jer 1:10; 12:15, 17; 18:7).

[475]. E.g., Lewis, Prophets, 22; Stowasser, “Überlegungen”; see comment on Acts 7:42–43.

[476]. Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 159–62. For one comparison between Acts 15:16–18 and the LXX of Amos 9:11–12, see Rost, “Aposteldekret,” 592.

[477]. Some scholars think that different LXX translators stand behind different parts of the dominant LXX text of Amos (Howard, “Septuagint of Amos,” 112, on Amos 1:1–8:11 vs. 8:12–9:10), but this is open to question (Muraoka, “Separate Unit”).

[478]. With Witherington, Acts, 459.

[479]. See comment on Acts 2:16.

[480]. E.g., Exod. Rab. 1:26; Pesiq. Rab. 13:2; although such texts are late, the idea fits expectations for the Messiah (less emphasized in the generations immediately following Bar Kokhba). For a possible messianic reading of Amos 9:11 in rabbinic literature, see Feinberg, Prophets, 123; for its connection with 2 Sam 7:10b–14 in 4QFlor, see Lindars, Apologetic, 281.

[481]. Parallelism was a widespread ancient Near Eastern phenomenon, and Ugaritic forms were virtually identical to Hebrew forms (Albright, Yahweh, 4ff.). Rhetorically sensitive Greeks and Romans might also recognize parallelism, through the rhetorical devices synonymia (Rowe, “Style,” 133; but defined differently in Anderson, Glossary, 114) and epimone (Rowe, “Style,” 144–45; but defined differently in Anderson, Glossary, 53); cf. Isoc. Panegyr. 39 (cited in Rowe, “Style,” 137, on a different point); Cic. Prov. cons. 1.2; most excessively, Gorgias (see MacDowell, “Introduction,” 18–19).

[482]. E.g., Sipre Deut. 357.5.11 (changing “the western sea” to “the last day”). For alterations at Qumran, see, e.g., 1QpHab XII, 1–10; V, 8–12 in Lim, “Orientation.”

[483]. Thus, although one could argue that the LXX could have “misled” Luke here (so Miller, “Adam”), the frequent ancient use of utility as a text-critical criterion (noted earlier; cf. Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 161) would have allowed Luke or a source, even if fully cognizant of the Hebrew text here, to prefer the LXX reading and certainly its contextual universalizing interpretation.

[484]. Haenchen, Acts, 448.

[485]. See King, “Amos 9:11–12”; Bauckham, “James,” 457; on compatibility, see also Meek, Mission, 93, 131. See also the preceding context in Amos 9:7.

[486]. They would not view these alternatives as mutually exclusive; other regions (such as Idumea) had been forcibly converted to Judaism (on Idumeans’ conversion to Jewish customs, cf., e.g., Strabo 16.2.34).

[487]. Bauckham, “James,” 457; for the OT idiom, he cites as examples Deut 28:10; 2 Chr 7:14; Jer 14:9; Dan 9:19.

[488]. Bruce, Peter, 96–97 (CD VII, 15–16; 4QFlor 1 I, 11–13).

[489]. See, e.g., Hermog. Issues 40.6–19; 60.13–14; 80.10–13; 82.4–5, 13–18; 83.20; 86.4–5; Cohen, Law, 39–42 (citing, e.g., Quint. Inst. 3.6.46); in the rabbis, p. 50.

[490]. Cf. also the practice of using some laws to question the meaning of others (Hermog. Issues 40.20; 41.1–13).

[491]. E.g., differentiating parallel lines (m. ʾAb. 4:1; Sipre Deut. 313.1.4; cf. Keener, Matthew, 491); harmonizing, even earlier rabbinic opinions (y. Sukkah 4:6, §1); reading “sons” as either masculine or inclusive, depending on the interpreter’s needs (e.g., y. Ber. 2:2, §5). These later rabbis believed that there was greater meaning in the Torah than was available in the text itself (Levine, “Letters,” on b. Menaḥ. 29b).

[492]. See Neubrand, Völker, 137–60, for ecclesiological interpretation, and 160–64 for christological interpretation (noting also Jesus’s Davidic kingdom in Luke-Acts, 166–82); for surveys of views, see, e.g., Glenny, “Septuagint,” 16–18 (following Strauss, Messiah).

[493]. E.g., Ruth 4:11; cf. 4QpPs^a III, 16; see comment on Acts 9:31. Ἀνοικοδομέω can apply to building God’s people in the LXX (e.g., Jer 1:10; 24:6). Hebrew texts and those influenced by them often parallel “building” and “planting” as analogous actions (Deut 28:30; Josh 24:13; Eccl 2:4; Isa 5:2; Jer 29:5, 28; 35:7; Amos 5:11; Zeph 1:13; cf. Ps 144:12; 1 Macc 3:56; Philo Virt. 28–29; Rewards 139; Jos. Ant. 4.298), including figuratively for building a people (Jer 1:10; 18:9; 24:6; 31:28; 42:10; 45:4; Sir 49:7; 1QS XI, 8) or for God’s people building in prosperity (Isa 65:21–22; Ezek 28:26). Okoronkwo, Compromise, 87, construes the verbs in Acts 15:16 chiastically: return (A); rebuild (B); fallen (C); destroyed (C′); rebuild (B′); and restore (A′; this last is the weakest of the connections).

[494]. Some argue for an allusion to the resurrection, but this interpretation is highly vulnerable, since Amos 9:11 LXX twice uses Luke’s favorite resurrection term (e.g., Luke 24:7, 46), ἀναστήσω, in the same line, but Luke omits it here (Okoronkwo, Compromise, 183; Gaventa, Acts, 219). On ecclesiocentric readings, see below.

[495]. For the reestablishment of the Davidic dynasty here, see Strauss, Messiah, 180–92; Johnson, Acts, 265; Fitzmyer, Acts, 555; Horton, Acts, 267; Nunnally, Acts, 273; Glenny, “Septuagint.” Luke understands that restoration in terms of Christ, not in terms of a kingdom restored to Israel in this age (Acts 1:6–7; Glenny, “Septuagint,” 24n102). Lightfoot applies it directly to the church (Lightfoot, Acts, the forthcoming commentary shared with me by Ben Witherington III), but James probably thinks more directly of Christ’s rule over his people.

[496]. Cherethites in 2 Sam 8:18; 15:18; 20:7, 23; 1 Kgs 1:38, 44; 1 Chr 18:17. These were Philistines (Ezek 25:16; Zeph 2:5).

[497]. 4QFlor 1 I, 10–13. See, e.g., Lindars, Apologetic, 281; Parker, “Apokatastasis,” 88; Marshall, “Acts,” 591; cf. Pixner, “Zion,” 322; but Fitzmyer, Acts, 556, emphasizes the contrast with Luke. The Talmud also applies it to the Messiah (b. Sanh. 96b; Scharlemann, Stephen, 157); cf. Gen. Rab. 88:7; eschatological hope answering the harsher verdict of Amos 5:2 in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:8.

[498]. On Luke’s use of the same Amos quotes as appear in the Damascus Document (CD), see the discussion of Steyn, “Vorlage of Quotations,” above.

[499]. Stowasser, “Überlegungen,” suggests a similar text form between Acts 15:16–18 and CD VII, 16; 4Q174 1 I, 12.

[500]. Marshall, “Acts,” 591 (following Evans, “Prophecy and Polemic,” 207–8); Tg. Amos 9:11 in Miura, David, 194.

[501]. Bauckham, “James,” 453–54; cf. Blaiklock, Acts, 117; Okoronkwo, Compromise, 183–84; discussion in Neubrand, Völker, 144–55; see comment on Acts 2:46. Marshall, “Acts,” 593, seems to follow Bauckham in applying the prophecy to the restored temple, which, for Luke, is the Christian community; yet he applies it (592), perhaps inconsistently, to restoration of David’s house. For important objections to seeing the temple here, see Miura, David, 191–94.

[502]. Schnabel, Acts, 639. The NRSV labels it Tob 13:10.

[503]. Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 181–82. Idem, “James,” 457, also argues that “pillar” in Gal 2:9 shows that the Jerusalem church recognized the church as an eschatological temple (cf. 442–49; Bruce, Apostle, 153; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 545). “Pillar,” however, was a more common metaphor for influential people in both Jewish (Ps 144:12; ʾAbot R. Nat. 25 A; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 46:28; 49:19; on Exod 15:15; on Num 20:29; cf. 2 Bar. 2:1; 4 Bar. 1:2; Jos. Asen. 17:6 MSS; 1 Clem. 5.2) and Gentile (Pindar Ol. 2.81–82; Cic. Verr. 2.3.76.176) texts (as noted already by Lightfoot, Galatians, 109, citing other texts; see also Keener, “Pillars,” 56–57). (Aus, “Pillars,” compares more narrowly the patriarchs; cf. Gen. Rab. 43:8; 75:5; but contrast Deut. Rab. 5:1.) Despite the temple imagery at Qumran, the “influential person” interpretation is plausible even there; see 1QSa (= 1Q28a) I, 11; possibly 4Q550^a–b 2–3 (esp. 3 4).

[504]. See discussion of the eschatological temple in Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 77–90; Keener, John, 525–26; cf. 1 En. 90:28–29; Tob 13:10; 14:5; Sib. Or. 3.657–60, 702, 772–74; esp. 11QT XXX–XLV; 4Q174 1 I, 2; 4Q509 4 2, 12; 4Q511 35 3; notes in Maier, Temple Scroll, 98–116; comments in Yadin, “Temple Scroll,” 41; Broshi, “Dimensions.”

[505]. See Luke 20:17–18 (cf. 19:40, 44) and Acts 4:11 (with Ps 118:22, 26–27); cf. Keener, “Human Stones.”

[506]. The “Temple of humanity [lit. adam]” in 4Q174 1 I, 6–7 might allude to an interpretation of Amos 9:11–12 similar to that in Acts 15, except for its contextual exclusion of foreigners (perhaps Zech 14:21 with 14:16–19 provides a resolution). “Adam” stands for “Gentiles” in 4Q167 7; Hos 6:7 (quoted in 4Q167 7 1) includes “like Adam” (and hence can be supplied there), and the pesher interpretation apparently speaks of “laws of [Gentiles]” (7 2; the reconstruction fits Gentile regulations in 4Q166 II, 16 on Hos 2:11); but the righteous have “Adam’s heritage forever” (4Q171 1–2 III, 1–2).

[507]. Others have also compared Luke’s ecclesiology in Acts with Paul’s hardening of Israel and welcoming of Gentiles (Seccombe, “People,” 370–71).

[508]. Jervell, Luke and People of God, 92–93.

[509]. Probably also Zeph 2:11. For some Gentiles becoming God’s people, Wright, Ethics, 250, also adds Ps 47:9; Isa 56:2–8; more questionably, 66:19–21.

[510]. Bauckham, “James,” 457–58, cites here Ps 96:7–8; Isa 2:2–3; 25:6; 56:6–7; 66:23; Jer 3:17; Mic 4:1–2; Zech 14:16.

[511]. Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 169; idem, “James,” 457–58. Richard, “Acts 15,” esp. 200–201, also argues that the issue is that of accepting Gentiles as a distinct group while upholding the law and without assimilating them into the mother church.

[512]. Genuine proselytes did embrace the covenant (Sipra VDDen. par. 2.3.3.1; Qed. pq. 8.205.1.5) and did share Israel’s eschatological hopes (cf. 2 Bar. 41:4; 42:5–7; Lev. Rab. 2:9; 3:2; Pesiq. Rab. 35:3; albeit without patriarchal merits, Num. Rab. 8:9). Though Qumran evidence for their exclusion from the eschatological temple is earlier, it appears idiosyncratic on this point (cf. Baumgarten, “Netinim,” despite some overlap, 96).

[513]. Hays, Conversion, 187 (noting that Paul’s ecclesiocentric reading presupposes his Christology; Christology is also implied here).

[514]. E.g., a dove (L.A.B. 39:5; b. Šabb. 49a; 130a; Exod. Rab. 20:6; Song Rab. 2:14, §§1–2; cf. Mek. Besh. 3.86ff.; 7.27ff. in Johnston, “Interpretations,” 595) or trees (Jub. 1:16; 36:6; 1QS VIII, 5; XI, 8; CD I, 7; 4 Ezra 5:23; L.A.B. 12:8–9; 23:12; 28:4; b. Ḥul. 92a; Gen. Rab. 88:5; 98:9; Lev. Rab. 30:12; Esth. Rab. 9:2) could be used to symbolize Israel.

[515]. Penner, “Discourse,” 99–100.

[516]. E.g., in 4Q177 (see Williams, “Catena”).

[517]. See discussion in Heath, Hermogenes, 212. In reality, however, Aelius’s comments may be rhetorical παρρησία, feigning boldness by merely pretending to offend.

[518]. Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 132 (citing Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.71.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 34.9, 44; 40.34; Ael. Arist. Or. 23.70–71; 24.40; Plut. Lyc. 7.2).

[519]. With Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 177; for ἐγὼ κρινῶ, cf. divine decrees in LXX Jer 28:36 (MT and ET 51:36); Ezek 24:14; esp. a royal decree in Dan 3:29. Cf. the role of the high priest in the Sanhedrin and the later role of the Nasi in rabbinic circles. While James offers his opinion (cf. Paul offering his view in 1 Cor 7:25), the language sounds stronger than merely this (Acts 21:25; cf. 1 Cor 5:3–5).

[520]. As often noted, the Jerusalem compromise treats Gentile believers in the Pauline mission as “righteous Gentiles” rather than as full proselytes (Nanos, Mystery, 166). For Acts 15 as a Lukan model for conflict resolution, see especially Okoronkwo, Compromise (on the importance of “listening,” see 280).

[521]. See further Blue, “Influence,” 490–94.

[522]. As refusal of a gift was culturally insulting and could produce enmity (Marshall, Enmity, 18–20), refusal of table fellowship was surely insulting.

[523]. That he emphasizes their fallibility appears from those who “seemed” to be something, the pillars (Gal 2:6, 9). But he also recognizes the validity of their calling and mission (Gal 2:8–9).

[524]. For discussion of this option, see introduction, above, to Acts 15.

[525]. Bruce, Peter, 93.

[526]. Descriptively, Herm. 6.3; 16.4; 27.3; regarding false teaching, see Ign. Tral. 6.1; Phld. 3.1; Poly. Phil. 6.3.

[527]. E.g., Isoc. Nic. 54 (Or. 3.38); Sir 28:8.

[528]. E.g., Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 71; Harnack, Acts, 259–61; Barrett, Acts, 735 (πνικτόν perhaps added for ease of table fellowship); cf. Philip, “Quelques notes” (arguing that πνικτός points figuratively to not harming others); cf. Chrys. Hom. Acts 33 (for murder, though he attributes these rules to the law). More nuanced, cf. Instone-Brewer, “Infanticide” (esp. 321), noting Jerusalem’s culinary emphasis but that for Gentiles “smothering” could connote infanticide. Park, “Principles,” sees ritual prescriptions developed in a moral direction (compare 15:20 with 15:29; 21:25).

[529]. With Bruce, Acts¹, 299–300; idem, Acts³, 73.

[530]. Barrett, Acts, 735 (citing, e.g., b. Pesaḥ. 25a; Sanh. 74a), interpreting the last term as “incest.” More technically, it included adultery as well as incest (Abrahams, Studies [1], 74). For a discussion of this tradition’s rhetorical character, see Passamaneck, “Mandate.”

[531]. Longenecker, Paul, 255n49, cites, e.g., m. ʾAb. 5:11; b. Yoma 9b; Sanh. 74a; also Rev 22:15; see also Tg. Ps.-J. on Num 35:25; on Deut 23:10. He rightly concludes, however, that these have no bearing on Acts 15:20, 29, which textually supports four prohibitions, one of which is meat with blood.

[532]. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 429–35; C. Williams, Acts, 31–32; Porter, Paul in Acts, 183n75; Okoronkwo, Compromise, 41–43.

[533]. Sib. Or. 3.757–59; compared to his earlier law at Sinai, 3.768. Against Davies, Torah, however, this is not a very common ancient Jewish conception; see Schäfer, “Torah”; Keener, John, 358–59, and sources there; Tait, “End of Law.”

[534]. The three basic sins attributed to Sodom were fornication, idolatry, and bloodshed (t. Sanh. 13:8). When condemning slander, rabbis tacked it onto the list of idolatry, adultery, and bloodshed as terrible sins (Gen. Rab. 70:4).

[535]. Witherington, Acts, 477.

[536]. Ibid., 461–62; Witherington, Corinthians, 190.

[537]. Witherington, Acts, 463.

[538]. Ibid., 465.

[539]. Cf. Theissen, Setting, 125–28; Smith, Symposium, 32; Jeffers, World, 61; but cf. Meggitt, “Meat Consumption.”

[540]. Witherington, Acts, 462, does, however, make a plausible and perhaps accurate response here, associating the term specifically with meat in an idol’s presence (citing Mal 1:7 LXX; Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. 20, on 8:1ff.; esp. Greg. Nyssa Greg. Thaum. [PG 46:944]).

[541]. Winter, Left Corinth, 86–88.

[542]. See Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 278; Klauck, Context, 16, 18; further discussion below. This is not to claim that Gentile sacrifice deliberately and always removed blood (Klauck, Context, 19, correctly notes that this was an exclusively Jewish practice).

[543]. E.g., Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 323; Fitzmyer, Theologian, 194; Conzelmann, Acts, 118–19; Marshall, Acts, 253; Crowe, Acts, 117; Franklin, Interpreter, 48; Schnabel, Mission, 1017–18; Segal, Convert, 197 (relating it also to the Noahide commandments); Talbert, Acts, 132–33; Glenny, “Septuagint,” 20–21 (viewing it as “generally recognized,” 20); Dunn, Beginning, 466 (also viewing it as “generally recognized”); see recent discussion in Rost, “Aposteldekret,” 570–72 (and of Noah tradition on 573–74); Bennema, “Conflict,” 759–60; cf. proselytes in Cifrak, “Petrus.”

[544]. Following the sequence of Acts 15:29, which would be Luke’s written source, rather than 15:20; those who hold this position argue that 15:29 is more original (Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 172–74; see further Wedderburn, “ ‘Apostolic Decree’: Redaction”).

[545]. Bauckham, “James,” 458–59; idem, “James and Gentiles,” 172–74.

[546]. Bauckham, “James,” 460.

[547]. The first-century usage applied both to proselytes and to resident aliens; see Callan, “Background of Decree.”

[548]. Paul treats his converts like proselytes, but to most other Jews, they would look like merely “righteous Gentiles,” though another strand of Diaspora Judaism treated righteous Gentiles as proselytes (Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 148–49). Donaldson rightly rejects the “righteous Gentiles” schema as the primary background for Paul’s view (230–36), seeing them instead as proselytes to an Israel reconfigured around Christ (236–47). Cf. Segal, Convert, 197–98.

[549]. Cf. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 69–70, already in the nineteenth century; Barrett, Acts, 734–35; Witherington, Acts, 464; Gaventa, Acts, 222.

[550]. Some also point out that Lev 17–18 addresses mainly Israelites, and resident aliens only in passing (in Lev 17:8–9, 10–13; Gaventa, Acts, 222).

[551]. With Witherington, Acts, 464–65 (though his protest against the lack of the term εἰδωλόθυτον is irrelevant, since he admits that it is extremely rare outside Christian literature).

[552]. Lev 17:3–9 prohibits offering sacrifices on one’s own, with regard not only to their slaughter but also to the location of their offering.

[553]. For an argument for this connection, see Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 176–77.

[554]. The very reason for arguing that the midrash is pre-Lukan—Luke’s supposed obscuring of the connections—also renders the midrash uncertain because the connections remain obscure.

[555]. See, e.g., Perry, “Aliens,” 163–68, esp. 163 (noting that the issue is not whether Gentiles can be saved in Christ but whether they are proselytes or Noahides; he follows on this point Bockmuehl, Law, 164).

[556]. Longenecker, Acts, 245; Nunnally, Acts, 274; cf. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 661; Eckey, Apostelgeschichte, 335; Fontana, “Universalismo.” A number of Jewish scholars have articulated this view (Cohen, Maccabees, 217; Wyschogrod, “Judaism and Christianity,” 44–45; Flusser, Judaism, 630; Segal, Convert, 194–200, esp. 197–98), though some have demurred (Sandmel, Judaism, 479n36 [to p. 408], against Singer and Greenstone, “Noachian Laws”). Rabbi Jacob Emden (1697–1776), one of the most respected rabbis of the modern era, believed that both Jesus and Paul maintained Torah, using the Noahide laws to create a way of obedience for Gentiles (so Falk, Jesus, 14–15). As I argue elsewhere, Paul likely went beyond this; but the Jerusalem agreement probably did not, and the Jerusalem Jesus movement remained within acceptable halakic boundaries.

[557]. Some traditions have developed even further since antiquity; for one very conservative reading of the laws, see Cowen, “Study of Laws” (brought to my attention by Lois Olena and Wave Nunnally).

[558]. For an exception: the flood generation was punished for forty days for rejecting the Torah given in forty days (Gen. Rab. 32:5). If Noah was righteous merely by comparison with his generation (cf. Philo Abr. 36–37), this may not be saying much for his righteousness!

[559]. E.g., t. ʿAbod. Zar. 8[9]:4; b. Sanh. 56a (citing Tannaim); 57a; 59a; 74b; Gen. Rab. 26:1; 34:14; Deut. Rab. 1:21. See further Moore, Judaism, 1:274–75; Urbach, Sages, 1:532–33; Sandmel, Judaism, 180.

[560]. R. Hananiah ben R. Simeon ben Gamaliel in b. Yebam. 48b. By contrast, Gentiles were not supposed to keep the Sabbath, since it was not among the Noahide laws (Deut. Rab. 1:21; but contrast the point of Gen 2:2–3).

[561]. So b. ʿAbod. Zar. 2b. A Gentile could (theoretically) be executed for violating these laws (b. Sanh. 57a). But whereas greater knowledge could produce greater responsibility (Luke 12:47; Rom 2:12; Sipre Deut. 43.14.1), some rabbis said it could produce greater reward for obedience (Benatar, “Obligation”).

[562]. Gen. Rab. 98:9.

[563]. Mek. Bah. 5.90ff. (Lauterbach, 2:236); Sipre Deut. 343.4.1. Most later rabbis agreed that Israel also kept these commandments (b. Sanh. 59a).

[564]. A ger toshab (“the sages” in b. ʿAbod. Zar. 64b, which also lists other views). Schoeps, Paul, 170, suggests that most early Gentile Christians were originally synagogue God-fearers responsible only for these laws.

[565]. E.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:1; Exod. Rab. 30:9 (noting that he added an eighth to Abraham, a ninth to Jacob, and all at Sinai); Num. Rab. 14:12 (with a dubious pre-Tannaitic attribution); Deut. Rab. 2:25. God could not give Adam the Torah, since he failed even the six commandments that he was given (Gen. Rab. 24:5; Eccl. Rab. 3:11, §2; for the basic commandments to Adam, see also Gen. Rab. 16:6).

[566]. For the tradition history of the rabbinic versions, see Millard, “Gebote.” On these commandments, see Urbach, “Self-Isolation,” 275–78.

[567]. Also Jos. Ant. 1.102, without adding further commandments.

[568]. Standards for Gentiles appear elsewhere, e.g., Sib. Or. 4.24–34, which may be a Hellenistic oracle updated (if not composed) in the late first century C.E.

[569]. See, e.g., Cohen, “Noahide Commandments.” Others also note precedents, e.g., Smith, Symposium, 165–66.

[570]. See van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides,” 569, noting parallels with each of the seven.

[571]. Not only does Noah’s covenant prefigure Israel’s covenant in Jub. 6:4–10 (with 6:15–16, this passage provides an inclusio around 6:11–14); 7:20–25 portrays the Noahide laws more plainly (although Finkelstein, Pharisaism, 223–27, overstates his conclusions from this evidence; see Schultz, “Views of Patriarchs,” 44–45). The patriarchs kept the Torah before it was given (a view shared by later rabbis, e.g., Gen. Rab. 92:4; and presupposed with the unwritten law in Philo Abr. 5–6, 16, 275–76 [Schultz, “Views of Patriarchs,” 48]), with Noah even keeping the Feast of Shavuot (Pentecost) (Jub. 6:17–31); but sometimes they were shown mercy when they violated laws not yet given (33:15–16). In 7:20, the commandments given to Noah were these: doing justice, covering one’s nakedness, thanking the Creator, honoring parents, loving neighbor, and guarding oneself from sexual immorality, impurity, and injustice.

[572]. See Schultz, “Views of Patriarchs,” 48–49.

[573]. For the most common, “standard” elements (adding theft, “eating from a live animal,” and the requirement of establishing “a legal system”), see Le Cornu, Acts, 583.

[574]. C. Williams, Acts, 31–32; Flusser, Judaism, 630.

[575]. Flusser, Judaism, 508, citing this exact list of five from b. Yoma 67b; Sipra on Lev 18:4 (Weiss, 86a).

[576]. Diog. Laert. 7.1.88. On divine law as meaning living according to nature, see also Epict. Diatr. 2.16.28; on one law and Logos in the universe, see Marc. Aur. 7.9. For a full discussion of natural law in Stoicism, see Watson, “Natural Law.” For the connotative difference between logos and physis (Nature), see Long, Philosophy, 120, 148–49; for the logos and nomos in Cleanthes’s Hymn to Zeus (Stob. Ecl. 1.1.12) as probably universal law, see Grant, Religions, 152–54.

[577]. Vander Waerdt, “Theory.” For Chrysippus (and later for Epictetus as well) humans have some innate ethical knowledge (Jackson-McCabe, “Implanted Preconceptions”). Thus intentions are important (cf. Sen. E. Controv. 10.1.9; Hermog. Issues 61.16–18; 66.12–13; 72.14–73.3; Porph. Marc. 25.401–2; y. Ber. 2:1).

[578]. Especially related to human physicality; Inwood, “Natural Law.” For the wide variety of understandings of “natural law” in antiquity, see, e.g., Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 109–10.

[579]. Sen. Y. Ben. 4.17.4.

[580]. Mus. Ruf. 16, p. 104.35–36. Reason is from the gods and enables one to distinguish good from bad (3, p. 38.26–30). A perfect king would embody law in himself (8, p. 64.11–12). Others also opined that kings must have the law of reason within them (Plut. Uned. R. 3, Mor. 780C) or that some could embody a living law (e.g., Arist. Pol. 3.8.2, 1284a [in Bruce, “All Things,” 98n7]; the patriarchs in Philo Abr. 5).

[581]. Epict. Diatr. 2.16.27–28.

[582]. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11d, pp. 68–69.1–8; 2.7.11i, pp. 76–77.30–37.

[583]. In Plato, e.g., Diog. Laert. 3.8, 86. Porphyry distinguished the law of nature from the law of God (Marc. 25.384–86); the former related to bodily need (25.387–88), and the latter was known by the mind (25.392–93). Knowing the law of nature helps one ascend to the divine law, which established nature’s law (27.420–22); these laws superseded a written law (27.422–25). The mind knows the divine law (26.409–11; cf. 26.413–14, 417–20; 32.485–88), though it is inaccessible to the impure (26.402–3), and the wicked reject it (16.272–73). The law of nature teaches deliverance from passion (31.484), and one freed from passion has access to divine law (26.403–4). Cf. “divine writings” placed in a person (9.164–65). For one discussion of the law of nature in ancient sources generally, see Grant, Miracle, 19–28.

[584]. Cf. Cicero in Frank, Aspects, 109; Seagrave, “Natural Law Theory” (suggesting that Aquinas developed the Aristotelian and Ciceronian approach); Ovid Metam. 15.6; Max. Tyre 6.5–6; 11.12 (comparing mind and law; he regards God as pure Mind [27.8]); even Lucan C.W. 7.1; Libanius Topics 2.5; Introduction of a Law 1.1. Cf., in Palestinian Judaism, 1 En. 72:2; 73:1; 74:1; 76:14; 78:10; 79:1–2; 1QM X, 12–13.

[585]. Xen. Mem. 4.4.19. Skeptics such as Sextus Empiricus would have appealed to exceptions to disprove this thesis. For medieval natural law, cf. William of Thierry 2.12, Levy, Krey, and Ryan, Romans, 89.

[586]. Diog. Laert. 2.68. The best morality was one not dictated by laws (Virg. Aen. 7.204–25, citing instead self-control and divine custom; Gal 5:23; 1 Tim 1:9).

[587]. Arist. Rhet. 1.15.6, 1375ab. Cf. Peter of Olivi 4.13, Levy, Krey, and Ryan, Romans, 89.

[588]. Rhet. Alex. 1, 1421b.36–1422a.2. Cf. the sense of justice common to humanity in Apul. Metam. 3.8.

[589]. Cic. Inv. 2.22.65; 2.53.161.

[590]. Cic. Tusc. 1.13.30.

[591]. Cic. Leg. 1.10.28. For Cicero, nature was the source of right (Off. passim, e.g., 3.17.72; 3.28.101) and itself equivalent to true law (Leg. 3.1.3); those who obeyed nature’s laws would always do right (Off. 1.28.100).

[592]. Cic. Leg. 1.12.33. Society’s common bonds came from nature (Off. 1.16.50).

[593]. Cic. Leg. 2.4.10.

[594]. Sen. E. Controv. 1.1.14.

[595]. Dio Chrys. Or. 80.5–6. For Dio, humans have an innate knowledge of deity reinforced by nature (12.27–29, 32). Customs were “unwritten laws” of particular societies (76.1), but they could differ from universal unwritten laws.

[596]. Justin. Inst. 1.2.1–2 (Birks and McLeod, 36–37), a later compilation of earlier laws.

[597]. Gaius Inst. 1.1 (Gordon and Robinson, 19–20). In the Hellenistic period, Rhet. Alex. pref. 1420a.26–28 defined law as reason (λόγος) specified by common agreement, a sort of social contract. Stoicism influenced Roman law in looking for a universal, rational basis for law (Jervis, “Law,” 635); Remus, “Authority,” suggests that in the period of the empire, “nature” helped sustain or supplant laws, which had been losing their moral authority.

[598]. Tac. Hist. 2.91.

[599]. Sil. It. 6.120 (poetic).

[600]. Lucan C.W. 7.1. (Lucan believes that even the creator is bound by eternal law [2.10].)

[601]. Soph. Antig. 450–57, 913–14. In the golden age, people did right without needing a law (Ovid Metam. 1.89–90).

[602]. See Sterling, “Universalizing the Particular.” Cf. LXX translators in Roetzel, Paul, 52.

[603]. Sib. Or. 3.757–59.

[604]. See Horsley, “Law of Nature”; cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:332–47; Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 114–15. Koester, Paul and World, 126–42, emphasizes Philo’s contribution in particular to natural law discussion.

[605]. Myre, “Loi.” Stoics also emphasized God’s rule of the universe as a state (Cic. Fin. 3.19.64).

[606]. Najman, “Written Copy”; idem, “Authority.” Whereas Greek epitaphs often spoke of natural law, 4 Maccabees identifies the “law” with the Pentateuch (Redditt, “Nomos”); for the Torah as the law of reason, see, e.g., 4 Macc 1:17, 34; 2:5–14, 23; 5:16–34; 6:30; 7:7–8; 9:15; 11:5, 27; 13:22, 24.

[607]. Bockmuehl, “Law.” Unwritten law in Philo resembles Greek concepts more than later rabbis’ oral law (Martens, “Unwritten Law,” on Philo Spec. Laws 4.149–50; cf. the hidden, eschatological interpretation of the law at Qumran in Hamidovic, “Halakhah”). Rabbis could envision a central unifying principle to the law (as in b. Šabb. 31a; cf. Zipor, “Talebearers”; Keener, Matthew, 249), which some scholars relate to Greek unwritten law (Jeremias, Sermon, 3).

[608]. Mitsis, “Stoics and Aquinas.”

[609]. This is true though some supporters of the Lev 17–18 interpretation adamantly reject the Noahide law interpretation (e.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 557). The rabbis’ conception of Noahide laws in a sense universalized Lev 17–18 (cf., e.g., discussion in Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 383).

[610]. Cf. Millard, “Gebote.”

[611]. Perhaps some viewed these as analogous to Noahide laws, and others as analogous to laws for resident aliens; if so, this might explain the different approaches of James and Cephas in Gal 2:11–14 (Taylor, “Decrees”). Nanos, Mystery, 53, thinks that the decree drew from both models; he further contends (83–84; cf. 166–238, but note “for example,” 246) that the “teaching” received by Roman believers (Rom 6:17–18; 16:17–18) was this apostolic decree of halakot for righteous Gentiles.

[612]. Bauckham, “James,” 465, noting that Tert. Apol. 9.13 cites not only Lev 17:12–13 but also 17:15 and that Pseudo-Clementine literature cites Lev 17–18 for the reasons.

[613]. On the law of love in Luke 10:25–37 and Acts 15:20, see Oegema, “Gebot,” 510–14.

[614]. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 68–69. Barrett suggests that those included are the first, third, fourth, and seventh in the “standard” list (Barrett, Acts, 734–35). Barrett notes that “there is nothing in the text to call Noah to mind” (734); that objection, however, would rule out most references to Noahide laws apart from their frequent rabbinic title, since they were more often used to highlight the prohibitions than their origin. Lightfoot briefly rejects reference to Noahide laws here (“Third Notebook on Acts,” page facing p. 9, from Witherington), yet (similar to my approach) views the decree as a matter not of principle but “simply to avoid offense” and unite Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus (p. 9).

[615]. Foakes-Jackson and Lake, “Dispersion,” 1:166 (citing Jos. Ant. 20.38–45, especially debating circumcision). Diaspora Jews commonly sought for Gentiles just to abandon idols and immorality; see Collins, “Symbol,” 163–86, as cited in Barreto, Negotiations, 99–100.

[616]. Witherington, Acts, 464.

[617]. See, e.g., Every, “Jews and God-Fearers.”

[618]. Sanders, “Between Jews and Gentiles,” suggests that Paul’s opposition to idolatry and immorality yet failure to observe Jewish boundaries regarding the Sabbath, food, and circumcision constituted boundary markers for a new movement, but the Noahide issue (the minimum necessary for righteous Gentiles as Gentiles) may best explain the particulars.

[619]. Cf. discussion in Wood, “Ethics,” 257–58. For the decree’s purpose as being unity between Jewish and Gentile believers, see also Savelle, “Reexamination”; Baker, Identity, 200; cf. also Robertson, Conversations, 66.

[620]. The preferred sense today includes a wider range of hortatory speech (Stowers, Letter Writing, 23), but there are texts that fit the narrower sense of stringing together exhortations, though these may be adapted for their context.

[621]. E.g., Isoc. Nic. 51–56 (Or. 3.37–38); Demon. 13–43; Dicta Catonis, collection of distichs, lines 1–57; Rhet. Her. 4.30.41; Diog. Laert. 1.70; 4Q412 frg. 1; Ps.-Phoc. passim; Test. Dan 5:1–4; cf. proverbs in 4Q424. On paraenesis in early Jewish sources, see further, e.g., Theron, “Motivation”; Stachowiak, “Pouczenia”; in general, see, e.g., Aune, Environment, 191; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 124–25.

[622]. Pauline paraenesis does have connections with its context (Sensing, “Paraenesis”; probably also more the case with philosophers than has been supposed, Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 65–66, 121) and, in some respects, resembles the use of sententiae in rhetoric (Holloway, “Prose”).

[623]. See more fully Charles, “Vice Lists” (including the four “cardinal” virtues of Plato and Aristotle, 1252–53); Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 89–91; idem, Environment, 195–96, 201; Nock, Christianity, 100; Deissmann, Light, 316; Engberg-Pedersen, “Vices.” The frequent looseness of the connection does not imply that the ethicists listing vices lacked conviction about their wrongness.

[624]. E.g., Jer 7:9; Ezek 18:6–8, 11–13; Hos 4:2; 4Q477 2 II, 4; Wis 14:22–27 (esp. 14:25–26); Philo Posterity 52. Cf. also eschatological vice lists (1QS IV, 9–11; Sib. Or. 2.255–82; Test. Levi 17:11; 2 Tim 3:1–5; see comment on birth pangs of the Messiah at Acts 2:23; for Gentile equivalents, Hesiod W.D. 181–201; Lucian Men. 11–12).

[625]. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 9.2.10–12 (in a chain, as in Jas 1:14–15); Epict. Diatr. 2.8.23; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b, p. 12.2–12; 2.7.10b, pp. 58.32–60.1; 2.7.10b, p. 60.1–7; 2.7.10e, p. 62.14–19; 2.7.11e, p. 68.17–20; Diog. Laert. 2.93. Stated negatively, cf., e.g., Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.17–22.

[626]. E.g., Plato Laws 1.649D; Arist. E.E. 2.3.4, 1220b–1221a; V.V. 1249a–1251b; Diogenes Ep. 36; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 43; Iambl. V.P. 17.78.

[627]. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 36, 1442a.13–14; Cic. Pis. 27.66; Cat. 2.4.7; 2.5.10; 2.10.22, 25; Cael. 22.55; Phil. 3.11.28; 8.5.16; Mur. 6.14 (negated); Invect. Sall. 6.18; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.13; 3.53; 4.126; 8.8; 32.28, 91; 33.23, 55; 34.19; Fronto Nep. am. 2.8; Lucian Posts 4; Charon 11, 15; Tim. 28; Nigr. 17; Max. Tyre 5.7; 36.2.

[628]. On idol food, see further Aune, Revelation, 191–94.

[629]. Witherington, Acts, 462 (Greg. Nyssa Greg. Thaum. [PG 46:944]; cf. Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. 20, on 8:1ff.); idem, Corinthians, 200; idem, “Thoughts”; cf. also Fee, “Eidōlothyta”; idem, Corinthians, 359–61; contrast Fisk, “Eating Meat.” Ἀλισγέω, the cognate verb of ἀλίσγημα, appears in the sense of defiling food in Mal 1:7, though it does not always refer to idols (Dan 1:8; Sir 40:29).

[630]. Witherington, “Why Not Eat?”

[631]. With Garland, 1 Corinthians, 365n5; Thiselton, Corinthians, 617, indeed, suggests that it includes any food consecrated to a deity (broader than being sacrificed). Location did not specify function (Smith, Symposium, 76–77).

[632]. Thiselton, Corinthians, 660–61; e.g., Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (Vogels, 96; Bray, Corinthians, 79). Sometimes this was to avoid causing stumbling; see Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. 20.8, 11; 24.5; 25.1–2 (Bray, Corinthians, 77, 79, 98, 100–101); Severian of Gabala in Pauluskommentare 259 (Bray, Corinthians, 100); Aug. Ep. 47 (Bray, Corinthians, 100).

[633]. Cf., e.g., Garland, “Dispute”; idem, 1 Corinthians, 395; Still, “Paul’s Aims.” Paul answers the Corinthians on their terms in 1 Cor 8 and advances his own argument in 1 Cor 10 (Willis, Idol Meat, 270–71; cf. Dawes, “Danger”).

[634]. E.g., Ezek 18:6; 22:9.

[635]. See Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 138; Willis, “Banquets,” 144; idem, Idol Meat, 14, 63.

[636]. Ramsay, Pictures, 264. In many social settings, such as associations, food and other elements honored imperial deities (Harland, Associations, 239–64); most banquets involved sacrifice (Smith, Symposium, 85; Willis, Idol Meat, 7–9).

[637]. Smith, Symposium, 28–30; cf. Xen. Cyr. 7.1.1; Iambl. V.P. 28.155–56. For examples of libations more generally, see, e.g., Hom. Il. 1.462; 6.258–60; 9.175–77; Od. 2.431–32; 3.333–34; Hesiod W.D. 724; Eurip. Hyps. 118–19; Ap. Rhod. 1.435–36; Val. Max. 2.6.8; Pliny E. N.H. 14.23.119; Arrian Alex. 1.11.6; 6.3.2; Pliny Ep. 10.96.5; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.10; 5.10; Philost. Hrk. 1.6; 33.36; 53.9; 58.5.

[638]. Jeffers, World, 45.

[639]. Willis, Idol Meat, 63n234.

[640]. This proved a temptation to Jews invited to pagan friends’ ceremonies (Goodman, State, 49).

[641]. E.g., Babr. 97; see Klauck, Context, 13–19. On imperial-cult feasts, see, e.g., Klauck, Context, 319–21.

[642]. E.g., Smith, Symposium, 67–69; Xen. Anab. 5.3.9; Theophr. Char. 9.2; Paus. 9.39.5. Benefactors such as the emperor could dole out meat to the masses (Jos. Ant. 19.130).

[643]. Philost. Ep. Apoll. 29 complains that festivals promote gluttony; cf. celebratory eating at a festival in Apoll. K. Tyre 39. For eating at festivals in Roman Egypt, see Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 53–54, 57.

[644]. Cf. Theissen, Setting, 125–28; Smith, Symposium, 32; Jeffers, World, 61; Thiselton, Corinthians, 619; in Jewish Palestine, Sanders, Judaism, 129. Meggitt, “Meat Consumption,” argues that meat was more widely available outside festivals than many scholars (who have treated it as an exclusively elite option) have supposed.

[645]. Frost, “Preservation.”

[646]. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:10.

↑ Back to top