4. James’s Biblical Proposal (15:13–21)

After God’s obvious recent activity has garnered sufficient attention, James offers an answer to the biblical objections (Acts 15:5).[338] In an honor-shame culture, making proposals in public assemblies was risky business; such proposals could bring praise, blame, or a mixture of the two on those who advanced them, depending on the proposals’ reception (Pliny Ep. 3.20.1). James, however, has sufficient stature and diplomatic skill to offer a successful proposal.

a. The Speech and the Historical James

Apart from his mention in Acts 12:17 and the passing mention of Jesus’s brothers in 1:13, James appears in only two passages in Acts, here and in 21:18. Both passages that focus extensively on James emphasize his leadership role in the Jerusalem church and his approval of Paul and his message. James holds special rank in the assembly (15:19), perhaps in part because of Peter’s lengthy absence (12:17). (This fits Paul’s description of the meeting, where he names James first among the pillars; Gal 2:9).[339] Because Luke’s audience already knows of James (without which Acts 12:17 would be insufficient to introduce him), they understand that this is a conservative Jewish Christian leader affirming the Gentile mission; thus he provides another link of continuity for the Gentile churches with the heritage of Israel.

He also provides a link with Jesus; though Luke does not state that James is Jesus’s brother,[340] his audience presumably knows this already (Gal 1:19; Jude 1; cf. Mark 6:3; Matt 13:55). Offices or occupations were often passed on within a family (cf., e.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 2.19.599). People often appointed relatives [341] or those in their clan—that is, those whom they could trust most on account of blood ties. Others, however, feared that this practice raised the shadow of nepotism, against which one might need to provide apologetic (Jos. Ant. 4.26–28, 34, 58). (Luke simply does not make the kinship connection explicit.) James was known for his devout attention to the law;[342] the frequent contention that he was “legalistic,” however, rests too heavily on Hegesippus, whose material probably reflects inauthentic Ebionite exaggerations.[343] On the death of James, see discussion at Acts 21:18–20.

Paul calls James an apostle and brother of the Lord (Gal 1:19).[344] He claims that James received a personal resurrection appearance (1 Cor 15:7), just like Peter (15:5; cf. Luke 24:34) and, in a different way, Paul (1 Cor 15:8). Such an encounter helps explain why he suddenly appeared as a follower of Jesus after the resurrection (Acts 1:14), though he had not been following him before (Luke 8:19–21). He was one of the top three leaders of the Jerusalem church with Peter and John in the period after Acts 15 (Gal 2:9). Paul wrote of him as either very conservative or one who wished to conciliate the conservative faction and retain their support, at least on the matter of table fellowship with the uncircumcised (2:12). Perhaps precisely because James had not been fraternizing with Gentiles as Peter had (cf. Acts 10:23, 48; 11:3) and would (Gal 2:12; and because the latter had spent more time away from Jerusalem;[345] Acts 9:32–11:2; 12:17; cf. Gal 2:11), “it was James, rather than Peter, who could now carry the rank and file with him.”[346] James was apparently known to particularly appreciate and support the conservative faction in general. The epistle attributed to James in the NT uses δικαιόω (Jas 2:21, 24–25) in a manner that recalls Pauline use but likely either polemicizes against Paul (or Pauline Christianity) or (more likely) against a caricature or abuse of Paul’s position (already suggested in Rom 3:8).

Some scholars argue that this speech “shows striking similarities” to the epistle attributed to James in the NT;[347] although both are too short (and at least the Acts passage too secondhand) for significant stylistic criticism, both reflect the undisputed authority of a teacher (or his tradition) focused on his mission to Israel (Jas 1:1; 2:2) and able to use Hellenistic Jewish traditions and quote the LXX (note the LXX quote in Acts 15:16–18).[348] Although Luke in particular among early Christian writers employs ἐπικαλέω for calling on the Lord’s name (2:21; 9:14, 21; 22:16; elsewhere, Rom 10:13; 1 Cor 1:2), echoing Joel (Acts 2:21; Rom 10:13), this verb appears for those called by the Lord’s name in the NT only here and in Jas 2:7.[349] If the epistle reflects some genuine tradition from the church’s most prominent “James,” it may be noteworthy that James could offer as an example not only Abraham (Jas 2:21–28) but the Gentile adherent Rahab (2:25).[350]

At the same time, not all arguments sometimes offered for the speech’s basic authenticity are persuasive. In favor of the position that Acts 15:18–29 reflects the views of the Jerusalem church’s leadership, some argue that the text reveals a skillful Jewish exegetical argument uncharacteristic of Luke, expresses a pre-Lukan notion of the Christian community as an eschatological temple, and upholds the law of Moses.[351] But the eschatological temple (see comment below) and upholding the law of Moses are concepts more familiar to Luke than this argument allows (though the latter is admittedly associated especially with the Jerusalem church, 21:20).

Luke would not have had a verbatim transcript of the speech, but he likely would have had access to the letter he quotes (15:23–29, though there remains some debate on whether it stems from precisely this occasion) and probably a summary of James’s point and exegesis (see comment below).[352] After all, Paul was present at the meeting, and the basic content of such speeches would not be quickly forgotten (though sympathetic hearers would probably remember the parts they found most agreeable).

The role of a public speaker urging concord was an ancient and honorable one (see esp. comment on Acts 15:25). Gamaliel brought peaceful resolution in an assembly earlier (5:34–40), and James accomplishes an even more agreeable resolution here (though it should be noted that the sides were much further apart in Acts 5). Some figures were so respected that others would not express disagreements among themselves around them (Philost. Hrk. 35.4; cf. Mark 9:34; Luke 9:46–47; 22:24); creating concord was a suitable role for a great philosopher (Iambl. V.P. 7.34) or an ideal ruler (Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 64.13).

b. James’s Introduction (15:13–14)

Stressing the orderly process, Luke indicates that James begins after the speakers of Acts 15:12 become silent,[353] just as they were speaking once the multitude became silent (note the repetition of σιγάω in 15:12–13). As with 15:7, for “men,” see comment on 2:14; for “brothers,” see comment on Acts 9:17.[354]

Luke reports only the briefest exordium in 15:13 and, at not much greater length, the narratio in 15:14. These are so brief that either Luke desires us to think that James defies traditional rules of rhetoric (not the view of James one gets from the speech’s sophisticated content or from the epistle circulated in his name [Jas 1:1]) or Luke expects us to recognize that he has condensed this speech—like most other speeches in the book (cf. Acts 2:40). In this case, he has no interruption at the end of Peter’s speech (as in 2:37; 10:44) but “has edited his material so that James’s speech picks up where Peter left off.”[355] Thus Peter’s speech is primarily narrative; James provides the proofs. As a matter of halakah, the question at hand would need to be decided especially by Scripture.[356]

God’s “first” taking Gentiles alludes to Peter’s claim in the immediate context about Cornelius’s household hearing in “the early days” (15:7). It refers not to a sequence in salvation history but to the first public occasion on which Gentiles were converted without circumcision (the Jerusalem church may not know of 8:26–40).[357] Though “visited” (ἐπεσκέψατο) undoubtedly alludes to its frequent divine sense (Luke 1:68, 78; 7:16; 19:44; Acts 7:23),[358] it might also connote “choice” (Acts 6:3), hence possibly alluding again to Peter’s speech in 15:7, where God made a choice.[359] Scripture normally applied the term to God visiting Israel; its application here to the Gentiles is noteworthy.[360]

The “people for his name” is attested in Scripture; hence “the prophets’ words concur” in 15:15. Israel (Deut 28:10; 2 Chr 7:14; Jer 13:11 LXX) or the righteous elect within Israel (Isa 43:7; 4Q275 3 2) could be those “called by the Name,” as the hearers would normally expect,[361] but James depends on the passage he is about to quote (Acts 15:17).[362] As scholars often note,[363] the term Luke uses for “people” here he reserves in most cases elsewhere for Israel;[364] thus “a people from among the Gentiles” may be “consciously paradoxical,” including uncircumcised Gentiles in God’s people.[365] This seems especially the case when he speaks of God “taking” a “people,” which language alludes to Exod 6:7 LXX: “I will ‘take’ you for a people, and be your God.”[366] But James will demonstrate from Scripture that God has always planned to bring some of the Gentiles into his people.

The Hebrew name “Simeon” (“Yah has heard”) was always popular, and Greek-speaking areas often assimilated it to Σίμων (“snub-nosed”), by far the most common male name in first-century Palestine.[367] Josephus names Simeon ben Gamaliel both Simon (Life 190, 309) and Simeon (War 4.159). That James uses a Semitic form for a fellow Aramaic-speaking Galilean reinforces the portrait of James’s solidarity with the cultural conservatives, and it reminds them that Peter, who has spoken on behalf of the Gentiles, shares his cultural affinities.[368] Nowhere else attributed to Simon Peter in the NT except in 2 Pet 1:1, “Simeon” may represent James’s deliberate semitizing of Peter’s name for rhetorical effect, with the common knowledge that “Simeon” was the Hebrew equivalent behind “Simon.”[369] (A father combating Hellenism in fact called his son “Simeon,”[370] even though other references to this son in the same book are “Simon.”)[371] “The testimony of Peter,” he is saying, “is not to be doubted, since he is one of us.”[372]

Some scholars have suggested a literary connection with Luke’s earlier “Simeon” in Luke 2:25, 34 or even that Luke may refer to that Simeon, who announced salvation for Gentiles (2:32).[373] Granted, if any early Christian leader would be privy to information from Jesus’s early childhood, it would be James.[374] But it is easier to presuppose what his audience in the narrative world has just heard than that James has informed them of infancy stories without Luke narrating the conveyance of that information. In the narrative world, James must refer to Simon Peter. On the level of Luke’s audience, however, a narrative allusion to the Simeon of Luke 2 is more plausible. But once one begins considering such connections, why not, then, also the nearer Simeon in Acts 13:1, where Simeon’s “dark” complexion could imply multiethnicity (fitting the point, though admittedly he has no speaking role in the text)? These suggestions about literary allusions are possible but fairly speculative.

c. Amos’s Prophecy (15:15–18)

After the church’s discovery that God welcomed Gentiles (Acts 10:28, 45–48; 11:18), the task may have fallen especially to some particularly concerned missionaries such as Paul to lay out the theological groundwork. But the text in Acts 15:15–18 is not Pauline or interpreted in a typically Pauline way, and it is not unlikely that if Luke had access to the substance of the events that transpired at the council, he would be aware of a clinching Scripture text.[375] At the least, Luke, who spent time in Jerusalem during James’s tenure (though he may have met him only briefly, 21:18), would know a text that James and the leaders of the Jerusalem church used to justify God’s activity among the Gentiles through Christian missionaries. This was an issue the Jerusalem church could not well have avoided (Gal 5:11; 6:12), and they would have undoubtedly appealed to Scripture in their arguments.[376]

I. JAMES’S WORDS

For “it has been written” (Acts 15:15), see comment on Acts 1:20. In rhetorical terms, citation of an authority was an “inartificial proof.” Scripture here foretells the existence of a church including Gentiles, so that the promise theme of Luke-Acts legitimates not only Jesus’s coming but also the Gentile mission, and in the mouth of James the Lord’s brother in Jerusalem no less.[377]

“The prophets” here refers to the book of the Twelve Prophets (as in 7:42; 13:40),[378] though Luke also uses the term in global citations of themes. It is possible that Luke’s source (unless the midrashic conflation is his own) also intends something of a global citation here; some scholars argue that other texts are linked by means of similar wording.[379] Some find allusions here to Hos 3:5; Jer 12:15; Isa 45:21;[380] one scholar even finds an allusion to Deut 4:29–35.[381]

“From of old” (Acts 15:18; cf. the global citation in Luke 1:70) may allude to Isa 45:21, as many think.[382] Other texts mention “of old” (e.g., Isa 46:9; 63:16; esp. 64:3); the LXX idiom is so common that it may simply be an idiomatic way of saying that God had revealed these matters far in advance.[383] But “revealed from of old,” referring to God revealing his mind far in advance, probably specifically echoes Isaiah. The LXX of Amos 9:11 has αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ αἰῶνος (omitted in James’s quote), which may have served as a basis for an implicit midrashic connection (or unconscious mnemonic link) here.

The other proposed allusions are, however, more likely on the level of anticipated midrashic exposition than in the Amos quotation itself that Luke preserves for us, which does not depart significantly from Amos. Jeremiah 12:16 speaks of God’s building Gentiles into the midst of his people; the language is close enough to have invited midrashic consideration, but specific evidence for the connection in James’s wording is more difficult to produce. Israel’s restoration “afterward” could allude to other texts as well (e.g., Joel 2:28); Hos 3:5 is closer in this regard. Μετὰ ταῦτα (Acts 15:16) is an extremely common phrase (nearly one hundred times in the LXX, and more than twenty in the NT, including seven in Luke-Acts)[384] and is not even an exact match with Jer 12:15–16. Although hard evidence for these allusions in the text is missing, first-century interpreters would have appealed to all these analogous texts (or as many as the interpreter remembered) in explaining the meaning of the quoted text. Luke himself is likely amenable to the notion of Israel’s eventual repentance and restoration implied in the conclusion of Amos and in other passages (see comment on Acts 1:6–7; 3:21).

II. USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT

Would James quote the LXX? Some doubt the possibility and regard the quotation as inauthentic.[385] Certainly Luke condenses or fills out speech reports in his own words, and it was the LXX that Luke would have quoted, because this was the version known to himself and his audience. If the summary of this speech was provided, in writing or orally, as supporting documentation for the decree to the churches of urban Syria and Cilicia, James’s speech would be reported to them in Greek.[386] This is not “we” material and may reflect Paul’s or the Gentile churches’ summary of a report.[387]

At the same time, it is far more plausible that James himself would likewise have employed the LXX than scholarship has traditionally allowed. The issue is one involving the Diaspora, and the arguments would need to make sense for a Diaspora audience, especially if circulated along with the letter, which was certainly in Greek (Acts 15:23–29). Even though the Jerusalem church lost most of its Hellenists in 8:1 and 11:19–20 and we cannot know if it regained many of them,[388] life in Jerusalem would have demanded significant use of Greek;[389] although in rural Galilee most Jews used Aramaic as a first language,[390] most were likely bilingual, using Greek as a larger trade language.[391] Members of the Antioch contingent such as Titus, if present at this point, probably would be able to listen only in Greek,[392] and I have elsewhere argued that speeches to mixed crowds in Jerusalem may have been commonly in Greek.[393] (When Paul preaches in a Semitic tongue, it is noteworthy enough to require mention and is undertaken to emphasize his solidarity with his nationalistic hearers [Acts 22:2–3, 12].)[394]

James would have known Greek, even if it was not his first language, and was in a position to have improved his command of the language in a Jerusalem setting where Greek may have been the common language of the church, at least for a time. Certainly his use of Greek would not have surprised early Christians despite their knowledge of his role in the Jerusalem church; the letter attributed to him displays, in fact, a high quality of Greek (higher than that attributed to him here).[395] (One might expect this for a circular letter sent to many Jewish believers in the Diaspora [Jas 1:1].)[396] Ancient auditors who knew that James was from Palestine (cf. Gal 1:19; Mark 6:3) apparently expressed no qualms about this situation. Further, Palestinian Jewish interpreters regularly practiced text criticism based on the readings useful to their points; this is true at Qumran as in the rabbis.[397] Some also find elements of exegesis of the Hebrew text alongside that of the Septuagint behind Luke’s description.[398]

III. THE SENSE IN AMOS

Before examining the sense in Amos, it may be valuable to establish whether scholars may use the rest of Amos to interpret this passage, which many interpreters find too optimistic for the rest of the work. (For both Luke’s narrative and his real audiences, however, the point would be moot: they accepted the unity of Amos.) A few scholars reject the authenticity even of Amos 9:8b–10.[399] Yet 9:7–10, as a whole, clearly repeats much of the message of the book, undercutting the theology of “national privilege” as in 1:3–2:6; 3:2; 6:2,[400] in accordance with Deuteronomic tradition.[401] The rhetorical question picks up where 3:1 left off.[402] Amos 9:7 is connected with 1:3–8,[403] especially “Kir” in 1:5 (9:7d). Amos 9:8 also relates to the preceding context,[404] as does 9:9.[405]

Thus it is 9:11–15 that is most often considered to be secondary redaction.[406] Some complain that these verses are “wholly devoid of moral earnestness” because they do not demand repentance;[407] others describe them as a redactional appeal to repentance in line with Deuteronomic theology.[408] Yet hope for a remnant’s restoration is no more incompatible with hyperbolic warnings of annihilation here than in other prophets.[409] Some regard the text as authentic with amplification [410] or as an addition by Amos himself after prophesying in the north;[411] others accept it as an integral part of Amos as originally composed.[412] More recent commentators, skeptical of traditional redaction-critical speculations, accept the passage as original more often than it was accepted in the past.[413]

This passage does indeed relate to the rest of the book. In 9:11, “walling up” the breaches answers the judgment of 4:3; “building” or “rebuilding”[414] the house may recall YHWH building in 9:6. “Overtake” in 9:13 contrasts with the overtaking of judgment in 9:10; the melting of the hills in 9:13 likewise contrasts with YHWH melting lands in judgment in 9:5.[415] The restoration from captivity in 9:14 reverses the captivity of 9:4.[416]

Nor is the promise of hope completely new, even in this context (see esp. 9:8c), unless one makes its prior occurrences likewise redactional (as many are willing to do).[417] Amos admittedly has an “anti-remnant” tradition, seeking to undermine Israel’s religious complacency and false sense of security.[418] Some texts in Amos that some scholars have suggested as supporting Israel’s restoration do not likely offer as much support as advocates hope; thus 3:12 simply follows ancient legal conventions;[419] the case for 4:4–13 as a liturgy of covenant renewal [420] is weak;[421] the allegedly “confident prayer” of 7:1–5 [422] seems, in fact, to decline in confidence gradually in 7:6–9.[423] By contrast, however, 5:4–6 and 14–15 do appear to support the possibility of a remnant [424] and are woven inseparably into the fabric of the book as an integral part of a third judgment oracle. If these lines are authentic, there is no reason to dismiss 9:8c or 9:11–15.[425]

James’s exegesis concerning the nations could derive some support from the context. The mention of Ethiopians in 9:7 may be due to their distance,[426] and that of the Philistines and Aram due to their proximity and rivalry.[427] “Caphtor” likely refers to Crete or at least to an Aegean area once under Minoan influence,[428] the “Sea Peoples” of Egyptian texts. That YHWH is God of all nations and of all history was a possible logical corollary of monotheism.[429] A logical conclusion to the rejection of national privilege (9:7), however, is judgment (9:8). Whether the sieve of 9:9 involves destruction or a remnant’s salvation depends on the sieve’s function: either solid grains are being kept back to be preserved (the remnant of 9:8c)[430] or pebbles are kept back to be destroyed, with no explicit mention of a remnant.[431] Because the term can mean “pebble” but does not clearly mean “solid grain” in its other extant instances, the destruction interpretation is likelier: not a pebble will escape. Thus 9:9 probably repeats the thought of 9:8b while 9:8c is repeated and expanded in 9:11–15.

Some scholars object that the fallen house of David requires the prophecy to be late,[432] but this conclusion is not necessary, since Amos’s contemporary Isaiah offers a similar image of David’s household’s restoration (Isa 11:1).[433] The term for “tabernacle” or “hut” here denotes a rude structure such as the temporary shelters at the Feast of Sukkoth.[434] But how has David’s mighty “house” become a tent? Some suggest a reference to the location Succot, where David won victories;[435] others, a “counterfeit” feast of Jeroboam I;[436] still others, Jerusalem.[437] One could use the Feast of Tabernacles to imply a new exodus with David as a new Moses (cf. Neh 8:14; Zech 14:16–19), but this is not the most adequate reading of the text. The term probably emphasizes the dilapidated state of the house [438] and refers to the house of David, celebrated in the Jerusalem temple cult.[439]

Even if “hut” did not portray the house as dilapidated, the participle הנפלת nevertheless would leave no question that it was. The question, however, is the time of dilapidation.[440] Some scholars suggest that the falling occurred (at least insofar as the northern kingdom was concerned) when the kingdoms were divided,[441] but the participial form could suggest a characteristic state or the present time,[442] hence threatening a tottering hut’s impending fall. This could refer to the kingdom’s division, but because we lack contextual specification, this is probably too narrow a reading; the participle probably refers, rather, to the entire state of deterioration of the once-great Davidic empire (as in “days of old,” Amos 9:11d),[443] perhaps because most kings did not walk in the way of David (cf. 1 Kgs 11:33; 15:3; 2 Kgs 16:2).

Thus the fullness of the Davidic promise of 2 Sam 7:12–16,[444] celebrated in Judah’s cult, had been deferred to a future restoration. “In that day” often characterizes the impending day of God’s reckoning (e.g., Amos 2:16; Mic 4:6), but here it connects the restoration with the preceding time of judgment. The “raising”[445] of the house contrasts with its present fallenness; “walling up” the breaches [446] answers the judgment of Amos 4:3.[447]

The result [448] of this restoration of David’s kingdom in Amos 9:11 follows in 9:12. The closest Israel had ever come to the promised boundaries of Gen 15:18 was under David (2 Sam 8:1–3, 10);[449] although Edom was originally denied to Israel’s territory (Deut 2:5), David subdued it (1 Sam 14:47; 2 Sam 8:14; 1 Kgs 11:15–16), as did a later king (2 Kgs 14:7). After this time, Edom tended to revolt under problematic kings (1 Kgs 11:14; 2 Kgs 8:20, 22; 2 Chr 21:10). Edom thus provides a suitable leading representative for the nations being subdued under the restored Davidic kingdom.[450] God would possess the nations (Ps 82:8), but Edom in particular was promised (Num 24:18;[451] Isa 11:13–14;[452] Obad 17). Edom was not the only nation but the primary example, one nation among many.[453]

Does Amos refer only to the nations’ subjugation in Amos 9:12 or also to their blessing? Depending on how literally one presses the text, it could even suggest that just as annihilation is not Israel’s ultimate fate, neither is it the ultimate fate of the other nations,[454] which also face the Assyrian incursion. One dare not press too far the details in a general picture of restoration, but Amos’s opening oracles against the nations [455] (1:3–2:5) must be balanced against his concluding with Israel (2:6–8); he rails against Israelite privilege (3:2; 9:7) and declares that God has shown providence toward other nations, such as Nubia, Crete, and Aram (9:7).

The phrase “over whom my name is called” is an OT idiom denoting ownership; although it may be used of conquest, it is not used only of conquest and is applicable to God’s people.[456] Some scholars think that those over whom the name is called are merely subjugated,[457] but it is also possible that the nations are identified as God’s property in a manner similar to Israel, to whom the expression is also applied.[458] On the latter view, Edom could thus share in the covenant promise [459] and be incorporated into God’s eschatological people,[460] just as Amos’s contemporary Isaiah said that Egypt (Isa 19:18–25, esp. 19:24–25) and Assyria would be (19:23–25).[461] Hasel even suggests that Edom’s inclusion “emphasizes further that the eschatological remnant is largely an entity of religious instead of national destination.”[462] Amos could not have envisioned or approved of some theological alternatives proposed by subsequent Christian interpreters, such as the replacement of Israel with Gentile Christians or the coexistence of two ethnically distinct “peoples of God”; rather, he looked for the restoration of the Israelite people he recognized, but he welcomed some Gentiles to be incorporated into that people in some sense.[463] At the very least, this line of interpretation’s plausibility to some modern scholars suggests that we should not dismiss the basic point of James’s exegesis as necessarily contextually uninformed.

The passage goes on in Amos 9:13–15 to expound Israel’s blessings in material terms, reflecting the fertility that God’s covenant promised an obedient people.[464] Whether the emphasis in 9:13b is directly abundance [465] or speed of growth,[466] the ultimate point is abundance and the removal of the curse. Mountains [467] flowing with grape juice repeats the image of treading grapes in the preceding line. The mountains melt not in judgment here (as in 9:5) but in the flowing of prosperity.[468] The repetition of vineyards in 9:14 reinforces the point.

Many favor the translation “restore the fortunes” in 9:14,[469] but the rendering “turn back the captivity” has in its favor the fact that in almost [470] every instance, this more specific phrase makes equally good sense.[471] The sense is much the same in either case; God reverses the captivity of 9:4. In 9:11, YHWH would rebuild; here the people of Israel join this work of restoration, rebuilding Israel’s ruined cities.[472] Their positive “dwelling” in the cities may contrast with the mournful “dwelling” of 9:5, again with a reversal of conditions.

That they would “plant” vineyards joins them to YHWH’s work of restoration (9:13), just as their building does (9:11).[473] Amos goes on to indicate that YHWH not only blesses their planting but “plants” them on their land and prevents them from being “uprooted” (9:15).[474]

IV. JAMES’S INTERPRETATION

Certainly, James’s choice of text justifying an eschatological perspective is plausible enough in Judea; the Amos quotations used by James here and by Stephen in Acts 7:42–43 are among those used in a key Qumran document to define that sect’s own identity.[475]

Further, James’s quotation may diverge from the traditional LXX reading in favor of the Hebrew at various points; mixed citations were common among those who worked with both languages.[476] (James also makes “the Lord” a clearer object of “seek” than in the LXX, again adapting it more conveniently, as in 2:17–21 and common Jewish practice in this period.)

The LXX [477] diverges from the MT at various points. The two most notable are when the LXX reads the MT’s yarash as darash (“will possess” as “will seek”) and when it reads the MT’s edom as if it were adam (hence translating, “people”).[478] At least the rabbinic movement often used “Edom” as a cipher for Rome,[479] whose dominion would end with the Messiah’s coming.[480] More important, the LXX apparently reads Amos’s parallelism at this point as identifying edom with “nations,” rather than nations expanding the sample edom.[481] Revocalizing words and changing “minor” letters to make a point was standard hermeneutical fare;[482] a word with the same letters as adam might even be identified with it in meaning (Gen. Rab. 9:12).[483]

Contrary to Haenchen’s assertion,[484] an expected original Judean use of only the Hebrew text would not contradict the overall argument of James in this text; although “Edom” was only one nation among many, the Hebrew text goes on to speak of nations called by God’s name who are also subjected to David’s house.[485] Even though possessing them (as the Hebrew puts it) entails conquest, their being called by God’s name also would suggest conversion for first-century readers.[486] That God’s name was invoked over God’s people, city, or house was common OT idiom, contrasting with the Gentiles, who lacked this special designation (Isa 63:19); it applies to “Israel’s covenant status” in many early Jewish texts (e.g., Sir 36:17; 2 Macc 8:15; Bar 2:15; Pss. Sol. 9:9).[487] Others in the first centuries B.C.E. and C.E. applied this text in spiritualizing ways like the LXX.[488]

This is not to suggest that James quoted the verse in Hebrew and Luke has reproduced it in Greek; although this approach is possible, it is still at least somewhat more likely that its LXX form would have commended it more readily to either James’s or Luke’s use, in view of other relevant texts that could have been selected. As noted above, sages sometimes chose alternative readings based on what fit their purposes. An assembly in urban Jerusalem that may have included Greeks (cf. Gal 2:3) might well be conducted in Greek.

If James’s approach portrayed here takes any hermeneutical liberties, it was understood that the goal was the intent, more than the letter, of a text,[489] and he was well within the boundaries established for Jewish hermeneutics in his day. Ambiguity in texts was thought to allow for multiple readings, even on matters of accenting or syllable division (Hermog. Issues 41.14–42.4);[490] later rabbis are particularly known for this practice.[491] Given the range of options accepted in his day, James’s hermeneutic seems fairly closely connected with his text.

V. DAVID’S TENT (15:16)

Scholars debate the meaning here of “David’s tent.”[492] Scripture often employed the image of “building” (like that of “planting”) for God’s people.[493] Whatever else the restoration of David’s “hut” or “tent” means,[494] it surely implies the restoration of David’s “house” or dynasty (for the play on different meanings of David’s “house,” see 2 Sam 7:6–7, 11–13, 16), so dilapidated by the captivity that it is here called a hut (cf. shoots from the cut-off “stump” of Jesse, Isa 11:1).[495] Luke-Acts affirms the fulfillment of David’s line in Jesus (Luke 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11; 3:31; 18:38–39; Acts 2:34; 13:22, 34–36). That David welcomed Gentiles [496] may be relevant, but the international dominion of his house (cf. 2 Sam 8:1–14; 1 Kgs 4:21) is probably even more to the point (cf. Pss 2:8; 18:43; 22:27–28; 47:1–3, 8; 72:11, 17; 110:6). The “tent” (σκηνή) of David referred to his household, from which a ruler would arise (Isa 16:5 LXX).

Other sources also support this reading of the restoration of Davidic rule. Qumran’s 4QFlorilegium, not surprisingly, employs Amos 9:11 in commentary on 2 Sam 7:10–14.[497] The Damascus Document’s interpretation may presuppose this as well if the Florilegium may inform our reading of it. When rebels died by the sword (CD VII, 13, rec. A), the righteous escaped as Amos 5:26–27 predicted (CD VII, 13–14). The “tabernacle of the king” in Amos 9:11 is the “books of the law” (VII, 15–16); this suggests the eschatological interpreter mentioned elsewhere.[498] Second Samuel 7:11–14 applies to the shoot of David (4Q174 1 I, 10–11), who would arise with the eschatological Interpreter par excellence (1 I, 11–12), when God would raise up David’s fallen branch (1 I, 12–13).[499] Later rabbis and the Targum on Amos apply the promise to the restoration of David’s royal line and rule.[500]

Is it possible that the restored “tabernacle” of David refers also to the destroyed temple, demoted again, by virtue of its destruction, to its original form as a “tabernacle”? In this case it would refer to the familiar image of the eschatological temple.[501] Tobit apparently speaks of the temple’s restoration with such tabernacle language (Tob 13:11).[502] More important, it is restored so that people may “seek the Lord” (Acts 15:17), language that could be suitable for worship in a holy place (e.g., Zech 8:21–22; cf. Exod 33:7)—though by no means limited to it (e.g., Deut 4:27–29; Ps 119:45, 94; Isa 9:13; 1 Macc 14:14). But the attachment of the promise to David offers problems for the temple view, though they are not insurmountable. Certainly David was involved in restoring the tabernacle (the ark was dislocated in Eli’s time, 2 Sam 6:17; 11:11; 1 Chr 15:1; 16:1; 2 Chr 1:4); David also established prophetic worship in God’s house (1 Chr 25:1–3). The only other relevant reference to the σκηνή in Luke-Acts concerns the idolatrously abused tabernacle in the wilderness (Acts 7:43–44). But Luke explicitly recognizes that David did not build the temple (7:46–47), weakening this interpretation somewhat.

Bauckham argues that God’s people as an eschatological temple is not an explicit Lukan emphasis and hence must be pre-Lukan.[503] This image is certainly pre-Lukan (it is attested in the Qumran scrolls),[504] but it is not necessarily non-Lukan; there are possible Lukan hints of this idea.[505] I am not inclined to see an allusion to the temple here, but if there is one (and I do not rule it out), we should note its clear contrast with some other visions of the end-time temple. In the Qumran scrolls, the eschatological temple included no Gentiles (4Q174 1 I, 2–7, esp. 2–4).[506]

VI. TURNING OF GENTILES (15:17)

The turning of Gentiles comes after the raising of David’s house. The raising of David’s house implies the restoration of Israel; Jewish Christians would hardly read the text as claiming that the Messiah would rule the Gentiles instead of his people. The Messiah’s rule implies a restoration of the kingdom to Israel, a hope Luke affirms (Acts 3:19–21), but Luke expects this restoration after the infusion or grafting in of many Gentiles (1:6–8; cf. Rom 11:25–26).[507]

Some scholars read the passage as claiming that the turning of Gentiles follows Israel’s restoration and hence that the Twelve have completed their mission of restoring Israel.[508] It is more likely, however, that this completion remains eschatological (cf. the temporal limitation of “times of the Gentiles”; Luke 21:24) and that Jesus’s enthronement as the ultimate Son of David is the completed prerequisite for Gentiles’ conversion. Jesus’s enthronement as the raising of David’s house implies Israel’s restoration, but they do not happen at the same time.

Luke will probably recognize that this is almost the only positive note toward Israel in Amos, which also challenges the presumed spiritual priority of Israel over the nations (Amos 3:2, in the context of Amos 1–2). In contrast to some modern critics (noted above), ancient hearers had every reason to believe that the hopeful close of Amos did belong to the rest of the work.

Other texts did speak of Gentile nations becoming God’s people, joining with Israel (Isa 19:23–25; Zech 2:11 [2:15 LXX]).[509] Others also spoke of Gentiles being welcome in the eschatological temple, if this is relevant here.[510] But it is possible, as some contend, that James employed Amos 9 because the other texts sounded as though these nations were included as proselytes, whereas Amos welcomed them as Gentiles.[511] Early Christians probably did see Gentile converts as spiritual proselytes,[512] but the very point at issue in this context is whether these “proselytes” can be welcomed as ethnic Gentiles without physical circumcision.

As noted above, early readers might think also of various other passages (Jer 12:15; Hos 3:5; perhaps Isa 19:23–25) as well. And as in Paul,[513] an ecclesiocentric reading of texts should not be thought unusual; we may compare the more familiar Jewish Israel-centered readings of texts.[514] Since speeches in political histories often addressed the question of how open the community should be to new members [515] and since Luke’s ideal audience supports (and may be largely a product of) the Gentile mission, this speech will only add to the positive portrayal of the Spirit-guided church in Acts.

d. James’s Compromise Solution (15:19–21)

It is clearly wrong to cause needless difficulty for Gentiles turning to God (Acts 15:19), nor should there be any concern that the law will be neglected (15:21). But as a compromise solution, Gentiles can be asked to follow some basic, minimal expectations for table fellowship to maintain unity with the Jewish believers (15:20). Not each of the expectations is moral, but all are necessary qualifications for Jews (both believers and nonbelievers in Jesus) to regard these believers as righteous, trustworthy Gentiles, with whom table fellowship might appear less problematic for Jewish believers.

It was common to include interpretations following quotations.[516] James’s application of the Amos text (in view of preceding miracle claims) argues for a middle way. In a polarized setting, arguing for a middle way can offend both sides (Ael. Arist. Leuct. Or. 5.1–3),[517] but in Luke’s perspective here it proves successful. Many arguments advocating harmony include the conventional rhetorical topic of compromise.[518]

I. THE PROPOSED DECREE (15:19–20)

James’s speech opens by noting his judgment (Acts 15:19). In some rhetorical handbooks, the speaker’s own opinion can constitute a “supplementary proof” (Rhet. Alex. 14, 1431.9–19, esp. 9–10); he must demonstrate that his experience qualifies his opinion as an expert one and that his opponent lacks relevant experience (1431.11–14). James, of course, need not recite his qualifications for his audience. The first-person pronoun is emphatic, and “I judge” here might be rendered “I decree.”[519] Later references to the decision of the council indicate what the Jerusalem apostles and elders (plural) decreed (Acts 16:4; 21:25). James’s refusal to “annoy” the Gentiles (15:19) employs a term that appears fourteen times in the LXX, including a refusal of Judeans to annoy their Gentile allies (1 Macc 12:14); that Gentiles are “turning to God” fits the language of Acts 15:3 (cf. 14:15).

Paul’s letters reveal that he accepted Gentile adherents as full members of God’s people—that is, as proselytes without physical circumcision. Whether this question came up at the council is not clear, but it was not necessary to resolve at this point. The practical consensus that emerges is not over the theological status of Gentiles’ membership (God-fearers or proselytes); it is a least-common-denominator position: most Jews respected Gentile adherents of synagogues (on such “God-fearers,” see comment on Acts 10:2) and could welcome Gentiles who kept several basic requirements.[520] Other Jerusalemite pietists would not criticize the Jerusalem church for approving of a mission that brought more Gentiles to worship the one God, provided that these adherents met the basic standards for “righteous” Gentiles.

In 15:20–29, as in 11:3, table fellowship between Jew and Gentile is a central issue of concern;[521] this emphasis represents a major issue in the church of Paul’s day (Gal 2:12–13), but Luke has, by arranging other material available to him in the Jesus tradition, prepared his audience for it (e.g., Luke 5:29–30; 15:1–2). A faction associated with James refused table fellowship with the uncircumcised (Gal 2:12);[522] Peter affirmed the practice personally but did not wish to make an issue of it with other Jerusalem believers (2:12); Paul considered denial of such table fellowship a denial of the gospel (2:14). In contrast to his report about the council itself (2:7–9), Paul does not report the resolution of this conflict here, yet he names Peter, James, and John, as well as Barnabas, not as people the Galatian Christians should despise but as fallible Christian leaders they respected.[523]

Paul’s letter leaves unclear whether the debate of Gal 2:14 ended in a stalemate or whether he and the objects of his criticism in Antioch found at least some terms on which they agreed, but if the latter is the case, the rules of Acts 15:20 would make sense. This would be the case whether they were already instituted as a compromise at the council (as in Acts 15), then immediately ignored or reinterpreted in Antioch, or (as some think) instituted at a later date but reported by Luke in Acts 15 (to provide coherency to his narrative, the way he narrates the collection for the Jerusalem poor immediately after the prophecy inviting it, 11:28–30).[524]

Historically, this “Jerusalem decree” does not come from Paul or his churches (presumably including Luke’s), since (at least in his extant letters) Paul did not implement it as a decree in his churches. Presumably, then, such a decree must have originated in the Jerusalem church, and this could not have occurred without at least James’s approval. Thus, once we accept the likelihood of such a decree, “that it was actually promulgated on James’s initiative, as Luke records, is entirely credible.”[525] For ἀπέχω as “abstain” in early Christian exhortation, see 1 Thess 4:3, 22; 1 Pet 2:11; Did. 1.4; Poly. Phil. 2.2; 5.3; 6.1; Herm. 34.8; 39.12.[526] This meaning attested in Christian sources also reflects wider usage.[527]

II. PROPOSED BACKGROUNDS OF THE DECREE

Scholars have proposed various views of the four (or three) prohibitions in Acts 15:20, 29, repeated in 21:25. Among them are the following:

The prohibitions are purely moral, analogous to the three most basic Jewish moral prohibitions.

The prohibitions concern activity in pagan temples.

They echo prohibitions for strangers in the land in Lev 17–18.

They echo traditions that became the Noahide laws.

(1) Moral Interpretation

First, some scholars prefer the “moral” interpretation, viewing the list as an abstract of ethical principles,[528] which is naturally appealing to modern sensibilities and some ancient ones as well. The Western text, which includes only the three “ethical” principles (“blood” can be interpreted as “bloodshed” if not linked with strangled food), may display familiarity with rabbinic tradition.[529] Probably during the Hadrianic revolt, rabbis decided that Jews need not submit to martyrdom for minor issues, but held that three tests were nonnegotiable: idolatry, bloodshed, and sexual immorality.[530] These three sins appear together regularly in rabbinic literature.[531]

This view is problematic. From a pragmatic angle, first-century cultural compromises need not appeal to modern sensitivities. More to the point of the evidence, the moral approach is most easily defended by following the Western reading in omitting “strangled.” The textual evidence, however, strongly favors reading all four elements here rather than three,[532] and the moment we admit the food prohibition of things strangled alongside idol food, “blood” becomes likely a food prohibition rather than a prohibition of murder.

Further, the rabbinic evidence cited in its support is not substantially earlier or more dominant than the Noahide law interpretation; it is also far less relevant to the issue of welcoming Gentiles. We do find this summary in earlier forms and applied to Gentiles, but in different language and probably simply because these represent the most basic elements of Jewish morality, which can be enumerated or articulated in various ways. For example, a possibly second-century B.C.E. Alexandrian hope for a universal, eschatological law [533] is summarized as avoiding idolatry and immorality (specifically adultery and male homosexual intercourse) and not killing (specifically infanticide; Sib. Or. 3.762–66).

The “moral” approach also may impose a modern category on an era that defined its categories differently. Meat with blood in it may not offend modern “moral” sensibilities, but it offended keepers of Torah. In listing sins inviting the destruction of Judah (Ezek 33:27–29), Ezekiel lists eating meat with blood in it (33:25) alongside idolatry, bloodshed (33:25–26), and adultery (33:26).

That two of the list’s core ethical principles overlap with those in Acts 15 and the other proposed parallels is, of course, instructive; Judaism had certain core ethical principles that appeared regularly (whether in the basic demands for Jews or in those for Gentiles).[534] Moreover, these three precepts appear in rabbinic tradition as a sample of Noahide laws. Earlier rabbis were cited as teaching that Gentiles could be executed for three crimes (“adultery, bloodshed, and blasphemy”), but later rabbis claimed that the punishment applied for violating any of the Noahide laws (b. Sanh. 57a).

(2) Avoiding Pagan Temples

Second, some scholars argue that the regulations prohibit involvement with pagan temples. In practice, this view resembles the first because it boils the ethical issues down to idolatry and immorality.[535] On that view, all four prohibitions concern temptations that appeared together at pagan temple festivals (cf. 2 Macc 6:4–5).[536] In this case, James is correct that they will not “trouble” the Gentiles (Acts 15:19; on this view, imposing general Jewish food laws would);[537] Paul also can be said to comply with the decree because Paul does expect Christians to leave idolatrous temples.[538]

This approach has some merit in reminding us of a setting where many Gentiles would encounter these temptations together. It is, however, ultimately too narrow. If these regulations concern simply temple feasts, 15:20 is an unusual way to put it; the simple prohibition “Do not attend temple feasts” would be much more direct and would cause much less confusion to Gentiles. It is indeed often argued that poor Gentiles might acquire meat only at civic festivals,[539] but this would not be true for rich Gentiles—and Jews were well aware of wealthy Gentile proselytes and sympathizers. Idol food was available outside temples, including in meetings of various associations;[540] prostitutes were often available after private banquets.[541] Further, if all the food regulations concern temples, then the prohibition against meat with blood in it simply echoes the prohibition against idol food (narrowing the list to two requirements), even though the prohibition against blood in the OT is less narrow. Nor are the supporting arguments finally persuasive: James would not “trouble” the Gentiles (15:19) even if he addresses more than temple food; few argue that the prohibition of blood (required of all Noahides, Gen 9:4) implies obedience to all the food laws (cf. Acts 10:11–15). Moreover, the question is not so much whether Paul complies with the decree but whether he cites it—which remains a problem on whatever view one takes, because he never does so in his extant letters. He does comply with it in the sense of arguing against idolatry and sexual immorality, though his case against idol food is somewhat nuanced (the solution might prove more helpful for explaining his omission of blood, except that even idol food was often drained of blood).[542]

(3) Laws for Sojourners

Third, scholars commonly favor a background here in Lev 17–18.[543] We must address this proposal at much greater length. This passage in Leviticus provided Israelites clear biblical guidance for how to live with Gentiles among them. If Gentiles would be “among God’s people” in the end time (Jer 12:16; Zech 2:11 [2:15 LXX]), perhaps the eschatological ingathering of Gentiles should be regulated by rulings in the Torah for Gentiles “in the midst of” Israel. Leviticus 17–18 includes this phrase five times (though 17:12 repeats 17:10), producing four commands (17:8, 10–12, 13; 18:26). Some interpreters make these commands identical to (and in the same sequence with)[544] the apostolic decree’s list: idol foods (17:8–9, though this is not explicit); “blood” (17:10, 12); “strangled”—that is, the blood must be drained (17:13, again not explicit); and sexual immorality (18:26).[545] Some other laws also applied to resident aliens (such as the Sabbath, Exod 20:10; Deut 5:14), but “in your midst” is the midrashic connection linking the other laws.[546]

One advantage of this view is that it is rooted in a text that is definitely early and in universal use among Jews and Christians; it is certainly reasonable to suppose that it supplied some of the exegetical basis for the views supporting James’s proposal, whether these texts were its direct source (and whether midrashically expounded by James) or not. Later teachers applied laws concerning the “stranger in the land” (the ger) to proselytes (lacking closer biblical precedents).[547] This ambiguity would explain the later Pauline debate in Gal 3 over what had not been resolved: were Gentile converts full Jews, merely sojourning “God-fearers,” or (as Paul seems to argue) a middle way as spiritually part of the covenant without ethnic transformation?[548]

Other scholars, however, argue that Lev 17–18 is probably not the background.[549] This is first of all because the Leviticus passage offers guidance only for life in Eretz Israel, not in the Diaspora (where both Antioch and the new mixed churches are located), and the decree is for the Diaspora (Acts 15:23).[550] One could reply that the passage offered principles that could be applied to evaluating righteous Gentiles or proselytes, but then we are talking about James’s depending on a theology based on the passage, rather than on the passage itself. (The application to evaluating righteous Gentiles, in fact, is compatible with the Noahide-laws view below, which does involve theology based on this passage.)

Second, the content of the one passage differs from that of the other, a difference that may be significant in light of available parallels in other passages. The specific prohibitions in Leviticus addressed to strangers correspond exactly to the Jerusalem decree’s list only regarding the blood (Lev 17:10–13) and various kinds of sexual unchastity (without using the term πορνεία, 18:6–26).[551] Idolatry (hence eating idol food) is excluded by implication, but the rule against offering sacrifices on one’s own is broader than this, requiring cultic centralization.[552] Yet one could locate other passages combining at least two of the three elements, especially idolatry and sexual immorality, which were commonly linked in antiquity (Exod 32:6–8 [cited in 1 Cor 10:7]; Hos 4:11–14; Mic 1:7); one might also link all three in Exod 34:15–16.

Finally, the midrashic connection with Leviticus’s “in your midst” has to be inferred by means of an implicit connection between Amos 9:12 and the analogous Jer 12:16 (and, by a larger midrashic stretch, Zech 2:11).[553] This connection is plausible but not explicit, and the phrase is frequent in the OT (cf. also Luke 17:21; 22:27; 24:36; Acts 2:22).[554] Whether we think of laws concerning sojourners or of Noahide laws, the outcome is largely the same: a preexisting category allows the church to welcome Gentiles as Gentiles, hence without requiring them to observe the full Torah.[555]

(4) Noahide Laws

The fourth major proposal for the decree’s background is the so-called Noahide laws.[556] If by “Noahide laws” we mean the developed rabbinic form of the idea, naturally the sources are late;[557] but if we consider a range of early Jewish traditions concerning what God required of Gentiles, non-Jewish descendants of Noah, a core of relevant material is available. Later rabbis normally held Gentiles responsible not for keeping laws given only to Israel [558] but for keeping the few requirements that God had given to all humanity—namely, laws given up to the time of Noah, from whom all people were descended. These laws appear fairly often in rabbinic sources.[559]

All Gentiles would be responsible for observing these rules.[560] The Gentiles will protest at the judgment that they cannot be judged, because they lacked the law; God will remind them of the seven commandments given to Noah.[561] (Rabbis would not expect them abolished in the eschatological time; indeed, some Amoraim said that the Messiah would give the Gentiles thirty additional commandments.)[562] Tannaim believed that the Gentiles did not keep even these seven commandments.[563] An individual Gentile who kept the Noahide laws, however, would be a “righteous Gentile.”[564] Originally God gave six commandments to Adam,[565] adding the prohibition of meat with blood during Noah’s time. The table on page 2266 provides some of the sample listings (including prerabbinic lists that are not all clearly Noahide laws in the later sense).[566]

Although its most developed form is rabbinic, the conception of Noahide laws did not begin with later rabbis. The Bible itself was clear that God forbade the Noahides to eat blood or murder people (Gen 9:4–6),[567] and other sources report Noahic teaching of righteous laws (Jub. 7:20–21).[568] At the very least, then, Gentiles ought not to (but normally did) eat meat without first draining the blood. The concept of Noahide laws probably has pre-Maccabean roots.[569] Pseudo-Phocylides contains allusions to it;[570] the idea appears as early as Jubilees,[571] and Philo and Josephus attest the tradition.[572]

The concept is certainly earlier than the formal content; although some elements were pervasive (such as prohibitions of idolatry, sexual immorality, murder, blasphemy), even Amoraim debated which others to include (Gen. Rab. 34:8).[573] We should not expect all lists to be the same (and certainly not expect Luke to have “all seven” later rabbinic laws), but the overlap with Acts 15:20, given the common focus on Gentiles, may be instructive.

Early Christians were aware of the Noahide law tradition, as is reflected in their sources. The minority Western reading at 15:29 overlaps with Noahide laws (idolatry, fornication, and murder).[574] The five prohibitions of behavior reflected in Did. 3.1–6 parallel five of the traditional Noahide laws: idolatry, sexual immorality, bloodshed, theft, and blasphemy.[575] Although the Didache also looks at root causes, it reflects the same perspectives on basic moral demands as appear in rabbinic tradition, a “natural” law assumed by all.

The idea of a universal law was widely appealing. The early Stoic Zeno reportedly urged people to live according to nature, following “the common law”—that is, the law common to all—which he identified as the pervasive Logos and Zeus.[576] For early Stoics, this law concerned motivations that yielded perfect behavior, instead of focusing on particular actions.[577] In the first century C.E., the Stoic philosopher Seneca uses “natural law” in various ways;[578] nature’s law makes virtue evident and attractive even to those who disobey it.[579] Musonius Rufus claims that the law of Zeus orders a person to be “good.”[580] For Epictetus, “the divine law” summarizes human responsibility before God.[581] One epitome of Stoic ethics portrays the law as “right reason,” which only the wise obey.[582]

Samples of Jewish Rules Expected of Gentiles

Jub

. 7.20

Sib. Or

. 3.757–59, with summary in 3.762–66

†

Ps.-Phoc.

‡

Abod. Zar.

8:4

b. Sanh

. 56a, bar.

‖

Pesiq. Rab Kah

. 12:1 (six Adamite commands)

Gen. Rab

. 34:8

Do justice

Avoid idols

Establish courts (9–12, 86)

Establish courts

Avoid idolatry

Cover nakedness

Worship God

Avoid idolatry (8–54)

Avoid idolatry

Avoid blasphemy

Avoid incest

Praise Creator

Avoid adultery

Avoid blasphemy (8–54)

Avoid blasphemy

Avoid idolatry

Create courts

Avoid murder

Honor parents

Avoid homosexual intercourse

Avoid murder (4, 32, 58)

Avoid sexual immorality

Avoid adultery

Avoid bloodshed

Avoid cursing the name (blasphemy)

Love neighbor

Rear your child rather than killing it

Avoid adultery, incest (3, 177–83)

Avoid bloodshed

Avoid sexual immorality

Keep the civil law

Avoid sexual immorality

Avoid robbery, theft (6, 18, 135–36, 154)

Avoid theft

Avoid robbery

Avoid theft/robbery

Avoid eating flesh from a live animal

Avoid impurity, injustice

Avoid eating flesh with blood in it (147–48)

Avoid eating flesh taken from a live animal (

t. ʿAbod. Zar.

8:6)

Avoid eating flesh from a live animal

Added for Noah: Do not eat flesh of living animal

Avoid cross-breeding; or witchcraft; or castration

Technically, there are eight commands; should we collapse doing justice and avoiding injustice into one (that frames the others)? Or collapse avoiding immorality and impurity into one?

†

Probably second-century

B.C.E.

Alexandria. Though for people throughout the earth, they are compared to laws at Sinai (

Sib. Or.

3.768).

‡

Van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides,” 569.

With fuller exposition in

t. ʿAbod. Zar.

8:4–8, adding, in 8:6, castration and witchcraft; in 8:8, mixed seeds.

‖

Others added: no blood, or no castration, or no sorcery; etc.

Virtually identical in, e.g.,

Deut. Rab

. 2:25.

This “natural law,” however, existed in other philosophical circles outside Stoicism [583] and among nonphilosophers.[584] Socrates recognized universal, unwritten laws observed by people everywhere.[585] For Aristippus, if all human laws were repealed, philosophers would keep living as they did.[586] For Aristotle, whereas written laws varied, a law based on nature was constant.[587]

A Hellenistic rhetorician defined as “just” customs on which most of humanity agrees.[588] For Cicero, the law of nature implants in people innate religion, including duty to gods, parents, country, and others;[589] what is universally agreed throughout humanity is the law of nature.[590] Justice must be based not on human opinion but on the law of nature;[591] humans share a common sense of justice.[592] This law that teaches what is right based on nature is as old as the divine mind, existing long before being written down.[593] For Seneca the Elder, unwritten laws are less changeable than written ones.[594] For Dio Chrysostom, it is not the laws inscribed on stone but the law of nature, the laws of Zeus, that matter.[595] The idea of natural, universal law became so widespread that some Roman legal codes began by distinguishing laws particular to given states from the law of nature (ius naturale),[596] the law due to natural reason (naturalis ratio).[597] More generally, divine law came to be applied even to days of ill omen [598] or heavenly decrees;[599] “eternal law” could apply to such natural matters as the sun rising on time.[600] It had long been a commonplace that laws of the gods (such as burial of the dead) took precedence over laws of the state when the two conflicted.[601]

Diaspora Jews apparently used the concept of universal law to help shape how they presented their moral convictions.[602] Some Diaspora Jews believed that God would establish a common law for all humanity.[603] Like Cicero, Philo adopts the Stoic image of the universal law of nature, which is essentially identical with reason;[604] his Logos governs creation as a law would rule a city.[605] Although the law of nature is, by normal definition, unwritten and universal rather than particular, Philo regards Moses’s law as a written copy of the law of nature.[606] Natural law is widespread in most ancient intellectual sources except the rabbis,[607] and as already observed, expectation of a universal ethic appeared even there (though few Gentiles would have included abstaining from food with blood in it). The Stoic idea of natural law also persisted in late antiquity and is evident even in Aquinas.[608] Gentile thinkers would not have recognized most of these specific Noahide laws as “universal,” but the concept of universal law offered a bridge for understanding the conception found in this Jewish tradition.

The arguments supporting a midrash on Lev 17–18 (the third view, noted above) also work in favor of the Noahide laws, or at least something like them.[609] The overlap with the Jerusalem Council’s list could stem from the comparable elements’ simply being essentials of the law or from the recognition that even in Noah’s day God had prohibited food with blood in it (Gen 9:4)—that is, the nucleus of what the later tradition of “Noahide laws” recognized. The Noahide laws themselves probably depend on and develop these themes in Lev 17–18,[610] and by the period of Luke, interpreters could use the latter in explaining the former. The resemblances between Noahide laws and Lev 17–18 and between Acts 15:20, 29 and the other two sources probably do not simply stem from coincidence.

The options are not mutually exclusive [611] but point to a central tradition about expectations for Gentiles that may also be illumined by examining the earliest traditions about Noahide laws. Thus church fathers, while recalling an exegetical basis in Lev 17–18, could use the Noahide prohibition in Gen 9:4 to explain why Christians abstained from blood (Justin Dial. 20; Tert. De monogamia 5).[612] Luke may have been familiar with the Levitical background of the decree; at the least, he appreciates a principle relevant to Gentiles in the context: the love of neighbor (Lev 19:18) in context demands welcoming the strangers in the land as one would one’s own people (19:34), and Jesus’s teaching in the Gospel applies this principle to Samaritans (Luke 10:27–37).[613]

Many scholars doubt the relevance of the Noahide laws, because four of the seven are missing.[614] In response, I may point out that some lists of universal moral standards (what “Noahide laws” are meant to represent) are shorter (Sib. Or. 3.762–66 addresses idolatry, immorality, and murder, as noted above). First-century Judaism itself held different opinions about how strictly Gentiles must observe its rules.[615] Less persuasively, some claim that the Noahide laws applied only within Israel;[616] this is not accurate, since (in contrast to Lev 17–18) “Noahide” laws by definition applied to all descendants of Noah.

Whatever else may be said, these rules at the least allowed Gentiles to be seen as God-fearers rather than as idolaters [617] for both the Jerusalem church and other pious Jerusalemites. In contrast to most scholars, I believe that Paul’s commitment against sexual immorality, along with his principle of not causing offense in foods, would have inclined him to go along with such regulations [618] provided that he did not need to present food laws as a matter of salvation.

Far from being Luke’s later fiction about the Gentile mission’s triumph, this compromise would not, in fact, resolve the circumcision question decisively; it simply makes the Gentile converts acceptable to circumcisionists as God-fearers—not full proselytes. The compromise falls short of the Pauline view, which, presumably, Luke’s circle of churches held; it would not prevent division over the status of Gentiles, though it should have made it acceptable to eat with them (Gal 2:11–14). What the working compromise does achieve is temporary peace in the church, a silencing of demands for Gentile converts to be circumcised, and time for the Gentile churches to continue growing in their own way. After Jerusalem’s destruction, the church’s numerically largest future would lie especially with them.[619]

III. CONTENT OF THE DECREE

The form of the decree is neither paraenesis nor vice list, though it bears some resemblance to both. Paraenesis in its most narrow sense [620] lists a string of exhortations or advice, most only loosely connected with the audience’s setting.[621] Paraenesis even in the narrow sense appears in some of Paul’s letters (e.g., Rom 12:9–21; 1 Thess 5:12–22).[622] Vice lists simply listed various sins, again usually only loosely connected with the audience’s setting.[623] They appear in both Jewish [624] and Gentile sources; Stoics [625] (and other philosophers)[626] were among those with a predilection for them, as were (for different reasons) rhetoricians.[627] These range from short lists of several elements to a list of more than a hundred in Philo (Sacr. 32). Vice lists appear often in Paul’s epistles (Rom 1:29–31; 1 Cor 6:9–10; Gal 5:19–21; Eph 5:3–5; Col 3:5, 8). A civic decree, however, offered specific regulations or prohibitions directed to the situation at hand. The form may thus also recall OT legal material (including, as noted, in Lev 17–18).

(1) Idol Food [628]

Along with some other scholars, Witherington notes that the term ἀλίσγημα (Acts 15:20) appears in later Christian literature especially in the setting of food eaten in the presence of the idols;[629] the problem, he contends, is not idol meat but eating it in the temple precincts.[630] This approach is probably too narrow a sense for our earliest sources (e.g., it fits 1 Cor 8:10 but may be less appropriate for 8:7).[631] Like Revelation (Rev 2:14, 20) and patristic sources,[632] Paul probably opposed all food known to be offered to idols;[633] although in 1 Cor 8 he reasons with the Corinthians to avoid idol food on the grounds of not scandalizing fellow believers, he afterward, in 1 Cor 10, offers far more sweeping religious grounds.

Certainly idol food and immorality were common temptations in pagan society (1 Cor 10:7–8; Rev 2:14, 20); idol food had long posed a temptation to God’s people.[634] Since people could belong to multiple associations, converts who continued in other preconversion associations would be confronted with these temptations as social demands.[635] Public meetings and dinner parties opened with a pagan rite;[636] banquets began with a libation.[637] Roman families would expect participation in ceremonial meals at the grave of a deceased loved one;[638] social obligations involving sacrificial meals were virtually unavoidable.[639] How could Christians participate in society without seeming to sanction the idolatry that pervaded it?[640] How could they withdraw from such settings (like some stricter Jews; see comment on Acts 10:28; esp. 11:3) without incurring the anti-Jewish label of “haters of humanity” (see comment on Acts 16:20–21)? They needed clear guidance regarding what their new faith expected of them.

Sacrifices almost always included feasts;[641] after ancients sacrificed their food, they ate most of it.[642] Naturally, there was a surplus of meat at such festivals,[643] and in many locations the poor may have been treated to meat especially at these festivals.[644] (Meat could also be preserved for a time, however.)[645] Mitchell thinks that in Pisidian Antioch in South Galatia, meat from the imperial cult was the main source of meat available, offering a setting in which one’s allegiances would readily become known.[646] Some even ate meat to avoid association with a cult known to abstain from it.[647] Although the largest quantity of meat was doled out at festivals, it was doled out more frequently at banquets, again consecrated to deities.[648]

One could not always be sure whether meat in the market was idol meat,[649] though if it had not been specially prepared, one could suppose that it had been “strangled” instead of drained of its blood. Friendship and patronage networks also entailed invitations to dinner, where one had even less grounds for certainty about the source of the food.[650] People of status (probably notably Erastus in Corinth, if he was a believer) would especially suffer if their mealtime associations were curtailed.[651] One way to avoid complications with meat that one bought for oneself was to buy food prepared for Jewish requirements.[652] Perhaps one reason Paul does not need to address the question of meat with the blood drained out is that Christians purchasing meat that had certainly not been sacrificed often might be incidentally acquiring meat that had been butchered in a kosher manner anyway, available especially from Jewish sellers.

(2) Sexual Immorality [653]

The term πορνεία (Acts 15:20) originally meant prostitution but came to apply to any sexual immorality.[654] Some scholars seek to limit the meaning more narrowly,[655] often to incestuous marriages,[656] despite the breadth of the term’s potential semantic range (obvious enough simply from a concordance search in the NT). Such a narrow limitation of a term with a quite broad semantic range (in both early Christian and wider Greek literature) is difficult to justify.[657] It is true that some Gentiles, both individually [658] and corporately,[659] were known for marriages incestuous by biblical standards.[660] Most Gentiles in the Pauline geographic sphere, however, opposed incest, as Paul himself recognized (1 Cor 5:1);[661] given the decree’s initial geographic target (Acts 15:22–23), not to mention Luke’s own likely target audience, it is not likely that the decree was directed toward sibling marriages in Egypt.[662] (Although its contours vary from one society to another,[663] the incest taboo, in some form, is almost universal.)[664] Further, Jewish people suspected Gentiles of forms of immorality much wider than incest alone.[665]

Although sexual immorality might seem self-evident enough a vice that it need not be stated as a prohibition for genuine converts,[666] Jewish people in general did not trust Gentile sexual behavior,[667] and their suspicions had some empirical basis, especially for unmarried men (quite a number of men, given the late age of marriage for Greek men and the average longevity). Going further, a late line of rabbinic tradition even suggests that one should assume a female proselyte to be a virgin only if she is under the age of three years and one day; otherwise one takes one’s chances![668]

Whether among Gentiles or among their own people, Jewish people detested as horrible behavior premarital sex,[669] adultery,[670] prostitution,[671] and frequently even lust,[672] which some viewed as visual adultery.[673] It was crucial to keep oneself from sexual immorality (Jub. 20:3). Jewish men disdained marrying prostitutes, who had defiled their bodies.[674]

Despite frequent Jewish views of Gentiles, however, even Gentiles prohibited or frowned on various forms of sexual behavior (though, with exceptions for particular objects,[675] usually not lust, which most viewed as normal and healthy [676] and which many sought to procure through magical means).[677] Granted, many prohibitions involved merely mixing of status;[678] Roman law regarded as stuprum, its closest equivalent to unlawful “fornication,” only liaisons between persons belonging to particular social classes.[679]

Although “prostitution” does not exhaust the semantic range of πορνεία, it is certainly part of it. Despite the disapproval of some (especially Jews and Christians),[680] sleeping with prostitutes [681] was considered legal and common behavior, and even some of those who disapproved of male premarital sexual activity might warn not to judge others who engaged in it.[682] Nevertheless, Gentiles did not regard such sexual relations as on the same level as a legitimate marriage bearing legitimate heirs.[683] Women might engage in prostitution legally [684] (this activity generated substantial Roman tax revenues)[685] provided they were unmarried,[686] but some circles regarded sex with prostitutes as shameful,[687] perhaps because of the economic excess or submission to pleasure it entailed.[688]

Women’s premarital [689] and extramarital purity was considered so important that some Gentiles, both men [690] and women,[691] preferred women’s death to their defilement. All ancient Mediterranean cultures disapproved of adultery—that is, the wife’s unfaithfulness to her husband and a man’s seduction of another’s wife.[692] (A double standard existed when it came to a husband’s unfaithfulness with an unmarried woman.)[693] Although it may have been frequent,[694] adultery was shameful [695] and was considered the most grievous form of “theft,”[696] and it constituted a serious insult against another man’s or woman’s morality.[697] A man who, informed of his wife’s adultery, refused to divorce her could himself be arraigned for lenocinium—“pimping.”[698] For the sexual abuse of slaves (from a Jewish and Christian perspective, also a form of πορνεία), see the section “Sexual Abuse” in the excursus on slavery at Acts 12:13.[699] The larger culture’s values always threatened to overwhelm the church. Certainly a generation later, and possibly this early, some voices in the churches treated sexual immorality as a matter of personal taste (Rev 2:14, 20).[700]

(3) Avoid Blood (and Strangled Animals)

Presumably, “blood” (Acts 15:20) recalls the biblical prohibition against meat with blood remaining in it, to be observed by all Noah’s descendants (Gen 9:4),[701] including Gentiles among the Israelites (Lev 17:10–14).[702] In some Jewish traditions, corrupted animals and people began to eat each other (Jub. 5:2), and giants ate others’ flesh and drank their blood (1 En. 7:5); those who ate blood were evil (98:11).[703] Meat, however, was acceptable so long as there was no blood in it (Jub. 6:6–7). Jubilees claims that Noah and his sons swore that they would not eat blood (6:10); Abraham warned Isaac against eating it (21:6), and a pious person might wish to avoid even getting blood on himself (21:17–19).[704] Despite the prohibition’s association with Noah in Genesis, some Tannaim opined that Israelites themselves consumed blood before receiving the law (Sipre Deut. 76.1.1); others considered it the least commandment (76.1.1; 76.3.2). Strict pietists, however, claimed that consuming blood was a capital offense that God would avenge (CD III, 6); pouring out blood was thus crucial (XII, 12–13).

The prohibitions against “things strangled”[705] and against “blood” are probably two approaches to the same question; strangled animals would not have the blood drained.[706] Grammatically, the decree uses polysyndeton, a common rhetorical device (e.g., in Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 377.25–26).[707] Polysyndeton can be used in vice lists [708] as elsewhere. The separate articles in Acts 15:20 do not set up a technical hendiadys, but given the semantic range of καί, we need not press its every occurrence in the chain for parity, as if each item mentioned is equally distinct from others.

Some scholars associate this prohibition with cultic slaughter of animals,[709] but in this period its concern is likely broader than this issue. In fact, as E. P. Sanders points out, pagans, like Jews, at sacrifices usually bled animals to death. Sometimes they pulled back the victim’s head, then punctured its carotid artery; other times they slit its throat. “Most of the blood was drained and thrown on the altar”; because pagans did not hang up the carcass as Jews did, blood often remained in the carcass initially. But it soon was removed as “the animal was eviscerated, the joints were separated, and then the meat was boned.”[710] Admittedly, Greeks “did not prohibit cutting the trachea” during the slaughter, “and if it was cut the animal might strangle on its own blood.”[711] Rabbis disagreed among themselves as to how much of the trachea could be cut (m. Ḥul. 1:2; 2:1; 3:1). Still, some Jews may have complained about what they believed to be a pagan technique; one work complains about the “bread of strangulation” (Jos. Asen. 8:5; cf. 21:14).[712] Some sages considered Diaspora Jews idolaters for eating with Gentiles even if they brought their own food (t. ʿAbod. Zar. 4:6).

How could Gentiles have access to kosher meat? Jews in various cities did have their own meat markets,[713] presumably for animals slaughtered in a kosher manner and not merely a safe distance from pork.[714] Diaspora Jews apparently had the right for licensed markets to sell their food. Some scholars argue that this right was restricted at times, such as under Claudius, after Paul left Corinth.[715] When access to “pure” meat was limited, some Jews would choose to forgo eating meat altogether (Rom 14:21; 1 Cor 8:13).

Although Paul in one of his letters makes an issue of food offered to idols, he does not make an issue over kosher slaughtering. This seems curious regarding a commandment given to all humanity (Gen 9:4–5), but perhaps he accepted the spiritual point of the law (valuing life)[716] as fulfilled, or believed that standard Gentile butchering removed sufficient blood. If the prohibition results from a Jerusalemite misconception about pagan meat (as noted above), Paul had no reason to complain about the practice to his Diaspora churches (and perhaps no reason to disabuse them of the notion). Although Gentiles did not prohibit all blood drinking,[717] most of their meat would have had relatively little blood in it. Perhaps Paul simply did not regard the issue as morally significant, considering that it would be far out of sight of those Judean believers who would likely stumble over it.

Why would this rule matter sufficiently to be emphasized explicitly alongside regulations about idol food and sexual immorality? The biblical connection with the universal human ancestor Noah probably supplies part of the reason, but there is precedent in Acts for suspecting that concern for table fellowship is another (Acts 11:3).[718] Matters of food, though not of blood (which Paul’s Gentiles may have avoided if later Gentile church practice in early church fathers provides an indication), were important in early Christian Jewish-Gentile dialogue. Paul’s letters also suggest that James’s partisans remained strict regarding their own table fellowship with Gentiles, presumably for the sake of the “circumcision” faction and the peace of the Jerusalem church (Gal 2:12; cf. Acts 15:1, 5). Peter, by contrast, was more moderate, willing to eat with Gentiles when more conservative Jewish Christians were not around (though presumably he would not have eaten blood or something blatantly unclean such as pork).[719]

Paul never requires kashrut for Gentiles (Rom 14:2–3, 6, 15, 21).[720] But he does oppose idol food if one knows that this is what it is, especially to prevent stumbling but also because it has been devoted to “demons” (1 Cor 8–10, esp. 10:20).[721] Most of the Gentile churches in Asia seem to have adopted the prohibition of idol food (Rev 2:14, 20; Pliny Ep. 10.96.10), which probably would have been less likely without Paul’s influence.

IV. PLAUSIBILITY OF THE DECREE

Scholars who affirm the promulgation of such a decree debate whether the decree was given at the Jerusalem Council or afterward. For this and several other questions concerning the decree’s plausibility, the reader is referred to the introduction, above, to Acts 15. Here I will merely summarize a few points.

First, the very fact that the decree appears more conservative than what Luke’s hero Paul taught in his churches and letters (at least on the matter of eating blood) argues against Luke having invented it. A more relevant question might be whether he invents the apparent consensus the document effects. To this it should be said (as noted in more detail in the introduction to Acts 15) that the Jerusalem church accepted Paul’s mission and he accepted theirs (Gal 2:7–9). Whatever their disagreements, they did not break fellowship with each other; Paul’s collection is evidence that, from his side at least, communion remained open (Rom 15:25–27, 31; 1 Cor 16:1–3; 2 Cor 8–9). (Paul also seems to have believed that this would satisfy the Jerusalem church leaders [Gal 2:10], though perhaps not everyone there [Rom 15:31].) Divided personalities and ideologies could coexist, within reason, then as today.

Second, Paul agreed with some elements of the decree and probably would have accommodated others.[722] Paul certainly opposed idolatry and sexual immorality. (Those who, on the basis of 1 Cor 8, view his opposition to idolatry as weak have probably misread that chapter.)[723] He may have agreed to the food regulations on the principle of not causing a fellow Christian to stumble with regard to one’s food practices, whether the food had been offered to idols (1 Cor 8:7–13) or was simply not kosher (Rom 14:1–23).[724] As W. L. Knox puts it, “Paul would probably have preferred to trust the spiritual development of his converts rather than to issue a formal proclamation, but he could hardly object to a proposal which gave him the essentials of victory.”[725]

If Paul accepts the decree on the basis of the principle of avoiding needless stumbling blocks rather than out of obedience to the Jerusalem church, his arguments, based on this principle, against offensive foods are consistent with his reasons for holding them.[726] Paul cites not the decree but his principles for accepting its regulations. If this proposal seems too simple, we should note that in his arguments against sexual immorality and food offered to idols, he provides only a little biblical support in 1 Cor 5–8 (though offering some in 10:1–11).[727] If Paul employed philosophic forms of moral reasoning that would appeal to the Corinthians instead of citing Scripture, how much less should we expect him to cite decrees from a distant church?[728]

Third, one would not expect a mere invention by Luke to have the continuing role in the church that these regulations played. Far from these rules being entirely abandoned after the decree’s promulgation (like many ancient Near Eastern legal collections), some commentators argue that they were retained for more than a century, appearing in Rev 2:10, 14 and (in my opinion more clearly) Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen [729] (all this without Acts being one of that period’s more popular books). Thus they remained obligatory in the Rhone Valley in 177 (Euseb. H.E. 5.1.26).[730] Still later, Tertullian refutes the charge of Christians eating human blood by noting that they do not consume even animals’ blood, that “we abstain on that account from things strangled or that die of themselves, that we may not in any way be polluted by blood, even if it is buried in the meat.”[731] In the fourth century, Augustine apparently chides those still keeping these rules.[732]

Granted, the subsequent Christian practice need not stem solely from the decree; the decree would not have been issued had it not addressed wider sentiments in at least the Jerusalem church. But the later tradition at least suggests that the decree is not purely a Lukan invention without basis in the beliefs of the early church; second-century fathers might quote and allude to Acts, but this probably would not reflect a widespread policy derived solely from the book of Acts, which does not seem to have been as influential as some other works (e.g., Matthew) before the time of John Chrysostom.[733]

V. LAW OBSERVANCE WILL NOT SUFFER (15:21)

Jewish communities may not have appeared in literally every city (cf. Acts 16:13), but the Jewish Diaspora was quite old, and its communities were common enough for a speaker in Jerusalem to offer such hyperbole (Jos. Ant. 14.115). Such Jewish communities had long been settled there, often in cities of Asia Minor, for example, from the time of the Seleucid Empire.[734] Moses was read each Sabbath in the synagogues, and at least often the prophets were read also (Luke 4:17; Acts 13:27), yet people still failed to understand them (Acts 13:27; cf. Luke 24:25, 27; 2 Cor 3:14–15); the mere reading of Moses did not produce compliance.

The point is not, however, that reading Moses proves pointless [735] but probably that ethnic Israel would preserve this custom no matter what and hence the practice was not endangered by the influx of Gentiles who would not follow all the precepts for Israel. This argument fits Luke’s apologetic: the Christian movement even in its Gentile form was no threat to Judaism or to Jewish ways (preserved by Jewish Christians) despite accusations to the contrary (Acts 21:21; 24:5–6). (Conversely, it could mean that Gentile believers were to abstain from the practices in 15:20 to avoid offending the many synagogue attenders of 15:21.)

In any case, James certainly is not suggesting that Jewish Christians reject Moses (21:21–24) but that Gentiles were not under obligation to follow the entire law to follow Israel’s God. What is ruled on is the issue that arose at Antioch concerning circumcising Gentiles (15:1–2, 23; though the decree is used somewhat more widely geographically, 16:4) and, historically in view of Galatians, Paul’s circumcision-free mission to Gentiles (Gal 2:2, 7, 9; cf. Acts 21:24–25).[736]

5. The Consensus Decree (15:22–29)

The apostles and elders assented to James’s proposal and issued a circular document for the Gentile churches; this document would be confirmed orally by figures trusted in those churches alongside representatives of the Jerusalem church. This agreement was meant to preserve the unity of the Jewish and Gentile believers.[737] Luke’s portrayal of the peaceful result of consensus is a particularly significant point in the interpretation of this paragraph; see comment on Acts 15:25.

a. Choosing Emissaries (15:22)

The apostles and elders had met to seek a decision (Acts 15:6), but the entire assembly cared about the issue (15:4) and may have voiced its approval of its leaders’ decision. “It seemed proper” (ἔδοξε in 15:22, again in 15:25, 28) was standard idiom for “ ‘passing’ a measure in the assembly”[738] or “resolved”; it became conventional in Hellenistic decrees.[739] Civic assemblies could send letters or delegations to the public assemblies of other cities,[740] and one would expect that communities of resident aliens could exercise the same privilege. Of course, delegates from the mother church were not representatives from just any church, nor was Jerusalem just any city to Christians throughout the world (cf. Isa 2:3; Gal 4:26).[741] Traditionally, Jerusalem authorities could prescribe some matters for the Diaspora, though in this period it was their perceived moral authority that gave them considerable influence (see comment on Acts 9:2). Later rabbis claimed authority to promulgate decrees,[742] though it is unclear in what period and to what extent outsiders agreed with them.[743]

Sending a legation of two representatives from the people and two from the council is attested elsewhere (Char. Chaer. 3.4.17).[744] Here the assembly selects (for the process, see comment on Acts 6:5) two messengers as witnesses (cf. Deut 17:6; 19:15) from its own circle to complement the testimony of Barnabas and Saul, leaders of the Antioch delegation now returning to Antioch. These agents are authorized with the delegated authority of the assembly that sends them, to the extent that they execute their commission accurately.[745] This will confirm the “official” Jerusalem perspective against those who have, by virtue of their provenance and support in the Jerusalem church, been claiming to represent it (Acts 15:24).

The name “Judas” appears frequently (cf. 1:13, 16), without providing any reason to assume that we should identify with each other any of the various individuals who bore the name; it was “enormously popular in 1st-century Palestine.”[746] If “Barsabbas” is a family name, he was probably Joseph Barsabbas’s brother (1:23); more likely, the name in both cases simply means “born on the Sabbath” (see comment on Acts 1:23).[747] Although the precise title is as yet unattested elsewhere, many analogous names indicate birth on the Sabbath.[748]

“Silas” (Σήλ[α], CIJ 2:139, §935; Jos. Ant. 14.40; 18.204; 19.299, 317, 320–21, 353; Life 89–90, 272; cf. War 2.520; 3.11) and “Silanus” (Heb. text, CIJ 1:449, §630)[749] are both attested as names among Jews. It may be the Greek form of an Aramaic name found in Palmyrene inscriptions, the Aramaic equivalent to the Hebrew “Saul” (sha’ûl).[750] Σιλουανός (Silvanus) in Paul’s epistles (2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; 1 Pet 5:12) is clearly the same person, and commentators typically regard “Silvanus” as the latinized form of his name.[751] (Silvanus, or Σειληνός, was the most famous Satyr, a comrade of the wine god Bacchus.[752] Ancients sometimes associated him with Pan and Faunus, but although he was patron deity of some lower-class collegia, this deity of the countryside lacked a public cult.)[753] Paul’s letters prefer formal names such as “Silvanus” and “Prisca” whereas Luke employs the less formal “Silas” and “Priscilla.”[754]

b. Greetings (15:23)

This “encyclical” letter probably borrows the notion of earlier Jewish encyclical models.[755] Luke probably had access to a transcript of the letter; historians sought documents when writing their accounts,[756] and a brief (hence easily recopied) document so widely circulated would have been available to him, probably in more than one location (Acts 15:30; 16:4).[757] Sometimes historians did compose such letters if an original was lacking [758] (no less than speeches); at the very least, they could make stylistic changes.[759] But a document as widely circulated as the decree must have been able to be easily reproduced, and Luke need not have found it in Syria-Cilicia or Galatia. Certainly Paul and Silas, being among the letter’s emissaries, could have reproduced such a brief statement fairly accurately from memory, and it is likely that Paul was one of Luke’s sources (see comment on Acts 16:10).[760]

Novelists employed letters as dramatic devices,[761] but historians included them as well,[762] and sometimes even novelistic works about earlier historical characters could include authentic letters, since such documents often remained extant for some time.[763] They exercised a literary as well as historical function; in Greco-Roman historiography, embedded letters serve a purpose analogous to speeches, also providing “authenticity and verisimilitude to the narrative.”[764] This letter (about 111 words) is of a usual length for letters; most of Paul’s preserved letters (except Philemon) are long (more resembling letter-essays in length though more relevant to their audiences).[765] “When necessary,” historians could compose letters.[766] As noted, however, it should not have been necessary in this case; the contents of the decree would have been widely known, and such a brief decree could have been recited verbatim [767] by those who delivered it.

Although Romans had an efficient courier system for the government,[768] this was not available for ordinary mail.[769] Some scholars have suggested that some letters may have gone by couriers of trading companies.[770] Cicero depended on messengers and used various means to conceal his more dangerous messages from outsiders.[771] A rapid, dependable courier could bring a letter somewhere fairly quickly [772] unless he was delayed en route (Pliny Ep. 2.12.7).

Most letters, however, went with ordinary travelers who happened to be traveling in the appropriate direction.[773] Certain kinds of letters had to be retained for only the most trustworthy travelers.[774] Travelers to some locations (such as Rome) were easier to find than travelers going to other locations.[775] Letters could thus arrive at odd times, several written at different times yet arriving simultaneously;[776] or letters might not all arrive,[777] at least not in any reasonable length of time.[778] Letters often crossed in the mail.[779] If a traveler was going in a particular direction, some ancients would send a letter without news just to make good use of the opportunity.[780] Short notice from the traveler, however, could result in short letters.[781] Unlike ordinary mail carried by travelers not named in the letter,[782] named messengers sent with an important letter often might be called on to explain its content orally.[783]

The form of greetings here represents the usual form for letters in the Greek world. (The much less common “grace and peace,” known to most readers today from early Christian letters,[784] develops a Hellenistic Jewish adaptation of traditional Greek and Jewish components.)[785] The letter would begin with the name of the sender, then specify the addressee or addressees, then state χαίρειν—that is, “Greetings.”[786] The form may be illustrated most profusely in the papyri.[787] (In polite speech, χαίρειν became the standard morning, as opposed to evening, greeting.)[788] The address is courteous; delegating the authorship of a letter to a person of lower rank diminished the status of the expected recipient (Plut. Cic. 37.3), but this letter stems from the “apostles and elders.”

More significant are the designated addressees: ἀδελφοί (“brothers and sisters”). That this is the same address as in Peter’s (Acts 15:7) and James’s (15:13) speeches in this chapter is evident, but now Gentiles are addressed.[789] The title can refer to relatives, members of the same people, or members of the same group (see discussion at Acts 9:17). Here a title often applied to fellow Jews is extended to fellow followers of Jesus the Messiah, highlighting their common allegiance to the Jewish king rather than their differing ethnicities. Although the terms of the agreement may treat Gentile believers as God-fearers, the affectionate greeting would please those who viewed them as members of God’s people.[790]

This letter is more than one hundred words (perhaps 109, but textual variants render impossible an exact count). Although this length might seem brief compared with Paul’s letters (even Philemon has well over three hundred), it was in fact average; papyrus letters averaged eighty-seven words, with normal samples ranging from a minimum of sixteen to 209 words.[791]

Antioch was the home of the Christian movement that had requested a decision (presumably in its favor) in 15:2 (cf. 14:26–15:1); Syria was the province of which Antioch was the chief city, and it appears often enough in Luke-Acts (Luke 2:2; Acts 18:18; 20:3; 21:3). We need not delay long over the mention of Cilicia alongside Syria; καί could connect related as well as unrelated items.[792] Syria (with its capital at Antioch) and Cilicia were joined as a double province in this period but separated again under Vespasian in 72 C.E. (Gal 1:21; see comment on Acts 23:34).[793] Probably there were churches in Cilicia, perhaps having known Paul’s influence in earlier years (see comment on Acts 9:30; 15:41). (Although the decree was not addressed to the churches of Asia where Paul and Barnabas had evangelized together, these two missionaries found it useful there as well [Acts 16:4].)

c. The Letter Body (15:24–29)

In rhetoric, a “period” united extensive clauses and phrases in a complex and elaborate manner, completing the thought only at the end.[794] This passage (15:24–26) is the only period in Acts (as Luke 1:1–4 is the only one in the Gospel).[795] Ironically, later critics advised the avoidance of periods in letters; appropriately, however, they were to be used only in short letters when they were used.[796] (Even if objections were this early and widely known, however, this letter is an official decree in eastern Mediterranean circles that would have probably been more impressed by the ability of the Jerusalem church to draft a text in Hellenistic rhetoric than concerned with the niceties of some rhetoricians.)

Although Luke is able to write periodically,[797] he generally avoids complex writing except in appropriate places (cf. Luke 1:1–4). Many rhetorical experts considered narratives more enjoyable if they remained unadorned and without periods (Men. Rhet. 2.4, 388.30–32),[798] and Luke writes especially narrative. (Although narrating some actions, his preface in Luke 1:1–4 is not itself narrative in the conventional literary sense.) Such periods were also better avoided when one was discussing normal subject matter, in contrast to “more elevated subject-matter” inviting “a higher tone.”[799]

If, as I think (see comment on Acts 15:22), Luke has access to and reproduces the letter verbatim or (perhaps more likely) is heavily dependent on it, the Jerusalem church must have assigned the drafting of the letter to its most educated scribes.[800] Plainly, they intend not only to offer encouraging words but to honor their Greek-speaking Diaspora recipients with the best of Greek rhetoric.

Lest the Diaspora believers take any offense at the requirements of Acts 15:29 (if any would), the letter prepares its intended recipients by setting the stage: the decree is much more lenient than the troublemakers of 15:24; the congregation was united (15:25, 28) and led by the Spirit (15:28); the missionaries to the Gentiles agreed (15:25) and had been received by the Jerusalem church (15:25–26); and Jerusalem had sent its own genuine representatives (15:27) in contrast to the false claimants of 15:24.[801]

I. DISSOCIATION FROM THE SCHISMATICS (15:24)

Official documents, like speeches, often included narrative prologues, and this letter is no different (15:24 or, less likely, 15:24–28).[802] The term Ἐπειδή (“Since” in most translations), which opens the narratio of 15:24, could be rendered “whereas,” suiting the legal language of decrees.[803] Normally, when authorizing someone as a representative, one provides a letter of recommendation (see comment on Acts 9:1–2); the effect here is the opposite, though preparing for the real letter of recommendation in 15:25–27. The assembly disavows the mission of those who earlier claimed or implied its approval by virtue of their Jerusalem connection (15:1); it does not disavow that they belong to the Jerusalem church but disclaims their problematic message.[804] Speaking of teachers “from us” does not itself associate those who went with the senders; the same sort of language can apply to false teachers (Deut 13:13; cf. 1 John 2:19).

Orators sometimes demeaned their opponents by refusing to name them,[805] and τινές or equivalent expressions at times serve this rhetorical function (24:19);[806] in this context, the term alludes to the troublemakers (15:1) and their Pharisaic allies (15:5). This prepares for the contrasting letter of recommendation for the named agents Paul and Barnabas, as well as those who would support their testimony concerning the proceedings (15:25–27).[807] Although Acts normally follows the sequence “Paul and Barnabas” after 13:9 (13:42, 43, 46, 50; 15:2, 22, 35), the Jerusalem church began with Barnabas (15:25), who was more familiar to them and who for strategic reasons may have also led in giving testimony to them (15:12).[808]

That these unauthorized teachers had “troubled” the Antioch church was no small offense. In Luke-Acts, the verb ταράσσω applies to astonishment at something supernatural (Luke 1:12; 24:38) but also to “stirring” unrest (Acts 17:8, 13).[809] Vices that “disturb” (ταρασσόντων) can cause division (Dio Chrys. Or. 34.19).[810] The verb’s only use in Pauline literature applies specifically to Paul’s nemeses that modern scholars call Judaizers (Gal 1:7; 5:10); perhaps Paul’s own language, in the report he offered to Jerusalem’s leaders, is echoed here (though we lack sufficient evidence to upgrade “perhaps” to “probably”).

II. THE IMPORTANCE OF HARMONY (15:25)

Although divisiveness marked ancient politics, ancient speeches often exhort hearers to consensus or harmony, which makes the Jerusalem Council’s outcome, as portrayed by Luke, particularly praiseworthy.[811] Disunity characterized the broader culture as a whole;[812] intercity rivalries, for example, were common,[813] and Roman civic culture was rife with partisan politics and alliances, especially during the republic but also in the empire.[814] Writers and speakers emphasized the need of unity for the state,[815] for armies,[816] for families,[817] and so forth; it was ideal when enemies could be reconciled,[818] and ancients might praise those who made peace.[819] They also warned of dangers of disunity,[820] whether for the state,[821] for an army,[822] or for rulers;[823] divide and conquer remained a useful technique.[824] Personal enmity was standard in partisan politics [825] but also extended to matters such as favored teachers,[826] rhetoric,[827] and literary competition.[828]

Orators had long exhorted cities to pursue harmony and beware divisions.[829] Pursuing concord, ὁμόνοια, is a central ideal in many of Dio Chrysostom’s speeches to cities.[830] One speaker was said to shock his audience by praising both harmony and στάσις—until explaining that by the latter he meant only competition to benefit the city (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.8). One matter inviting praise for a city is its citizens living in harmony (Men. Rhet. 2.3, 384.23–24);[831] concord reliefs were also important symbols in cities.[832] Virtue produces harmony (ὁμόνοια, e.g., in Lucian Hermot. 22), and everyone praised such harmony.[833]

The same theme of harmony appears in Paul’s letters (Rom 15:6; 1 Cor 1:10–12; Eph 4:3; Phil 2:2; 4:2–3). Jewish sources also praise ὁμόνοια (4 Macc 13:25; Sir 25:1; Wis 18:9),[834] though they also recognize a harmony among the wicked (Ps 82:6 LXX [83:5 ET]; Wis 10:5).[835] Only controversies that are for God’s sake are of lasting worth.[836]

The idea of becoming “of one mind” or “spirit” (for Luke’s use of ὁμοθυμαδόν, see Acts 1:14; 2:46; 4:24; 5:12; 7:57; 8:6, though some other language for unity was more frequent)[837] was conventional in Greek literature on harmony.[838] For example, Greeks joined together in one mind (μιᾷ γνώμῃ) to battle a common foe (Lysias Or. 2.24, §192); becoming of one mind (μίαν γνώμην) would cast out στάσις, or discord (Dio Chrys. Or. 39.8). Paul’s letters also refer to becoming of one “mind” (Rom 12:16; 15:5; 1 Cor 1:10; 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 1:27; 2:2–3; 4:2).

Jewish groups also emphasized the importance of decisions by consensus. This is true in Qumran, for example (1QS VI, 8–13, 22–23; VII, 21; VIII, 18–19), just as Josephus notes for the Essenes (War 2.145).[839] Later rabbinic assemblies were often fractious, and the sources sometimes depict (probably hyperbolically) even violence between factions. Nevertheless, the dominant ideal was submission to the decisions of the majority of sages [840] (a majority that could, however, change from one generation to the next).[841] Still later sages even told the story that when one complained to R. Simeon ben Yohai that the sages had ruled against R. Simeon’s decree, the rabbi retorted that the majority view of sages must always prevail, and he decreed speedily fulfilled judgment on the complainer.[842] Majority opinion would trump even a bat qol, a heavenly voice.[843]

Some ancients considered democracy’s need to abide by the rule of the majority too great a temptation for the masses, who too easily degenerated into mob rule.[844] Some lamented the problem of majority rule in public assemblies; each vote weighed equally, as if each voter had equal wisdom.[845] In this case, however, the council achieves not a narrow majority vote but a consensus, albeit one forged on compromise and tolerance (see comment on Acts 15:20).

III. THE COUNCIL’S CONSENSUS (15:25)

Luke’s portrayal of consensus emphasizes the product of the council rather than the friction that led to it, though he does not suppress the latter (Acts 15:1–2, 5). This portrayal has apologetic value for Luke; he displays the church’s rational conduct in resolving deep-seated conflicts. Some scholars argue plausibly that Luke portrays the Christian movement in Acts as an ideal politeia equal or superior to the best Greek and Roman models.[846] Philo likewise stresses for potential Greek readers the unity of Judaism, as opposed to Greek thought;[847] this requires emphasizing particular points while playing down other realities.

Some rightly contrast Luke’s portrayal of riotous assemblies opposing the church (19:24–40; 21:27–36)[848] but wrongly suppose that Luke’s portrait must therefore be fictitious. Certainly the church does resolve conflicts better than does the Sanhedrin in Acts (22:30–23:11; but cf. 5:33–40), and its public assemblies include less unrest than those of cities portrayed in Acts (16:19–22; 19:24–40). But while Luke derives clear narrative benefit from this portrayal, it is intrinsically likely that a minority community (known from independent sources to have suffered persecution) would have experienced the outside world as hostile and achieved some measure of internal cohesion. Certainly Luke’s report suggests less unity than required by sectarians’ regulations at Qumran (1QS passim).

Some argue that Paul would never have assented to such rules, contending that he reproved Peter for something no more severe in Gal 2:11.[849] As argued above, however (see the introduction to Acts 15 and comment on Acts 15:20), Paul himself opposed sexual immorality unconditionally and opposed eating known idol meat, which could become a stumbling block to others (including the sort of people who would have insisted on that condition in the decree). His letters do not mention blood as Luke does, but Peter’s perceived act of breaking table fellowship with Gentile Christians when he knows better is more serious than agreeing to a public compromise to avoid eating blood. If the decree was a program of unity and not soteriology, a matter of strategy rather than of principle (see comment on Acts 16:3), the epistolary Paul undoubtedly could have agreed to it (1 Cor 9:19–23).[850] Some scholars argue that for Paul as for most Greek political theorists, “concord is more important than liberty” (cf. 8:9).[851]

Normally those sent as a civic assembly’s representatives were the ones most trusted (Aeschines Embassy 23). Thus, for example, when Egyptians requested a delegation of Jewish elders, one Jewish work reports the claim that those sent were those “highly honored among us [τιμωμένους παρ᾽ ἡμῖν]” (Let. Aris. 40). The highest praise is reserved for Judas and Silas (Acts 15:26), who must be introduced initially to the Antioch Christians. But the reference to “our beloved Barnabas and Saul”[852] (15:25) and the expectation that they will report the same message (15:27) also imply endorsement of the view and ministry of these leading delegates from Antioch, especially in view of the repudiation of their opponents in the debate in 15:24 (cf. 15:1–2).[853]

IV. RECOMMENDING JUDAS AND SILAS (15:26–27)

Trusting and commending the Antioch church representatives to deliver (and presumably interpret and apply) the decree was a major step favoring the Gentile recipients. Nevertheless, some conciliatory representatives from the Jerusalem church would also be necessary if the Antioch church’s own conservative faction was possibly to be satisfied. The sending of these special representatives from Jerusalem would also confirm how seriously the Jerusalem church took the concerns of their fellow believers in the Diaspora.

The Jerusalem letter recommends Judas and Silas on the basis of their risking their lives for Jesus’s name (15:26). Some scholars understandably prefer the translation here “dedicated or devoted” rather than “risked.”[854] Yet compare the similar recommendations in Rom 16:4 and Phil 2:30; tested willingness to die for Christ was an important criterion for recognizing devoted servants of Christ (Luke 9:23–26; cf. 2 Cor 4:11). The idea may have been a point of honor among early Christians; Paul is willing to die for Jesus’s name in Acts 21:13. Luke uses the verb παραδίδωμι elsewhere to describe the suffering of Jesus (Luke 18:32; 20:20; 22:4, 6, 21–22, 48; 24:7, 20; Acts 3:13), Peter (Acts 12:4), Paul (21:11; 27:1; 28:17), and disciples in general (Luke 21:12, 16; Acts 8:3; 22:4).[855]

Confirming the letter by word of mouth (Acts 15:27) may reflect the importance of orality or may guard against the slightest possible accusation of forgery.[856] Probably, however, the idea is simply that of letter bearers needing to confirm the letter’s contents with their own testimony, perhaps orally providing further detail concerning the discussion (cf. 1 Macc 12:23; Eph 6:21–22; Col 4:7–8).[857] The tradition of depending on at least two witnesses (Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 19:15) was widespread in early Judaism.[858] On the importance and nature of letters of recommendation, see comment on Acts 9:2.

V. A CHARISMATIC DECREE (15:28–29)

The language is suitable for a decree; for example, an emperor declares, “It has been decided by myself and my council” (Jos. Ant. 16.163).[859] Inscriptions from the Greek East abundantly illustrate such language for decrees produced by the agreement of citizen assemblies, relevant for the agreement of the assembly of God’s people here.[860] On ἔδοξε, see further comment on Acts 15:22.

What is remarkable is not the literary form but the content, especially who participates in the decree: this matter seemed good to the Holy Spirit as well as to them. This statement provides a pneumatological climax in Acts: the Spirit was promised to empower witnesses for the Gentile mission (Acts 1:8), guided them to the nations, in a proleptic sense, even at Pentecost (2:5–11), expressed empowerment by providing genuine foreign languages unknown to the speakers (2:4; 10:46; 19:6), initiated the Gentile mission in 8:29 and 10:19, and confirmed it in 10:44–47. Now the same Spirit has led the Jerusalem church to a theology that welcomes Gentiles.[861] Some scholars point out that the Spirit is here described in ways consonant with personality, whether in an incipient trinitarian sense (as in Paul and John)[862] or understood as an aspect of (and perhaps functioning as a circumlocution for) God.[863]

More open to debate is how the Spirit made the Spirit’s will known. Because prophets were present (15:32), it is possible that the Spirit confirmed the council’s decision with prophecy or at least the assurance from the prophets that they sensed the Spirit’s approval (cf. 13:1–4).[864] The phrase “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit” might imply evaluation of prophecy (cf. 1 Cor 12:10; 14:29; 1 Thess 5:20–22).[865] It is also possible, however, that the assembly’s achieving consensus that sufficiently satisfied everyone could be attributed to the Spirit. Within the narrative as a whole, the Spirit may be presumed to have testified through Scripture (Acts 15:15–17), which the Spirit had inspired (1:16); through receiving the Spirit, this receiving being the mark of acceptance by God (15:8); or through signs (15:12) that might also be attributed to the Spirit (cf. 6:8; 10:38).

Avoiding a “burden” picks up Peter’s image of the unbearable yoke (15:10) and perhaps James’s image of not troubling the Gentiles (15:19). Not laying a “burden” (βάρος) of requirements on one may be idiomatic (cf. Rev 2:24), including its use with the verb here;[866] one might also bear another’s “burden” (Gal 6:2; Diogn. 10.6).

The letter climaxes with (not surprisingly) the decree’s contents (Acts 15:29). For discussion of the decree and its elements here, see comment on Acts 15:20. This verse adds εἰδωλοθύτων, replacing 15:20’s τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων as a synonym (cf. 4 Macc 5:2; 1 Cor 8:1; Rev 2:14; see again fuller comment on Acts 15:20). Since pagans would not call their divine images “idols,” the term is Jewish, “constructed with a polemical edge against the Greek ἱερόθυτον.”[867] The letter closes with the standard “Farewell,”[868] familiar in many ancient letters and also in the LXX.

6. Delivering the Message in Antioch (15:30–35)

Far from the Antioch church resenting the Jerusalem church’s intervention, it celebrated the mother church’s having accommodated it rather than siding with the circumcisionists, and preserving the church’s unity.

a. Delivering the Letter (15:30–31)

Someone would read the letters while others would listen (cf. Rev 1:3).[869] Although such a brief letter could be recopied and “published” much more rapidly than a large book, many people even in urban congregations could not read, and this was sophisticated Greek.[870] Presumably one of the prophets in the group, preferably (if possible) one with rhetorical training or aptitude that would allow a delivery matching the content of the letter,[871] would have done the reading. In view of Acts 15:27, it is likelier to be Judas or Silas, supplementing Paul and Barnabas (though both groups were prophets; 13:1; 15:32). If Silas was a Roman citizen (16:37) and able to minister effectively with Paul, he probably came from a background that may have afforded Hellenistic education; Judas may have been selected in part for his ability to speak well to a Diaspora congregation as well (though the only explicit criteria are spiritual, 15:26; cf. 15:32).

That the Jerusalem church’s agents (perhaps through their Antiochene hosts) “gathered” (συναγαγόντες) the congregation probably indicates that this was not a regular meeting of the entire church but one arranged rapidly on the group’s arrival by word of mouth, probably by means of the house churches.[872] Synagogues were community centers and could be used for meetings besides Sabbath prayers; similarly, the house churches may have met on various days. The leaders of the Antioch churches would know the house church leaders, who could probably contact most members over the course of a few days, especially if this fuller assembly was scheduled after most of the house gatherings had met, whether they had met on the Sabbath or perhaps (if the practice in Antioch is this early) Sunday morning. Some scholars believe that the church in some locations met together regularly (though not exclusively) in a large assembly hall (cf. Rom 16:23) in addition to house meetings.[873] For logistical factors, however, it seems likely that the various house churches normally met separately and came together only for special occasions. The church seems large in Antioch, and so such a larger gathering, if it occurred, might have required a patron’s villa, renting a larger building, or meeting under a stoa.

It is not impossible that the church even borrowed a larger synagogue’s facilities for a meeting, although, given its large number of Gentile members, this recourse seems fairly unlikely. Neither Luke nor Paul depicts much friction with the Jewish community there, which was probably large enough and cosmopolitan enough to include diversity in perspectives despite being a minority within the larger society. Still, their novel approach of admitting Gentiles to full status without circumcision may not have commended them to the mainstream synagogue community, despite the frequency of Gentile adherents there (see Jos. War 7.44–45; discussion at Acts 11:19–20).

The church celebrated the letter’s encouragement (Acts 15:31). That the believers in Antioch sent Jerusalem’s agents back to Jerusalem “in peace” (15:33) shows that the decision was acceptable not only in Jerusalem but in Antioch as well.[874] Luke does not portray Jerusalem as imposing its will unilaterally and the churches as simply submitting to it; the Spirit that led the Jerusalem church (15:28) was leading the other churches as well (cf. 13:1). The “rejoicing” here fits the response of other Diaspora churches to the Gentile mission in 15:3; joy was a sign of the Spirit’s activity in the church (13:52; cf. 8:39; also in Paul, cf. Rom 14:17; 15:13; Gal 5:22; 1 Thess 1:6).[875] Although Luke, narrating adventures, focuses on difficulties, he favors the state of the church as being at peace, instead of troubled, and receiving “encouragement” (Acts 9:31).

b. Receiving Jerusalem’s Delegates (15:32–33)

The church was encouraged not only by the written letter (15:31) but also by the exhortation of Jerusalem’s representatives (15:32). Luke underlines the positive relationship between the Antioch church and these representatives from Jerusalem: Judas and Silas help the church (15:32), and the church also sends them away in peace (15:33).

Like Barnabas when he first came to Antioch (11:22–24; παρεκάλει, 11:23), these prophets encourage the believers (cf. 1 Cor 14:3);[876] they are also received like other prophets from Jerusalem (Acts 11:27–30), who probably influenced Antioch’s own prophetic leadership (13:1). The relationship between Jerusalem and Antioch is portrayed as one that is edifying, with trust between the leaders of the churches in both locations. For Luke, this picture again reinforces the continuity between the movement’s heritage and its mission, between Israel and Gentile Christians. The fall of Jerusalem might change the dynamics, but it should not alter the church’s foundation.

The “encouragement” already provided in the letter (15:31, παρακλήσει) continues in person (15:32). Luke values the ministry of encouraging believers (14:22) as well as of “strengthening” them (14:22; 15:41; 18:23);[877] such ministry may appear primarily in summary statements because the focus of Luke’s action is generally evangelistic. That Judas and Silas were “also” prophets “themselves” may mean that they added to the inspired message of the document (15:28) or that they were prophets like Barnabas (and probably Paul) in 13:1. Barnabas and Paul were also preaching and teaching in Antioch in this period (15:35). Their lengthy message of παράκλησις would befit prophets, who also exhorted, though typically in first-person address from the Lord.[878] Listening to public speaking was a major form of public leisure, and so many would be accustomed to listening at length (cf. 20:9, 11).

That the messengers were sent “in peace” (15:33) indicates that the dissension was finished (15:2); the specific wording reflects the traditional Jewish greeting (Luke 10:5) and sending off, “Peace” (Heb. shalom). Most specifically, it means that those sent off were well received, not despised (Acts 16:36; 1 Cor 16:11; Gen 26:29, 31; 2 Sam 3:21–23; 1 Clem. 65.1).[879] It indicates that they were received hospitably and were sent off with their needs provided (cf. Rom 15:24; see comment on Acts 15:3).

c. Who Remains? (15:34–35)

The variant reading (Acts 15:34), which nearly all scholars reject as spurious,[880] interrupts the flow of thought;[881] “they” were sent (15:33) makes no sense if only one of the two was (15:32). Also, if the reading were authentic, why mention the contrast of Paul and Barnabas staying in 15:35?

Despite Acts’ usual narrative logic, Luke does not explain how Silas returned to Antioch after leaving. Silas could have returned between 15:34 and 15:40, since the events are “after some days” (15:36; for Luke this designation may condense a significant passage of time, as in 9:23). It would take between fifteen days and a month to make the voyage to Jerusalem, and the same amount of time if he later decided to return to a place where he had experienced a form of ministry not available in Jerusalem.[882] Perhaps we can imagine him coming with another delegation that included Peter or a still later delegation that included further emissaries from James (Gal 2:12). Or if Silas and Judas were only the two leading members of the Jerusalem delegation, it is possible that the mention of those sent away in Acts 15:33 simply refers to the delegation as a whole (not including Silas in particular) and that the emphasis of sending “in peace” was more important than the individuals sent.

Luke typically condenses material and leaves many questions unanswered, assuming information that he often does not supply (perhaps even in some Acts parallels with Synoptic tradition missing in his Gospel).[883]

Because descriptions are incomplete in all texts, they deconstruct at points, whether they are novels or historical narratives.[884] Thus Harpalion’s father, Pylaemenes, mourned for him in Hom. Il. 13.658—but Pylaemenes had already died in 5.576.[885] The story world of the Iliad appears inconsistent when Hephaistos takes a full day to fall from heaven (1.592) but Thetis can leap directly from Olympus into the sea (1.532), Athena can dart immediately to earth (4.78), and Ares can flee swiftly from earth to heaven (5.885).[886] Some accounts appear inconsistent with the extrinsic world we know: the dog Argos, admittedly old, recognizes Odysseus, although, according to the story line, Odysseus has been away twenty years, much longer than a normal dog’s life (Hom. Od. 17.292, 301–2).[887]

In Ovid’s patchwork of stories, the Bears constellations appear unable to descend into the ocean in Metam. 2.171–72, yet they become constellations more than fifteen years later (2.497; cf. 2.401–16, 505–7), when they are prohibited from descending into the sea (2.508–31). If one reads the Latin in its most common sense, then Alpheus is both father of Arethusa (5.487) and a river god who tries to rape her (5.599–641, likely suggesting inadequate editing of distinct stories). Where such divergences represent sources, these sources are forever unrecoverable to us today.[888]

Such inconsistencies also appear in historical works, such as Livy’s claim that a Numidian’s nephew is a brother’s son (Livy 28.35.8) at one point and a sister’s son (27.19.9) at another; this may stem from different sources [889]—or from an oversight of Livy’s. Though Plutarch reports a detailed tradition (possibly partly legendary) from his own hometown, many pieces of the story fail to cohere, because much information is missing.[890] Pseudo-Callisthenes [891] seems to accept conflicting versions of Alexander’s paternity (Alex. 1.1–14, 30, 35); Parmenion also remains general after being removed from that office for conspiracy (2.9, 17). In other cases, inconsistencies may stem from writers’ faulty interpretations, as ancient historians recognized (Polyb. 3.8.1–11; 3.9.1–5). Orators both expected and exploited inconsistencies in their opponents’ accounts (e.g., Rhet. Alex. 5.1427b.12–30; 9.1430a.14–21; 10.1430a.26–27).

By condensing his material, Luke falls into a problem common to many writers using sources, including historians. In any event, the ultimate point is not disputable: Silas did in fact become Paul’s traveling companion on the following journey (2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thess 1:1). What is questionable is the sense of Luke’s summary statement in Acts 15:33, not Silas’s later presence in the mission.

That Paul and Barnabas remained (15:35) distinguishes them from the Jerusalem delegation that left (15:33). That they continued teaching and evangelizing there “with many others” suggests that Luke knows more about the Antioch church than his focus on Paul and Barnabas allows him to narrate; the wording sounds as if leadership may have expanded (presumably along with the number of house churches) since the leaders mentioned in 13:1. Paul’s own writings apparently attest that he and Barnabas remained together in Antioch for some time after the Jerusalem Council (Gal 2:11, 13).

↑ Back to top