ACTS 14

ACTS 14

ACTS 14

D. ICONIUM, LYSTRA, DERBE(14:1–28)

1. ADVENTURES IN ICONIUM (14:1–7)

1  At Iconium, in the same manner,¹’ they entered the synagogue of the Jews and spoke in such a way that a great multitude believed, both Jews and Greeks.²

2  But the Jews who did not believe³ agitated the minds of the Gentiles and inflamed them against the brothers.

3  They spent a considerable time, then, speaking boldly in reliance on the Lord, while he bore confirming witness to the message of his grace by enabling them to perform signs and wonders.

4  The city populace was divided: some sided with the Jews and some with the apostles.⁴

5  But when an attack was planned by the Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, with the aim of maltreating and stoning them,

6  they got wind of it and made their escape to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe, and to the surrounding region,

7  and there they continued to preach the gospel.⁵

1–2  When Paul and Barnabas came to Iconium, they followed the same procedure as in Pisidian Antioch, visiting the Jewish synagogue and preaching the gospel there. Here, too, many of their hearers believed the good news, Jews and God-fearing Gentiles alike. But here, too, the Jewish authorities who would not accept the gospel took active steps to expel the two missionaries, and did their best to prejudice the minds of the local magistrates and the citizen body against them.

3  It took a long time, however, for the opposition to become serious, and the missionaries continued to preach the gospel freely and boldly. The preaching was attended by miraculous signs, of a kind which confirmed its truth in the minds of the people. Later, when writing to the converts of Iconium and the other cities evangelized at this time in South Galatia,⁶ Paul appealed to the mighty works performed among them by the power of the Spirit, as evidence that the message of faith, and not the preaching of the law, was the gospel approved by God (Gal. 3:5). The gospel is here called “the message of his grace” because divine grace is its subject matter (cf. 20:24, 32).

4–5  The longer this work of evangelization went on, the more decisively did the populace take sides, either with the Jewish leaders or with Paul and Barnabas—who are here, as in verse 14 (exceptionally in Acts), called “the apostles.”⁷ At last a riot broke out, and the city mob was incited to assault and stone the two men.

6  Fortunately, Paul and Barnabas came to know about the plot against them, and made their escape from Iconium before the mob could gain its objective. But they had made their mark in Iconium; a body of converts was left behind to maintain the witness which they themselves had started. It has been argued that Paul’s physical appearance left an impression in Iconium that was not soon forgotten—that it is reflected in the description of him preserved in the mid-second-century Acts of Paul. There one Onesiphorus, a resident of Iconium, sets out to meet Paul, who is on his way to the city. “And he saw Paul approaching, a man small of stature, with a bald head and crooked legs, in a good state of body, with eyebrows meeting and nose somewhat hooked, full of friendliness; for now he appeared like a man, and now he had the face of an angel.”⁸ It has been felt that a description so vigorous and unconventional must rest on a good local tradition of what Paul looked like.⁹ This may be so, but it might well be the product of the writer’s lively imagination.

From Iconium, then, Paul and Barnabas made their way to “the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe.” The implication is that Iconium itself was not in Lycaonia. The ancient realm of Lycaonia was at this time divided: its western part (called perhaps Galatic Lycaonia) lay within the province of Galatia, to the east of Galatic Phrygia, while its eastern part (Antiochian Lycaonia) belonged to the domain of Antiochus IV, king of Commagene (a client of the Roman state).

Sir William Ramsay has recorded how it was this geographical note that led to his “first change of judgment” with regard to the historical value of Acts. Xenophon, to be sure, in 401 B.C., refers to Iconium as “the last [i.e., most easterly] city of Phrygia,”¹⁰ but writers such as Cicero¹¹ and the elder Pliny,¹² who lived much nearer to apostolic times, call it a Lycaonian city. Ramsay at first assumed, as others had done, that the author of Acts, wishing to add verisimilitude to an account of events in an area with which he was not personally acquainted, borrowed from Xenophon the information that Iconium was in Phrygia, not realizing that the regional frontier had shifted since Xenophon’s day. But further acquaintance with both literary and epigraphic evidence convinced him that the statement in Acts was entirely correct, that Iconium was as Phrygian a city in the middle of the first century A.D. as it had been 450 years earlier. In the Acts of Justin (c. A.D. 165) Hierax, one of Justin Martyr’s associates, tells an examining magistrate in Rome that he was “dragged away from Iconium of Phrygia,”¹³ and in A.D. 232 a provincial church council was held in “Iconium, a place of Phrygia.”¹⁴ Local inscriptions show clearly that Phrygian was spoken in Iconium until the end of the second century.¹⁵ Those writers who refer to Iconium as Lycaonian do so loosely because it lay near the frontier of Lycaonia and commonly shared the fortunes of that region.

Lystra, like Pisidian Antioch, was made a Roman colony by Augustus in 25 B.C. It served as a base for the more effective suppression of marauders from the Taurus mountains who threatened the Roman peace. The two colonies, which were about 100 miles apart, were connected by a military road which did not pass through Iconium. The site of Lystra, about eighteen miles south-southwest of Iconium, was identified by J. R. S. Sterrett in 1885 at Zostera or Zoldera, near Hatunsaray.¹⁶

7  The statement that Paul and Barnabas preached the gospel in the cities of Lycaonia anticipates the more detailed account of their doing so in verses 15–17 (at Lystra) and verse 21 (at Derbe).

2. Miraculous Healing at Lystra (14:8–13)

8  At Lystra there sat a man who had no strength in his feet; he was lame from birth and had never walked.

9  He¹⁷ listened to Paul speaking, and Paul, seeing that he had faith to be made well,

10  said in a loud voice,¹⁸ “Stand up on your feet—straight up!”¹⁹ He jumped up, and began to walk.

11  When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in Lycaonian, “The gods have come down to us in human semblance!”

12  They called Barnabas Zeus; as for Paul, they called him Hermes, because he was the leading speaker.

13  Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of the city,²⁰ brought oxen and wreaths to the gates, intending to offer sacrifice along with the crowds.

8  The description of the lame man at Lystra, and of his healing through the word of power spoken by Paul, is notably similar to the description of the lame man at the temple gate in Jerusalem, who was healed through his faith in the name of Jesus, invoked by Peter.²¹ But the sequel to the present healing is totally different, and is narrated in a form remarkably full of local color. The genuine and apparently incurable nature of the man’s disability is emphasized by repetition: he had, we are told, no strength in his feet; he was a cripple from birth; he had never walked.

9–10  Yet, as Paul was preaching, he saw this man listening to him and recognized that he “had faith to be made well.” While the expression here refers to the recovery of bodily health, yet even in a pagan context “there lies latent in it some undefined and hardly conscious thought of the spiritual and the moral, which made it suit Paul’s purpose admirably.”²² In Acts, as in the Gospels, faith is regularly emphasized as a condition of receiving both physical and spiritual healing.²³ That this lame man had faith was made plain by his ready obedience to Paul’s command to stand up: he jumped to his feet, found that they supported his weight, and began to walk for the first time in his life.

11–12  The miraculous cure struck amazement into the crowd of bystanders. These were not the Roman citizens of the colony, whose language (as appears from funerary inscriptions) was Latin, but the native Anatolian population, who still spoke their Lycaonian vernacular. The fact that they called out in Lycaonian on this occasion is mentioned by Luke for two reasons: first, Paul and Barnabas recognized that this language (though they did not understand it) was different from the Phrygian speech which they had heard on the lips of the indigenous population of Pisidian Antioch and Iconium; second, the crowd’s use of Lycaonian explains why Paul and Barnabas did not grasp what was afoot until the preparations to pay them divine honors were well advanced.

For the Lystrans, seeing the instantaneous cure performed on the lame man, concluded that they were being favored with a divine visitation. Local legend told of earlier occasions when the gods came down to them in the likeness of human beings—in particular, the two gods known to the Greeks as Zeus (father of gods and men) and Hermes (his son by Maia, and messenger of the gods).²⁴ We cannot be sure if the crowds used these two names or (since they were speaking Lycaonian) the names of two Anatolian divinities identified with Zeus and Hermes.

Ovid tells the story of a pious old couple of the region, Philemon and Baucis, who entertained Jupiter and Mercury (the Roman equivalents of Zeus and Hermes) unawares and were rewarded for their hospitality. In the earlier part of the twentieth century the evidence of epigraphy has effectively supplemented that of classical legend. Of two inscriptions from Sedasa, near Lystra, dating from the middle of the third century, and discovered by W. M. Calder, one records the dedication to Zeus of a statue of Hermes by men with Lycaonian names; the other mentions “priests of Zeus.”²⁵ Another indication of the joint worship of Zeus and Hermes in those parts is preserved by a stone altar discovered in 1926 near Lystra by W. M. Calder and W. H. Buckler, dedicated to the “Hearer of Prayer” (presumably Zeus) and Hermes.²⁶

Barnabas may have been identified with Zeus because of his more dignified bearing; Paul, the more animated of the two, was called Hermes “because he was the leading speaker”—a very similar expression is used of Hermes by the early fourth-century Neoplatonist writer Iamblichus when describing the Egyptian mysteries.²⁷

13  If the gods had condescended to pay the people of Lystra a visit, they must be greeted with appropriate honors, so the people, led by the priest of Zeus Propolis (Zeus whose temple stood at the city gates,²⁸ and who therefore would be regarded as the city’s protector),²⁹ prepared to offer them a sacrifice of oxen, the oxen being duly decked with woolen garlands or fillets as befitted animals about to be sacrificed.

3. Proclamation of the Living God (14:14–18)

14  When the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard what was going on, they tore their clothes and rushed out³⁰ among the crowd, calling out,

15  “Men, what is this you are doing? We ourselves³¹ are human beings with feelings like yours. We bring you the good news that you should turn from these vain things to the living God³²—the God who made heaven and earth and sea and everything that is in them.

16  In past generations he allowed all the nations to go their own ways;

17  yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did you good, sending you rain from heaven and seasons of fruitfulness, satisfying you with food and rejoicing.”

18  So they spoke, but even so they had difficulty in dissuading the crowds from offering them sacrifice.³³

14  It was some time before Paul and Barnabas understood what the people had in mind. When they did so, they rushed out from the place where they were,³⁴ with every mark of horror³⁵ at the idolatrous worship of which they were to be the unwitting recipients, and protested against it as vehemently as they could.

Here, as in verse 4, the two men are called “apostles"—a designation given to neither of them anywhere else in Acts. The opinion that its use in these two places is taken over by Luke from the source which he followed for this journey is strengthened by the word order “Barnabas and Paul,” in contrast to Luke’s customary “Paul and Barnabas.”³⁶

15–17  They protested that they were no gods, not even “divine men,” but ordinary human beings,³⁷ who had come to them as messengers bringing them news of the one true God. The summary which Luke proceeds to give of their expostulation provides us with one of the two examples in Acts of the preaching of the gospel to purely pagan audiences—to people who, unlike the Gentiles who attended synagogue worship, had no acquaintance with the God of Israel or with the Hebrew prophets.³⁸ The other, and fuller, example is the speech delivered by Paul to the Athenian Court of the Areopagus (17:22–31).³⁹ Preachers to such audiences would not be expected to insist on the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, as they did in addressing synagogue congregations; instead, an appeal to the natural revelation of God the Creator is put in the forefront. Yet this appeal is couched in language largely drawn from the Old Testament. Martin Dibelius points out that the speech at Lystra shows dependence on the Septuagint—even more so, he thinks, than does the later speech at Athens. “The proclamation about God,” he says, “… is preached completely in Old Testament style (see Ex. 20:11); the gods are described as ‘vain ones’ (or ‘vanities’), as in 3 King[dom]s 16:2, 13, 26; 4 King[dom]s 17:15; Esth. 4:17 [LXX]; Jer. 2:5; 8:19; 3 Macc. 6:11.”⁴⁰

If it be asked if Paul and Barnabas would have expressed themselves in these terms, even to a pagan audience, it may be pointed out that the description given by Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy of the Thessalonians’ conversion from paganism (1 Thess. 1:9) presupposes preaching very similar to that given here at Lystra. To Jews and Godfearing Gentiles, who already knew that God is one, and that he is the living and true God, the gospel proclaimed that this God had sent his Son as Messiah and Savior; but pagans had first to be taught what Jews already confessed regarding the unity and character of God. “God is one,” the pagans of Lystra are told, “and has not left himself without witness. His works of creation and providence show him to be the living God who supplies the needs of men and women; therefore abandon those gods which are no gods but empty figments of the imagination, and turn to the true God.” Only then could they be taught, like the Thessalonian converts, “to wait for his Son from heaven, the Son whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, our deliverer from the coming wrath” (1 Thess. 1:10).⁴¹

That God in former days permitted nations to “go their own ways” is paralleled by the statement in 17:30 that he “overlooked” the times of ignorance which preceded the full revelation of his will. Yet the ignorance should not have been so great as it actually was, for God’s ordering of the seasons so as to provide food for all ought to have made people mindful of him and his claims on their worship. In Rom. 1:19–20 Paul similarly insists that, if men and women had paid heed to the works of God in creation, they might even in them have found tokens of his “everlasting power and divinity.” There is, indeed, a difference in emphasis between what he writes in this regard to the Roman Christians and what he says to pagan audiences in Lystra and Athens: in these speeches the point is that, until the full revelation of God came to the Gentiles, he overlooked their errors which arose through ignorance of his will, whereas in the letter to the Romans God’s giving the pagan world up to its own devices is the penalty for its rejection of even the limited light which was available to it. But his “overlooking” their errors betokened not indifference but patience.

The providence of God in giving human beings rainfall and harvest is an Old Testament theme (cf. Gen. 8:22), and the conjunction of “food and rejoicing” (cf. 2:46) is a feature of Old Testament language (cf. Ps. 4:7; Isa. 25:6; Eccl. 9:7).

18  Thus Paul and Barnabas spoke, and succeeded—not without difficulty—in dissuading the Lystrans from paying divine honors to human beings with feelings like their own.⁴²

4. Persecuted at Lystra, the Missionaries Go On to Derbe and Then Retrace Their Steps (14:19–23)

19  Then⁴³ Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and talked the crowds over to their way of thinking. They pelted Paul with stones and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead.

20  But when the disciples⁴⁴ had gathered around him, he rose up⁴⁵ and went into the city. The next day he set out for Derbe with Barnabas.

21  When they had preached the gospel in that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch.

22  They strengthened the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to stand fast in their faith. “It is through many tribulations,” they said, “that we must enter the kingdom of God.”⁴⁶

23  Then they appointed elders for them in each church, and with prayer and fasting they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

19  Luke does not say if there was a Jewish community and synagogue at Lystra. Probably there was, however; this would more readily explain how Jews from Pisidian Antioch and Iconium were able to incite the Lystrans against Paul and Barnabas. This would not have been so easy had those Jews been complete strangers, lacking any point of contact with the populace of Lystra, but they could achieve their purpose more conveniently through a Jewish community in Lystra. Although more than a hundred miles separated Lystra from Pisidian Antioch, the relation between the two places is evidenced by a statue of Concord which citizens of Lystra set up in Pisidian Antioch.⁴⁷

The Lystrans, moreover, were probably offended by the missionaries’ refusal to accept divine honors from them: they had been made to look foolish, and felt resentful. Paul, so recently acclaimed as the messenger of the immortals, was the chief target for the violent assault that followed. When, some years later, he recalled the hardships he had endured for the gospel’s sake, he says, “once I was stoned” (2 Cor. 11:25), referring necessarily to this occasion. And when, writing to Christians in the cities which figure in the present narrative, he says, “I bear on my body the marks of Jesus” (Gal. 6:17), those marks or stigmata certainly included the indelible scars left by the stones at Lystra. There is grim irony in the quick reversal of the local attitude to the two visitors!⁴⁸

20  Luke’s description of Paul’s suddenly standing up and going back into the city after being dragged out and left for dead by the roadside has a flavor of miracle about it. The additional statement in the Western text that it was evening when he reentered Lystra is very probably true.

Derbe, for which he set out with Barnabas the following day, lay some sixty miles southeast of Lystra, on the eastern frontier of the province of Galatia, “very near to Cappadocia,” says Strabo.⁴⁹ Its site has been identified at or near the mound called Kerti Hüyük, about thirteen miles north-northeast of Karaman (the ancient Laranda).⁵⁰ Its name is said to have been derived from the Lycaonian word delbeia, meaning “juniper.”⁵¹ Like Iconium, it received the emperor’s name as an honorary prefix, and was known for a time as Claudioderbe.⁵²

21  Having preached the gospel and planted a church in Derbe, Paul and Barnabas retraced their steps. It was no part of their present plan to go beyond the provincial frontier. “New magistrates,” Ramsay suggests, “had now come into office in all the cities whence they had been driven, and it was therefore possible to go back.”⁵³ Even so, tribute must be paid to the courage of the two men in returning so soon to Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch—cities from which they had so lately been expelled with shameful brutality.

22  In those three cities they strengthened and encouraged the young churches so recently planted there. The members of those churches needed to be encouraged: they had seen Paul and Barnabas violently assaulted and driven out, and they themselves had certainly had to endure some measure of persecution. It is almost taken for granted throughout the New Testament that tribulation is the normal lot of Christians in this age: it is those who suffer for and with Christ now who will share his glory. “No cross, no crown.”⁵⁴

Luke indeed records the irresistible progress of the gospel, but he does so in no triumphalist spirit. In C. K. Barrett’s words, he “does make it clear that the road his heroes were travelling was the way of the cross.”⁵⁵

23  One way of strengthening the churches was making provision for leadership in them. In each of them there were some members who had already attained a sufficient degree of spiritual maturity to serve their fellow-believers as guides and give them the further instruction and encouragement they required in face of the hardship and persecution which they must expect as they maintained their Christian witness. It is held by many readers of Acts that the formal appointment of elders reflects the later situation of the Pastoral Epistles rather than this early stage in apostolic history. The language may be Luke’s,⁵⁶ but it is plain from Paul’s letters that he made provision for spiritual guidance in the churches which he founded and encouraged the members to recognize and respect their leaders.⁵⁷ What Barnabas’s policy in this matter was we have no independent means of knowing. It has more than once been pointed out that more recent missionary policy would have thought it dangerously idealistic to recognize converts of only a few weeks’ standing as leaders in their churches; perhaps Paul and Barnabas were more conscious of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the believing communities.⁵⁸

With prayer and fasting, then, they commended the young churches, with their leaders, to the Lord, and continued their journey.

5. Return To Antioch On The Orontes (14:24–28)

24  Then they passed through Pisidia and came into Pamphylia

25  When they had spoken the word in Perga, they came down to Attalia.⁵⁹

26  From there they sailed away to Antioch, from which they had been commended to the grace of God for the work which they had now completed.

27  When they arrived, they gathered the church together and reported all that God had done with them,⁶⁰ telling how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles.

28  Then they spent a considerable time with the disciples.

24–26  Setting out from Pisidian Antioch, they crossed the regional frontier from Phrygia into Pisidia, which was the southernmost territory of the Galatian province. Crossing Pisidia from north to south, they entered the province of Pamphylia. Here they preached in Perga, where they had called when they landed in Asia Minor from Cyprus (13:13); then they went down to Attalia (modern Antalya), the principal seaport of Pamphylia, at the mouth of the Cataractes (modern Düden-su). Attalia derived its name from its founder, Attalus II, king of Pergamum; he built and fortified it about 158 B.C. The Roman general Pompey used it as a base of operations in his campaign against the pirates in 67 B.C. Its brief mention here is a further illustration of Luke’s interest in ports of embarkation and disembarkation. From Attalia the two missionaries took ship for Syria and went up to Antioch on the Orontes, having completed a very eventful circular tour.

27–28  The church of Antioch was naturally eager to learn how they had fared: it shared in the responsibility and the glory of their service, for it was with its blessing and fellowship that they had set out on their campaign of more extended Gentile evangelization. The missionary tour had occupied the best part of a year, if not more; and now Paul and Barnabas resumed their ministry in Antioch for a period. But their activity in Cyprus and Asia Minor was a matter of interest not only in the Antiochene church but farther afield as well: in particular, the church of Jerusalem was concerned about the implications of a forward movement which so decisively altered the balance of Jews and Gentiles in the whole Christian fellowship.

1. Gk. . See E. Nestle, “Acts xiv. 1,” ExT 24 (1912–13), pp. 187–88.

2. Greeks, that is. who attended the synagogue, the so-called God-fearers. “Indeed, the term ‘Greeks’ found in Acts 11:20 was sometimes used to describe this class of person” (S. Brown, The Origins of Christianity [Oxford/New, 1984], p. 98; he compares also 18:4; 19:10).

3. Gk. , “who disobeyed.” The Western text recasts v. 2as follows: “But the synagogue chiefs and their rulers stirred up persecution against the righteous and inflame the minds of the Gentiles against the brothers; but Lord soon gave peace,” The last clause tries to explain why Paul and Barnabas spent a considerable time at Iconium (v. 3) in spite of the hostile action of v. 2. Ramsay regarded v. 3 as an early gloss (St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 107–9); others, like Moffatt, have transposed vv. 2 and 3. The Western reading implies two separate attacks (a short one in v. 2, at the beginning of the missionaries’ visit, and a more violent one in v. 5, at the end); but we may leave the of the attempt to stir up the magistrates and populace.

4. The Western text adds “adhering to them because of the word of God.”

5. The Western text adds “and the whole populace was moved at the teaching. And Paul and Barnabas spent some time in Lystra.”

6. For the view that the churches addressed in the letter to the Galatians were those planted during the present missionary campaign see F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids/Exeter, 1982), pp. 5–18.

7. Only here and in v. 14 does Luke use the term “apostles” of any outside the circle of the Twelve. This wider usage, perhaps referring to the two men as commissioned by the church of Antioch (13:3–4), may have been taken over by Luke from a travel document which provided him with the framework for the narrative of chs. 13 and 14. Luke does not give the designation “apostle” to Paul in the special sense in which Paul claimed it for himself. (Paul apparently places Barnabas on a level with himself in Gal. 2:9; 1 Cor. 9:6.)

8. Acts of Paul 3.3; cf. W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire (London, 1893), pp. 31–32.

9. W. M. Ramsay, BRD, pp. 35–52.

10. Anabasis 1.2.19.

11. Letters to Friends 15.4.2.

12. Natural History 5.25. But later in the same book (5.41) Pliny mentions Conium (which may be identical with Iconium) as a Phrygian city.

13. Acts of Justin 4.

14. Cyprian, Epistles 75.7 (from Firmilian to Cyprian).

15. See W. M. Calder, “Corpus Inscriptionum Neophrygiarum.”, JHS 31 (1911), pp. 159–215, especially pp. 188–94; W. M. Ramsay, BRD, pp. 39–78.

16. The decisive clue was a Latin inscription (CIL III.6786) naming the place Col(onia) Iul(ia) Felix Gemina Lustra (see W. M. Ramsay, Historical Geography of Asia Minor [London, 1890], p. 332; The Cities of St. Paul [London, 1907], pp. 407–19; B. Levick, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor [Oxford, 1967], pp. 37, 52, 154, 195–97; A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces [Oxford, ²1971], pp. 134-35).

17. The Western text adds “being in fear.”

18. The Western text inserts “I tell you” in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”—an addition calculated to intensify the resemblance to 3:6.

19. The Western text adds “and walk” (cf. 3:6). and continues: “and immediately he jumped up forthwith and began to walk.”

20. The Western text reads: “Then the priests of the local Zeus Propolis.”

21. See 3:2–10.

22. W. M. Ramsay, The Teaching of Paul in Terms of the Present Day (London, 1914), p. 95; cf. H. C. Kee, Miracle in the Early Christian World (New Haven, 1983), p. 101 (for the use of the same word in this sense in the Asklepios cult). Cf. , 16:17 (pp. 312–13).

23. Cf. Mark 5:34, .

24. See Ovid, Metamorphoses 8.620–724. Cf. W. M. Calder, “New Light on Ovid’s Story of Philemon and Baucis,” Discovery 3 (1922), pp. 207–11.

25. See W. M. Calder, “A Cult of the Homonades,” Classical Review 24 (1910), pp. 76–81, especially pp. 77–79; “Zeus and Hermes at Lystra,” Exp. 7, 10 (1910), pp. 1–6.

26. MAMA 8 (Manchester, 1962), § 1; cf. W. M. Calder, quoted in an editorial note in Discovery 7 (1926), p. 262. “Hearer of Prayer” represents Gk..

27. Iamblichus, On the Egyptian Mysteries 1 (, with which cf. Luke’s expression here: ).

28. See W. M. Calder, “The ‘Priest’ of Zeus at Lystra,” Exp. 7, 10 (1910), pp. 148–55, for arguments in favor of accepting the Western reading, “the priests of the local Zeus Propolis.”

29. For this sense of see Aeschylus, Seven against Thebes 164 (); cf. also B. Reicke, TDNT 6, pp. 684–85 (s.v. ).

30. The Byzantine text reads (“sprang in”).

31. Gk. (P⁴⁵ omits ).

32. A B C D² read “a living God”; most other authorities have “the living God,” but in a sufficient variety of forms to suggest that the definite article was originally absent (as in 1 Thess. 1:9).

33. The Western text (represented by C 6 33 36 81 431 614 1175 1739 al lat^h syr^hcl.mg arm) apparently added “but that each of them should go home.”

34. Ephrem the Syrian thought (perhaps rightly) that the sacrificial ox was brought to the door of the house where Paul and Barnabas were staying.

35. The rending of garments among the Jews was a gesture of horror at blasphemy (cf. Mark 14:63).

36. So long as he calls Paul by his Jewish name, Luke says “Barnabas and Saul,” but when he calls him by his Roman cognomen, he prefers the order “Paul and Barnabas” (the order “Barnabas and Paul” in 15:12, 25 is natural in a Jerusalem context).

37. Gk. (for the adjective cf. Jas. 5:17). Luke is far from portraying the missionaries as “divine men” (); cf. Peter in 10:26 (p. 209, n. 33).

38. Although Cornelius and his household were Gentiles when Peter visited them in Caesarea, they were not unenlightened pagans but worshipers of the God of Israel, acquainted with the OT scriptures and also, it is implied, with the general outline of the story of Jesus.

39. See pp. 332–42 below.

40. M. Dibelius, “Paul on the Areopagus,” Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, E.T. (London, 1956), p. 71, n. 23. An exegetical review of the Lystra and Athens speeches and of Rom. 1:18–23 is provided by M. Lackmann, Vom Geheimnis der Schöpfung (Stuttgart, 1952); see also B. Gärtner, “Paulus und Barnabas in Lystra: Zu Apg 14, 8–15,” SEĐ 27 (1962), pp. 83–88.

41. The point at which a transition could be made from the general argument from natural revelation to distinctively Christian preaching may be seen in 17:30–31.

42. M. Dibelius, who considers the speech of vv. 15–17 an editorial insertion in an independent and dramatic narrative, thinks that the narrative must originally have ended in a less “insipid” way (“Paul on the Areopagus,” p. 72 with n. 24; “The Acts of the Apostles in the Setting of the History of Early Christian Literature,” Studies, p. 198, n. 11).

43. The Western text expands this verse: “And as they spent some time there and taught, certain Jews came from Iconium and Antioch, and while they [the missionaries] were discoursing with boldness, these persuaded the crowds to revolt against them, saying, ‘Nothing that they say is true; it is all lies.’ So, having stirred up the crowds and having stoned Paul, they dragged him out of the city …”

44. P⁴⁵ D E read “his disciples.”

45. The Western witness lat^h and the Alexandrian witness cop^sa add “at evening,” which is implied also by the paraphrase of Ephrem the Syrian.

46. The pronoun “we” indicates that this is direct speech: the which introduces the quoted words is therefore an instance of “recitative .”

47. W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 50.

48. Contrast the quick reversal of judgment in the opposite direction at Malta (28:4–6). See p. 499 with n. 14.

49. Strabo, Geography 12.6.3.

50. See M. Ballance, “The Site of Derbe: A New Inscription,” AS 7 (1957), pp. 147–51; “Derbe and Faustinopolis,” AS 14 (1964), pp. 139–40; G. Ogg, “Derbe,” NTS 9 (1962–63), pp. 367–70; B. Van Elderen, “Some Archaeological Observations on Paul’s First Missionary Journey,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel, ed. W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin (Grand Rapids/Exeter, 1970), pp. 156–61. The chapter on Derbe in W. M. Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul, pp. 383–404, was written fifty years before the epigraphically attested identification of the site at or near Kerti Hüyük, but still contains material of value.

51. So Stephanus of Byzantium (c. A.D. 500).

52. A. D. Momigliano, Claudius: The Emperor and his Achievement, E.T. (Cambridge, ²1961), p. 118, suggests that the honorific prefix was granted c. A.D. 41, when Derbe “became the Roman frontier post facing the kingdom of Commagene.”

53. St. Paul the Traveller, p. 120.

54. Cf. Rom. 8:17; 2 Tim. 2:21a.

55. C. K. Barrett, “Theologia Crusis—in Acts,” in Theologia Crusis—Signum Crusis: Festschrift für E. Dinkler, ed. G. Andersan and G. Klein (Tübingen, 1979), p. 79.

56. In 20:17 Luke designates as those Ephesian churchmen whom Paul calls and (by implication) (20:28). See p. 392 with n. 63.

57. Cf. 1 Cor. 16:15–18; Gal. 6:6; Phil. 1:1; 2:29 (“honor such people”); 1 Thess. 5:12–13.

58. See R. Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? (London, 1927), pp. 107–42; G. Schneider, “Die Entwicklung kirchlicher Dienste in der Sicht der Apostelgeschichte,” Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift 132 (1984), pp. 356–63; C. K. Barrett, Church, Ministry and Sacraments in the New Testament (Exeter, 1985), p. 52.

59. The Western text adds “preaching the gospel to them.”

60. For “with them” the Western text had the Semitism “with their souls” (cf. Ps. 66 [LXX 65] = “for me”).

ACTS 15

E. THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM (15:1–35)

The Council of Jerusalem¹ is an event to which Luke attaches the highest importance; it is as epoch-making, in his eyes, as the conversion of Paul or the preaching of the gospel to Cornelius and his household. As he reports it, the Council was a meeting of the apostles and elders of the Jerusalem church convened to consider, primarily, the terms on which Gentile believers might be admitted to church membership (with special attention to the question whether they should be circumcised or not); in the second place, the means by which social intercourse, and especially table fellowship, might be promoted between Jewish and Gentile believers. Paul and Barnabas, with some representatives of the church of Antioch on the Orontes, were present at the meeting, where they were given an opportunity to relate their recent experiences in Cyprus and Asia Minor, but they took no part in making the decision; that was the responsibility of the Jerusalem leaders.

Luke’s account is straightforward: difficulties arise when the attempt is made to relate it to Paul’s account in Gal. 2:1–10 of a conference which he and Barnabas had in Jerusalem with the three “pillars” or leaders of the mother-church: James, Peter, and John. The great majority hold that Luke and Paul report the same occasion; indeed, one scholar declares that the identity of Paul and Barnabas’s Jerusalem visit of Gal. 2:1–10 with that of Acts 15:2–30 is “one of the assured results of Acts criticism.”² But in biblical criticism no result is so “assured” that someone will not be found to question it, and there are sound reasons to question the identity of these two visits.³ The discussion reported by Paul in Gal. 2:1–10 centered around the demarcation of spheres of missionary activity (it was agreed that Paul and Barnabas should continue their work of Gentile evangelization, while the Jerusalem leaders should concentrate on the witness among Jews); circumcision receives only marginal mention (in terms which do not necessarily mean that it was discussed at the conference at all),⁴ and nothing is said about facilitating table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Moreover, the conference of Gal. 2:1–10 is expressly said to have been a private one;⁵ the meeting of Acts 15 was held publicly, in the presence of the Jerusalem church.⁶ It could be argued that the private interview of Gal. 2:1–10 took place during the visit which also witnessed the public meeting;⁷ if so, it is difficult to understand why Paul told the Galatian Christians nothing of the decisions reached by the public meeting, since they were relevant to the Galatian controversy. Another suggestion is that in Acts 15 Luke combines into one narrative two originally separate meetings: one (recorded also in Gal. 2:1–10) at which Paul and Barnabas were present, and the other (which produced the decisions of Acts 15:28–29) at which Paul and Barnabas were not present.⁸ It is simpler to conclude that the occasion reported by Paul and that described by Luke were not the same.

On the other hand, part of Paul’s autobiographical narrative in Galatians probably provides the background to Acts 15. In Gal. 2:11–14 Paul tells how (presumably sometime after the conference of Gal. 2:1–10)⁹ Peter visited Antioch and (in accordance with his convictions and general practice) shared meals freely with Gentile Christians there. But some people¹⁰ came from Jerusalem—“from James,” says Paul—and persuaded Peter to withdraw from table fellowship with Gentiles. What they said to Peter must be conjectured: probably they told him that news of his free and easy fraternizing with Gentiles was coming back to Jerusalem and causing embarrassment, and possibly danger, to the church leaders there.¹¹ Peter was sufficiently impressed to withdraw (temporarily, at least) from common meals with Gentile Christians, and his example was followed by other Jewish Christians in Antioch, including “even Barnabas.” Peter and Barnabas might have pleaded that their action was undertaken out of consideration for weaker brothers, but Paul saw their action as a threat to gospel liberty for Gentiles, and he remonstrated publicly with Peter. Peter’s action, he said, amounted to forcing Gentiles to adopt the Jewish way of life.

Peter no doubt was distressed by the dismay which his action at Antioch had caused. Since that action had been prompted by a message from James, the problem must be sorted out with James. Accordingly a meeting of the Jerusalem leaders was held under the chairmanship of James. This meeting refused the demand voiced by some members of the Jerusalem church that Gentile converts should submit to circumcision and other requirements of the Mosaic law, and then turned to consider terms on which table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians might become acceptable. When what seemed to be a satisfactory decision was reached, Peter, the bridge-builder among the apostles,¹² must have been well pleased. The decision, which had to do largely with the avoidance of certain kinds of food by Gentile Christians, promised to prevent the recurrence of the awkwardness which had recently arisen at Antioch,¹³ and Peter, in the course of his more extended missionary journeys, probably recommended it to other churches.¹⁴

As for Paul, he took a different line. Where true religion and basic Christian ethics were involved, he was as peremptory as anyone could well be in directing his converts to avoid idolatry and fornication.¹⁵ But in matters (like food) which were religiously and ethically neutral, he refused to lay down the law. No food, he maintained, was “common or unclean” per se—not even if it had been forbidden by the law of Moses, not even if it came from an animal that had been sacrificed to a pagan divinity. It was human beings that mattered, not food; if a Christian was considering whether or not to eat this or that kind of food, the decision should depend on the effect which the taking or leaving it would have on the conscience of a fellow-Christian.¹⁶ When Paul was asked for a ruling on eating the flesh of animals which had been “sacrificed to idols” (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1–11:1), the last thing that would have occurred to him would be to quote a decision of the Jerusalem church as binding on Gentile Christians. When faced with such questions he argues from the order of creation and the ethical implications of a law-free gospel.

1. Judaizers Visit Antioch (15:1-2)

1  Some people¹⁷ came down from Judaea and began instructing the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised¹⁸ according to the custom of Moses,” they said, “you cannot be saved.”

2  Division resulted, and Paul and Barnabas held considerable debate with them.¹⁹ Then Paul and Barnabas were appointed²⁰ to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this question.

1  The people who came down from Judaea may have been those who, in Paul’s narrative, came to Antioch “from James” (Gal. 2:12). Whether they were so or not, they exceeded the terms of their commission, according to the apostolic letter in verse 24. Another possibility is that they were the “false brothers secretly brought in” of Gal. 2:4, if (as seems likely) Antioch was the place where these latter tried to “spy out” the freedom which Paul and the Gentile Christians enjoyed in their fellowship.²¹

The rapid progress of Gentile evangelization in Antioch and farther afield presented the more conservative Jewish believers with a serious problem. The apostles had acquiesced in Peter’s action in the house of Cornelius because it was attended by such evident marks of divine approval; but now a new situation confronted them. Before long there would be more Gentile Christians than Jewish Christians in the world. Many Jewish Christians no doubt feared that the influx of so many converts from paganism would bring about a weakening of the church’s moral standards, and the evidence of Paul’s letters shows that their misgivings were not unfounded. How was this new situation to be controlled?

Some members of the Jerusalem church had a simple answer. Since so many Jews had failed to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, they would have conceded the necessity of admitting Gentiles into the messianic community in order to make up the full complement. But those Gentiles should be admitted on terms similar to those required of proselytes to Judaism: they must be circumcised and assume the obligation to observe the Mosaic law.

But it seems clear that these conditions had not been insisted on. Cornelius and his household do not appear to have had the duty of circumcision pressed on them; and certainly the Gentile converts in the recently evangelized cities of South Galatia, like those in Antioch itself, had been welcomed into church fellowship without being circumcised. There were indeed some Jews in those days who thought that the outward rite of circumcision might be omitted, if only its spiritual significance was realized; but these formed a negligible minority.²² The vast majority, including such a hellenized Jew as Philo of Alexandria,²³ insisted on circumcision as indispensable for all males in the commonwealth of Israel, whether they entered it by birth or by proselytization. This was probably the attitude of the rank and file in the Jerusalem church—“zealots for the law,” as they are called on a later occasion (21:20). For many of them the church was the righteous remnant of Judaism, embodying the ancestral hope which all Israel ought to have welcomed, preparing itself for the impending day of the Lord: to countenance any relaxation in the terms of the covenant with Abraham, sealed in the flesh by circumcision, would be to forfeit all claim to remnant righteousness, all title to salvation on the last day. If Paul and Barnabas neglected to bring the requirements of the law to the attention of Gentile members of the church of Antioch and her daughter-churches, there were those in the Jerusalem church who were ready to repair this omission, and they went to Antioch, the citadel of Gentile Christianity, to repair it there.

2  It was not enough to indulge in dissension and questioning at Antioch: the whole issue had to be debated and decided at the highest level. Otherwise, there was grave danger of a complete cleavage between the churches of Jerusalem and Judaea on the one hand and the church of Antioch and her daughter-churches on the other. The church of Antioch therefore sent Paul, Barnabas, and a number of other responsible members to discuss the question with the leaders of the church of Jerusalem.²⁴

2. Paul and Barnabas Go Up to Jerusalem (15:3–5)

3  Being sent off by the church, then, they went through Phoenicia and Samaria, relating the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.

4  On their arrival in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, and by the apostles and elders, and reported all that God had done with them.²⁵

5  But some members of the party of the Pharisees, who were believers, stood up and said,²⁶ “They²⁷ must be circumcised, and charged to keep Moses’ law.”

3  Paul, Barnabas, and their companions had to pass through Phoenicia and Samaria on their way south to Jerusalem.²⁸ They took the opportunity to visit the Christian groups in these regions and tell them of the success of the Gentile mission. As the churches of Samaria and Phoenicia were themselves the fruit of the Hellenistic mission which followed the death of Stephen (8:5–25; 11:19), they would naturally rejoice at the news, without being troubled by the misgivings which were felt by so many of the believers in Jerusalem.

4  Even in Jerusalem the leaders and other members of the church listened with great interest to Paul and Barnabas’s account of “all that God had done with them,” but this interest by no means involved wholehearted satisfaction.

5  Dissatisfaction was voiced in particular by those members of the Jerusalem church who were associated with the Pharisaic party. Pharisees, as believers in the doctrine of the resurrection, could become Christians without relinquishing their distinctive beliefs: to what they already believed they could add the belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead and was thus divinely proclaimed to be Lord and Messiah. But if their Christianity did not amount to more than this, they remained legalists at heart—unlike their illustrious fellow-Pharisee Paul, whose whole outlook was totally re-oriented by his Damascus-road experience: not only was Jesus revealed to him as the risen Lord but he was called to preach a law-free gospel in his name. The believing Pharisees in the Jerusalem church were naturally the leaders in insisting that Gentile converts should be instructed to submit to circumcision and the general obligation to keep the Mosaic law which circumcision carried with it.²⁹

The repetitions in the textual tradition of verses 1–5 suggest that these verses are Luke’s composition, forming an editorial transition from the record of the Anatolian mission to that of the apostolic council.

3. The Council Meets (15:6)

6  So the apostles and elders came together to see about this matter.³⁰

6 How many of the apostles were still resident in Jerusalem is uncertain; probably those who were accessible were brought together for this consultation. Peter probably came back from his ministry among Jews of the dispersion in order to be present.³¹ While other members of the church were present at the meeting,³² the deliberation and decision rested with the responsible leaders. They evidently had no doubt of their competence to rule on matters affecting the Gentile mission as well as matters which were their personal responsibility.

4. Peter’s Speech (15:7–11)

7  After long debate, Peter stood up.³³ and addressed them.³⁴ “Brothers,” he said, “you know that a long time ago³⁵ God chose us³⁶ in order that from my lips the Gentiles should hear the message of the gospel and come to faith.

8  God, who knows the heart, bore witness in their favor by giving³⁷ them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us:

9  he made no difference between us and them, but purified³⁷ their hearts by faith.

10  Now then, why do you try God’s patience (with the proposal) to place on those disciples’ necks a yoke which neither we nor our forefathers have been able to bear?

11  No: it is by faith in the Lord Jesus that we are saved,³⁸ just as they are.”³⁹

7–9  Peter, as leader of the apostles, spoke out unambiguously in the interests of gospel liberty. He had maintained these interests with purpose of heart ever since his visit to Cornelius in Caesarea: he had no thought of putting them at risk when he made his tactical withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentiles at Antioch. “The figure of a Judaizing St. Peter is a figment of the Tübingen critics with no basis in history.”⁴⁰

He now reminds the company that the fundamental principle which they were discussing had been settled when, several years before, he had been led by God to the house of Cornelius and Gentiles had heard the gospel from his lips. On that occasion God gave an evident token of his acceptance of Gentiles, for the Holy Spirit came on them as they listened to Peter, just as he had come on Peter and his fellow-apostles at the first Christian Pentecost. Cornelius and his household had not even made an oral confession of faith when the Holy Spirit took possession of them, but God, who reads the human heart, saw the faith within them. And if God accepted those Gentiles and cleansed them in heart and conscience by the impartation of his Spirit as soon as they believed the gospel,⁴¹ why should further conditions now be imposed on them—conditions which God himself plainly did not require?

10–11  Besides, the yoke which some were now proposing to place on the necks of Gentile Christians was one which they themselves and their forefathers had found too heavy. The term “yoke” is particularly appropriate in this context: a proselyte, by undertaking to keep the law of Moses, was said to “take up the yoke of the kingdom of heaven.”⁴²

Not all Jews thought of the law as an intolerable burden. Some thought that God had honored Israel by giving them so many commandments.⁴³ The author of Ps. 119 found them his delight; Philo declared that they were “not too numerous or too heavy for the strength of those who are able to make use of them.”⁴⁴ But Peter spoke as a representative of the rank and file of Galilaean Jews. He knew enough to refuse nonkosher food and not to fraternize with Gentiles (10:14, 28), but he and people like him could not be expected to know or practise all the details of legal tradition. By contrast with those “heavy burdens, hard to bear” (Matt. 23:4), he and his associates had learned to rejoice in their Master’s easy yoke (Matt. 11:29–30). They recognized that their own salvation was due to the grace of Christ; were they to acknowledge a different and more burdensome principle of salvation for Gentile believers?

Peter now disappears from the narrative of Acts;⁴⁵ so far as Luke is concerned, says Martin Hengel, “the legitimation of the mission to the Gentiles is virtually Peter’s last work.”⁴⁶

5. Paul and Barnabas Address the Council (15:12)

12  Then⁴⁷ the whole congregation fell silent, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles.

12  During the silence which followed Peter’s appeal, Barnabas and Paul (who are named naturally in this order in a Jerusalem setting) added further evidence which could only support Peter’s argument. The mind of God in this matter, decisively shown in the house of Cornelius, had been further displayed in the blessing he had bestowed on Gentile believers in Antioch and in their recent mission in Cyprus and Asia Minor. But Barnabas and Paul spoke as witnesses, not as consultants or as participants in the debate; and in Jerusalem their words could carry nothing like the weight that Peter’s did. Even Peter’s words were not decisive, however; one voice remained to be heard.

6. James’s Summing Up (15:13–21)

13  When they had finished speaking, James replied (to the debate): “Brothers, listen to me.

14  Symeon⁴⁸ has related how God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people for his name.

15  This is in keeping with the words of the prophets, as it is written:

16  ‘After this I will return

and build up David’s fallen tent:

I will build up its ruins and set them upright,

17  that the remainder of humanity may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been invoked,

18  says the Lord who makes these things known from of old.’⁴⁹

19  Therefore my ruling is that we stop troubling those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

20  but send them a letter bidding them abstain from idolatrous pollutions, from fornication, from strangled animals, and from blood.⁵⁰

21  After all, since generations long ago Moses has had his preachers in every city;⁵¹ he is read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”

13  The eyes of all now turned to James, the brother of the Lord, a man who enjoyed widespread respect and confidence.⁵² If the elders of the Jerusalem church were organized as a kind of Nazarene Sanhedrin, James was their president, primus inter pares. The church’s readiness to recognize his leadership was due more to his personal character and record than to his blood relationship to the Lord. (There were other brothers, but they were shadowy figures compared with James.) When he said “Listen to me,”⁵³ they listened.

14  James began by summarizing Peter’s speech (referring to him as Symeon, the Hebrew or Aramaic form of his personal name). No mention is made of the report which Barnabas and Paul had just given. This indeed may have been politic: James wanted to carry a difficult audience with him, and it was the activity of Barnabas and Paul that had created the situation which roused such apprehension in the minds of the Jerusalem rank and file.

The English translation of the words, “God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people for his name,” scarcely bring out the paradoxical force of the Greek. In the Old Testament the “nations” or “Gentiles” (Gk. ethnē) stand in contrast to the “people” (Gk. laos), that is to say, Israel. When Moses says to the Israelites in Deut. 14:2, “Yahweh has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the nations that are on the face of the earth,” the Greek version uses laos for “people” over against ethnē for “nations”; the two terms are opposed the one to the other.⁵⁴ But when James uses the same two terms here, he does not speak of God’s taking a people in contrast to the Gentiles, but of his taking a people consisting of Gentiles—an “outstanding paradox,” as Bengel says.⁵⁵ The Scofield Reference Bible, in its note on this text, had a point in calling it “dispensationally, … the most important passage in the NT.” What James states concisely here is implied throughout the New Testament: one example is 1 Pet. 2:9, where God’s description of the returning exiles of Judah, “the people whom I formed for myself, that they might declare my praise” (Isa. 43:21), is applied to Gentile converts to Christianity. Cf. also Tit. 2:14.

15–18  God’s initiative in thus “visiting the Gentiles” was shown when he sent his Spirit on Cornelius and his household as they listened to Peter’s preaching. But he had foretold his action through the prophets. To demonstrate this James quotes Amos 9:11–12.

This oracle of Amos is quoted in the main from the LXX version. The chief deviations from LXX are the replacement of “In that day” by “After this I will return” (Jer. 12:15) at the beginning of the quotation, and the replacement of “who does this” by “who makes these things known from of old” (cf. Isa. 45:21) at the end. More striking are the deviations of LXX from MT, especially in the rewording of the clause “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” The primary sense of MT is that God will restore the fallen fortunes of the royal house of David, so that it will rule over all the territory which had once been included in David’s empire, not only what is left of the Edomites but also “all the nations who are called by my name.” The LXX rewording involves two variant readings,⁵⁶ but the result is a complete spiritualization of the passage: “that they may possess the remnant of Edom” becomes “that the remainder of humanity may seek” (the object of “seek” is not expressed in LXX, but the implied object is clearly “me”—that is, “the Lord,” as James’s quotation makes plain). The LXX spiritualization is in line with Israel’s mission to bring the knowledge of the true God to the Gentiles. It thus paved the way for James’s application of the prophecy to the church’s Gentile mission.

It has already been emphasized in Acts that, by the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, the Son of David, God has fulfilled his dynastic promises to David (cf. Peter’s argument in 2:25–36 and Paul’s in 13:23, 32–37). This may be what is understood here as the raising up of David’s fallen tent. But the promised extension of the sovereignty of the house of David over the Gentiles is taking place here and now, says James, through the Gentile mission: over a far wider area than David ever ruled, men and women of Gentile stock are making haste to yield willing and glad allegiance to great David’s greater Son. “The remainder of humanity” comprises the Gentiles—“all the Gentiles over whom my name has been invoked” (i.e., in baptism). Similar phraseology appears in Jas. 2:7, where the readers are reminded of “that honorable name by which you are called.”

The Gentile mission, then, is the work of God: he has made it known in advance “from of old” and now he has brought it to pass.

It may be asked if James is likely to have quoted the LXX version in such a setting. Perhaps not (the choice of LXX is more probably Luke’s); but it has been pointed out that “even our Massoretic Hebrew would have served the present purpose admirably, since it predicted that ‘the tabernacle of David’, i.e. the church of the Messiah, would gain possession of all the nations which are called by the name [of the God of Israel].”⁵⁷

James’s speech has been recognized as taking the form known to the rabbis as response, in which an appeal is made to scripture as confirming what has been said or done already and what is about to be decided.⁵⁸

19  The quotation from Amos did not answer the question about circumcision: it might have been argued that the Gentiles over whom the name of the Lord was invoked should respond to that invocation by being circumcised. But James does not accept that argument. In fact, he does not mention circumcision, but when he rules that Jewish believers should “stop troubling”⁵⁹ Gentile converts he repeats in different terms Peter’s protest against placing an intolerable yoke on those converts’ necks. The demand for their circumcision carried with it the obligation to assume such a yoke: James’s “stop troubling” means in effect “stop demanding circumcision.”⁶⁰

20  There remained, however, a practical problem. In most cities Gentile believers had to live alongside Jewish believers, who had been brought up to observe the levitical food restrictions and to avoid contact with Gentiles as far as possible. If there was to be free association between these two groups, certain guidelines must be laid down, especially with regard to table fellowship. Members of the church of Jerusalem might have little experience of this social problem at home, but it disturbed them to hear of Jewish Christians elsewhere who associated with Gentile Christians in a totally relaxed manner, as though the time-honored food restrictions were no longer valid. Peter’s initial breach with convention in entering the house of Cornelius had been overlooked, since he acted under divine compulsion; but his sitting at table with Gentile Christians in Antioch caused grave scandal in Jerusalem. Readers of the New Testament today are familiar with Paul’s totally emancipated attitude in such matters, and may be tempted to suppose that it was generally shared; in fact, Paul was probably quite exceptional in this regard (as in several others) among Jewish believers.

James therefore gave it as his considered judgment that Gentile Christians should be directed to avoid food which had idolatrous associations and the flesh of animals from which the blood had not been completely drained, and that they should conform to the Jewish code of relations between the sexes instead of remaining content with the pagan standards to which they had been accustomed.

It is natural that, when the stumbling block of circumcision had been removed, an effort should have been made to provide a practical modus vivendi for two groups of people drawn from such different ways of life. The modus vivendi was probably similar to the terms on which Jews of the dispersion found it possible to have a measure of fellowship with God-fearing Gentiles. The prohibition against eating flesh with the blood still in it (including the flesh of strangled animals) was based on the “Noachian decree” of Gen. 9:4.⁶¹ At a later time, when the issue dealt with by the apostolic council was no longer a live one, the provisions moved by James and adopted by the other leaders were modified so as to become purely ethical injunctions; thus the Western text makes James propose that Gentile converts “abstain from idolatry, from fornication and from bloodshed,⁶² and from doing to others what they would not like done to themselves.”⁶³

21  This policy, James urged, would not work to the detriment of Israel’s mission in the Gentile world; there was still ample opportunity for Gentiles to learn the law of Moses, for it was read publicly every sabbath in synagogues throughout the civilized world. But with regard to Gentile converts to Christianity, “Moses, so to speak, would suffer no loss, in failing to obtain the allegiance of those who had never been his.”⁶⁴ This observation was perhaps intended to calm the apprehensions of the believing Pharisees, in whose eyes it was specially important that the whole Torah should be taught among the Gentiles; this, said James, was being attended to already by the synagogues.

7. The Apostolic Letter to Gentile Christians (15:22–29)

22  Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, resolved to select men from their ranks and send them to Antioch in the company of Paul and Barnabas—Judas (who was called Barsabbas) and Silas, leading men among the brothers.

23  By them they wrote a letter as follows:

“The apostles and elders, your brothers,⁶⁵ to the brothers of Gentile birth at Antioch and in Syria and Cilicia: greetings.

24  We have heard that some of our people have confused you with their arguments, upsetting⁶⁶ your minds,⁶⁷ although we gave them no such directions;

25  we have resolved therefore, having reached one mind in the matter, to select men and send them to you in the company of our dear friends Barnabas and Paul,

26  who have endangered their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.⁶⁸

27  The men whom we are sending are Judas and Silas, and they will give you the same message by word of mouth.

28  The Holy Spirit and we ourselves have resolved to impose no further burden on you than this: it is necessary⁶⁹

29  to abstain from food that has been sacrificed to idols, from blood, from strangled meat, and from fornication.⁷⁰ If you guard yourselves from these things, you will do well.⁷¹ Farewell.”

22  James’s proposal commended itself to his colleagues, and appears to have won at least the acquiescence of the Jerusalem church as a whole. The leaders of the church then selected two of their number to go to Antioch and carry the findings of the council to the church of that city. Of these two messengers, Judas—who had the same surname as the Joseph mentioned in 1:23—does not appear outside this context. The other, Silas, continues to figure in the narrative of Acts as a companion of Paul in the evangelization of Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth. He is plainly identical with the Silvanus of Paul’s letters (2 Cor. 1:19; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1); his relation to the Silvanus of 1 Pet. 5:12 is uncertain. It is preposterous exegesis to identify Judas and Silas with the troublesome emissaries from James mentioned by Paul in Gal. 2:12.⁷²

23  Judas and Silas were not only to communicate the council’s findings to the church of Antioch by word of mouth, but also to carry a letter from the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. The senders call themselves “the apostles and elders, your brothers” (so NIV; similarly RSV). The rendering “the apostles and elder brothers” might commend itself as more natural, but since “elder brothers” (in a religious sense) is a locution unparalleled in the New Testament, it may be better to take “brothers” here as being in apposition to “apostles and elders.”⁷³ The letter is addressed to the Gentile Christians of Antioch and of the united province of Syria-Cilicia, of which Antioch was the capital. The recently founded churches in South Galatia may have been envisaged as coming within the scope of the letter, but they are not mentioned.

24–27  Since trouble had been caused by the unauthorized activity of previous Jerusalem visitors to Antioch (v. 1), it was necessary to emphasize that the present delegates, whose business it was to undo the damage caused by those earlier visitors, were fully accredited by the Jerusalem church. A conciliatory note was added by the pointedly friendly references to Barnabas and Paul and to the hazards they had undergone in their work of evangelization.

28  The words “it has been resolved by the Holy Spirit and ourselves,” with which the terms of the council’s decision are introduced, stress the church’s role as the vehicle of the Spirit. “There is no parallel,” says Wilfred Knox, “for such a phrase to pronounce a corporate decision by a deliberative body.”⁷⁴ So conscious were the church leaders of being possessed and controlled by the Spirit that he was given prior mention as chief author of their decision.

Significance has been attached to the fact that none of the Greek verbs of commanding is used when the council’s directives are conveyed.⁷⁵ But the form of words that is used, “it has been resolved,” is authoritative enough: it was a form widely used in the wording of imperial and other government decrees. Moreover, the four abstentions prescribed are said to be “necessary,” not optional. Apart from them, however, no further burden was to be imposed on the Gentiles: that would include circumcision and other legal obligations, part of the “yoke” which Peter said they should not be required to bear.

29  The four abstentions are those indicated by James in his summing up. His more general “idolatrous pollutions” is replaced by the more specific “food that has been sacrificed to idols.” Food of various kinds might be offered to idols, but the flesh of animal sacrifices is in view here: “an animal would constitute the only offering of sufficient size that a saleable portion would be left over following the sacrifice.”⁷⁶ Such flesh (which would be of prime quality) was freely exposed for sale on the butchers’ stalls of pagan cities, since the temples received more than they could use; the question of eating it (whether its origin was known or unknown) was a matter of conscience for some Gentile Christians, as Paul’s Corinthian correspondence shows.⁷⁷ The Jerusalem decree forbids it outright. It also forbids eating the meat of strangled animals, or the eating of blood in any form.

The prohibition of fornication, understood generally, is an ethical prohibition in all forms of the text (Western or otherwise), but the word may be used here in a more specialized sense, of marriage within degrees of blood relationship or affinity forbidden by the legislation of Lev. 18:6-18. It is used in this sense in 1 Cor. 5:1 and also possibly in the “excepting clauses” of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9.⁷⁸ Ordinary fornication, like ordinary idol-worship, was ruled out by the most elementary principles of Christian instruction.

The decree is regarded as binding in the letters to the seven churches of proconsular Asia (Rev. 2:14, 20). Toward the end of the second century it was observed by the churches of the Rhone valley (which had close links with those of Asia) and of the province of Africa.⁷⁹ Toward the end of the ninth century the terms of the decree, together with the negative Golden Rule, were included by the English king Alfred in the preamble to his law-code.

8. The Church of Antioch Receives the Apostolic Letter (15:30–35)

30  They were sent off, then, and came down to Antioch. There they gathered the congregation together and handed over the letter.

31  When the Antiochenes read it, they rejoiced at the encouragement.

32  Judas and Silas, who were also prophets themselves,⁸⁰ gave the brothers much encouragement by word of mouth, and strengthened them.

33  When they had spent some time there, the brothers sent them back with a salutation of peace⁸¹ to those who had commissioned them.⁸²

35  But Paul and Barnabas stayed on in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of God together with many others.

30–35  The news from Jerusalem brought great relief to the Gentile Christians of Antioch. Probably the restrictions laid down in the letter did not seem too burdensome; in any case, they were a small price to pay for the prevention of any recurrence of the embarrassing situation occasioned by previous visitors from James. On the terms prescribed, table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers could now be resumed. (What Paul thought about it may be inferred from his letters rather than from Luke’s record.) Over and above the encouragement contained in the apostolic letter, the church received further encouragement from the prophetic ministry of Judas and Silas,⁸³ who spent some time in Antioch before returning to Jerusalem. When they set off on their homeward journey, it was with the Antiochenes’ farewell “Peace be with you!” sounding in their ears. After their departure, Paul and Barnabas stayed on in Antioch a little longer, serving the Lord in the church together with their colleagues in the ministry. (Verse 35 repeats more fully the statement of 14:28.)

1. See (among much other relevant literature) H. Lietzmann, “Der Sinn des Aposteldekretes und seine Textwandlung,” in Amicitiae Corolla … presented to J. R. Harris, ed. H. G. Wood (London, 1933), pp. 203–11; K. Lake, “The Apostolic Council of Jerusalem,” in Beginnings I.5 (London, 1933), pp. 195–212; M. Dibelius, “The Apostolic Council” (1947), E. T. in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London, 1955), pp. 93–111; B. Reicke, “Der geschichtliche Hintergrund des Apostelkonzils und der Antiocheia-Episode,” in Studia Paulina in honorem J. de Zwaan, ed. J. N. Sevenster and W. C. van Unnik (Haarlem, 1953), pp. 172–87; E. Haenchen, “Quellenanalyse und Kompositionsanalyse in Act 15,” in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift für J. Jeremias, ed. W. Eltester (Berlin, ²1964), pp. 153–64; M. Simon, “The Apostolic Decree and its Setting in the Ancient Church,” BJRL 52 (1969–70), pp. 437–60; G. Zuntz, “An Analysis of the Report about the ‘Apostolic Council,’ ” in Opuscula Selecta (Manchester, 1972), PP. 216–49; T. Holtz, “Die Bedeutung des Apostelkonzils für Paulus,” NovT 16 (1974), pp. 110–48; D. R. Catchpole, “Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree,” NTS 23 (1976-77), pp. 428-44; E. Bammel, “Der Text von Apostolic Decree,” NTS 23 (1976–77), pp. 428–44; E. Bammel, “Der Text von Apostelgeschichte 15,” in Les Actes des Apôtres = BETL 48, ed. J. Kremer (Gemblourx/Leuven, 1979), pp. 439–46; A. Strobel, “Das Aposteldekret als Folge des antiochenischen Streites," in Kontinutät und Einheit; Fest-schrift für F. Mussner, ed. P.-G. Muller and W. Stenger (Freiburg, 1981), pp. 81–104; C. K. Barrett, “Apostles in Council and in Conflict,” in Freedom and Obligation (London, 1985), pp. 91–108.

2. G. Strecker, “Die sogenannte zweite Jerusalemreise des Paulus (Act 11,27–30),” ZNW 53 (1962), pp. 67–77 (p. 73).

3. See F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids/Exeter, 1982), pp. 19–32, 43–56, 105–34, for the view that the Jerusalem conference of Gal. 2:1–10, the Antioch controversy of Gal. 2:11–14, and even the writing of the letter to the Galatians itself (to the churches whose foundation is recorded in Acts 13:48–14:23) antedated the council of Acts 15.

4. Gal. 2:3–5 should probably be taken as a digression, and vv. 4–5 as a parenthesis within that digression, with reference to an occasion slightly later than Paul and Barnabas’s conference with the Jerusalem “pillars”: the circumcision issue, Paul means, was not introduced at that conference, but later, when false brothers infiltrated our fellowship. Cf. T. W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Manchester, 1962), pp. 175–76; B. Orchard, “A New Solution of the Galatians Problem,” BJRL 28 (1944), pp. 154–74; “The Ellipsis between Galatians 2,3 and 2,4,” Bib. 54 (1973), pp. 469–81.

5. Gal. 2:2, .

6. Acts 15:12 (), 22 ().

7. For this view cf. J. B. Lightfoot. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (London, 1865), pp. 125–26; H. N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia, NICNT (Grand Rapids, 1953), pp. 78–82. But “we have no reason for supposing that the Church had by this date reached that stage of democracy in which the public meeting registers its assent to a decision reached in advance by its leading members” (W. L. Knox, The Acts of the Apostles [Cambridge, 1948], p. 42).

8. For this suggestion cf. H. Lietzmann, “Der Sinn des Aposteldekretes …”; H. W. Beyer, Die Apostelgeschichte, KEK 3 (Göttingen. 1951), pp. 91-97; O. Cullmann, Peter: Disciple—Apostle—Martyr, E.T. (London, 1953), p. 49; T. W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, p. 186; M. Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 98–99, 106–7; F. Hahn, Mission in the New Testament, E.T., SBT 47 (London, 1963), pp. 77–86. The cogency of this suggestion is weakened if in fact the Jerusalem visits of Gal. 2:1–10 and Acts 15 were quite distinct.

9. Other views of the chronological sequence have been put forward. Some have dated the controversy of Gal. 2:11–14 before the conference of Gal. 2:1–10; see, e.g., T. Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (Leipzig, ³1922), p. 110; H. M. Feret, Pierre et Paul à Antioche et à Jérusalem (Paris, 1955); J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, E.T. (London, 1959), pp. 100–103. W. L. Knox (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 49) supposes that the Antioch controversy preceded the first missionary expedition of Paul and Barnabas: that it was, in fact, the controversy that made the Antiochene church decide “to launch a vigorous Gentile mission.”

10. For the plural (Gal. 2:12) P⁴⁶ and some Latin witnesses have the singular (“a certain person”), while P⁴⁶ and several uncials have the singular (“came”) for the plural in the second half of the verse. If the singular be preferred, the person in question may simply have been the spokesman of a group.

11. See T. W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, p. 181; B. Reicke, “Der geschichtliche Hintergrund … der Antiocheia-Episode”; R. Jewett, “The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation,” NTS 17 (1970–71), pp. 198–212.

12. Cf. J. D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London, 1977), p. 385.

13. See A. Strobel, “Das Aposteldekret als Folge des antiochenischen Streites.”

14. See H. Lietzmann, The Beginnings of the Christian Church, E.T. (London, 1949), p. 151; C. K. Barrett, “Things Sacrificed to Idols,” NTS 22 (1964–65), p. 150.

15. E.g., 1 Cor. 6:12–20; 10:7–8, 14–22.

16. Cf. Rom. 14:14–23.

17. The Western text adds “of the party of the Pharisees, who were believers” (cf. v. 5).

18. The Western text inserts “and walk.”

19. The Western text adds: “for Paul insisted that they should remain just as they were when they believed (cf. 1 Cor. 7:20, 24). Those who had come from Jerusalem charged Paul and Barnabas and some others to go up to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem to be judged before them concerning this question” (a form of words perhaps borrowed in part from 25:9, but here implying that the judaizers were vested with the authority of the Jerusalem church, and that Paul and Barnabas were under their orders).

20. Lit., “they appointed () Paul and Barnabas …”; the subject of the verb is not expressed, but the implication is that “they” were the church of Antioch, or its leaders.

21. They are identified with the “false brothers” by J. Weiss, Earliest Christianity, E.T., I (New York, 1959), pp. 263–67; H. Lietzmann, An die Galater, HNT 10 (Tubingen, ²1923), p. 11; H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, KEK 7 (Güttingen, ⁵1971), p. 39: A. Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, THKNT 9 (Berlin, ²1957), p. 47; F. Hahn, Mission in the New Testament, p. 78.

22. According to Josephus (Ant. 20.38–46), Ananias, the Jewish instructor of Izates, king of Adiabene (c. A.D. 40), advised him to worship God according to the Jewish religion without being circumcised; but a stricter Jewish visitor, Eleazar, persuaded him to be circumcised, since otherwise God would be displeased with him. In debates with the school of Shammai, some Hillelites maintained that, for Gentiles to become proselytes of Judaism, the initiatory baptism was sufficient apart from circumcision (TB 46a, baraita); but this was more likely to have been a proposition for debate than a matter of practice.

23. Philo (Migration of Abraham 89–94) opposes those Jews who neglect the literal observance of ceremonial laws on the ground that it is sufficient to learn and practise the spiritual lessons which those laws teach; “nor, because circumcision signifies the cutting away of pleasure and all passions and the destruction of impious glory, … let us abolish the law of circumcision.”

24. Luke does not say if they did in fact have an opportunity to discuss the question with the Jerusalem leaders. As for Paul’s own account, the discussion which he and Barnabas had with three of those leaders (two apostles and one elder, in Luke’s nomenclature) dealt with another question (Gal. 2:6–9).

25. Cf. 14:27.

26. The Western text does not repeat the reference to believing Pharisees, already introduced by it in v. 1, but recasts the beginning of v. 5 thus: “But those who charged them to go up to the elders stood up and said.”

27. Gk. , i.e., the Gentile converts. The antecedent to is not expressed, except in the Byzantine addition at the end of v. 4: “and that he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles”. (taken over from 14:27).

28. M. Hengel (Between Jesus and Paul, E.T. [London, 1983], p. 123) points out that this text refutes a current misinterpretation of Luke 17:11, according to which Luke was ignorant of the geography of Palestine, by showing that he knew that Samaria lay immediately north of Judaea and that it was possible to move directly between Samaria and Phoenicia.

29. Cf. Gal. 5:3.

30. A literal rendering of Gk. . See J. L. North, “Is (Acts 15:6; cf. 18:15) a Latinism?” NTS 29 (1983), pp. 264–65; he suggests that it is a coinage on the analogy of Latin uidere de (he finds two other examples of the Greek phrase: Epictetus, Dissertations 1.17.10; 4.8.24).

31. Cf. O. Cullmann, Peter: Disciple–Apostle–Martyr, E.T., p. 50.

32. Cf. vv. 12 (“the whole congregation”), 22 (“the whole church”).

33. After “stood up” the Western text adds “in Spirit,” implying that he spoke by inspiration.

34. For “them” P⁴⁵ reads “the apostles.”

35. Gk. , “in the early days” (i.e., of the church’s history).

36. Gk. , a Semitic idiom for “chose you.” Cf. Neh. 9:7 (LXX 2 Esdr. 19:7), , “thou didst choose Abraham”; also 1 Sam. (LXX 1 Kms.) 16:9–10; 1 Kings (LXX 3 Kms.) 8:16, 44; 1 Chron. 28:4–5. See G. Zuntz, Opuscula Selecta, pp. 250–51. God chose the apostles that through one of them (Peter, as their representative) the Gentiles should hear the gospel.

37. Gk. Both these participles are examples of the “simultaneous” or “coincident” aorist participle (“giving … cleansing”): God testified to the genuineness of these people’s faith by giving them the Spirit and thus cleansing their hearts in one regenerative moment.

38. Gk. , which might mean either (1) “we believe we shall be saved” (for the aorist infinitive in this future sense cf. 2:30; 3:18), (2) “we believe we have been saved,” or (3) “we believe so as to be saved” (epexegetic infinitive), i.e., we are saved by faith (which seems most probable here).

39. Gk. . Here the Gentile Christians are the standard of comparison, as the Jewish Christians are at the end of v. 8. (cf. 10:47, ).

40. K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul (London, 1911), p. 116.

41. For the association of inward cleansing with the impartation of the Spirit cf. the variant reading at the end of Luke 11:2, “let thy Holy Spirit come on us and cleanse us” (162 700 Marcion Greg.-Nyss. Max. Conf.), which may have been Marcion’s replacement for “thy kingdom come” (although B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels [London, 1924], p. 277, considered it highly probable that this is what Luke wrote).

42. This expression came to denote the reciting of the Shema’. the Jewish confession of faith, “Hear, O Israel …” (Deut. 6:4–5). It appears in this sense in Mishnah, 2.2, along with the expression “to take upon oneself the yoke of the commandments” (by reciting them).

43. On the place of the law in first-century Jewish life see Schürer II, pp. 464–87; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London, 1977), pp. 33–428; W. D. Davies, Jewish and Pauline Studies (London, 1984), pp. 3–26, with bibliography on p. 303.

44. On Rewards and Punishments 80.

45. He had probably interrupted the missionary activity on which he had already embarked in the dispersion in order to be present at the council. See O. Cullmann. Peter: Disciple–Apostle–Martyr, p. 50.

46. M. Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, E.T. (London, 1979), p. 125.

47. The Western text inserts “when the elders had consented to the words spoken by Peter.”

48. Gk. (cf. 2 Pet. 1:1, ), the LXX form of Simeon, approaches the Hebrew or Aramaic pronunciation of the name more closely than the common NT .

49. The Western text recasts these words: “says the Lord, who does these things. Known from of old to the Lord is his work” (Byzantine text: “… are all his works”).

50. Gk.. The Western text omits , and after adds . P⁴⁵ omits (its evidence is not available for the repetitions of the decree in v. 29 and 21:25). See p. 297, n. 70.

51. P⁴⁵ omits “in every city.”

52. See p. 239 (on 12:17).

53. Cf. Jas. 2:5, “Listen, my dear brothers.” J. B. Mayor (The Epistle of St. James [London, 1897], pp. iii-iv) has enumerated what he calls “remarkable agreements” between this speech and the letter of James.

54. The usual Hebrew equivalent of is gôyîm and of ‘am; in Deut. 14:2, however, it is MT ‘ammîm, not gôyîm, that is rendered in LXX.

55. Egregium paradoxon (J. A. Bengel, Gnomon Novi Testamenti [London, ³1862], p. 449). See N. A. Dahl, “A People for his Name (Acts xv. 14),” NTS 4 (1957–58), pp. 319–27; J. Dupont, “Un Peuple d’entre les Nations,” NTS 31 (1985), pp. 321–35.

56. LXX () presupposes Heb. (“may seek”) instead of MT (“may possess”) and the vocalization (“humanity,” “mankind”) instead of MT (“Edom”); moreover, it ignores the particle before which marks it out as the object of the verb; its Greek rendering treats it as the subject.

57. C. C. Torrey, Composition and Date of Acts (Cambridge, MA. 1916), pp. 38-39. So also C. Rabin: “MT would actually have supported the exegesis here offered” (The Zadokite Documents [Oxford, ²1958], p. 29).

58. A response made to the request y^elamm , “let our teacher instruct us.” See J. W. Bowker, “Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu Form,” NTS 14 (1967-68), pp. 96-111 (especially pp. 107’9).

59. Gk. . See G. Zuntz, Opuscula Selecta, p. 240 with n. 3.

60. This decision, despite the conditions that were attached to it, must have compromised the church in the eyes of its Jewish neighbors: it called for no little courage and “bears witness to an astounding magnanimity that can hardly be explained on other grounds than the sense of obligation … to follow the intent of Jesus’ message” (M. Hengel, Victory over Violence, E.T. [London, 1975], p. 87).

61. Cf. Lev. 17:10; Deut. 12:16, 23–25.

62. Idolatry, fornication, and murder were the three cardinal sins in Jewish eyes; avoidance of these was held to be binding on the whole human race. During the severe repression that followed the crushing of the Bar-kokhba revolt (A.D. 135), the rabbis of Lydda laid it down that a Jew, if his life were at stake, might break any of the commandments except those which prohibited these three things. But the situation dealt with by the Council of Jerusalem was quite different.

63. The negative form of the Golden Rule appears elsewhere in Jewish and Christian literature; cf. Tobit 4:15; Didache 1.2; TB 31a; Nathan 2.26. The idea that the positive form of the Golden Rule (cf. Matt. 7:12) is peculiar to Christianity and unknown in Judaism is wrong; it appears, e. g., in Maimonides (The Code of Maimonides, E.T. 14 [New Haven, 1949], p. 200).

64. R. B. Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles (London, ⁶1912), p. 254. Another interpretation makes James mean that, since Jewish communities are to be found in every city, their scruples must be respected.

65. Gk. .

66. Gk. , a military metaphor, of plundering a city.

67. Many Western witnesses add “saying that you should be circumcised and keep the law.”

68. The Western text adds “in every trial.”

69. Translating ( 33 pc). Most witnesses read “these necessary things” ( 81 614 945 1175 1739 al or byz).

70. The Western text omits “from strangled meat” and adds the negative Golden Rule, as in v. 20. Tertullian omits “from strangled meat” but does not add the negative Golden Rule; some MSS of the Latin Vulgate omit “and from fornication.” It is suggested by some that the highest common factor of the readings in vv. 20 and 29 represents the original text: that the decree was exclusively a food law, prohibiting the eating of meat which had been sacrificed to pagan divinities and meat from which the blood had not been completely drained; and that this twofold prohibition was later expanded in the various ways to which our several textual authorities bear witness. See P. H. Menoud, “The Western Text and the Theology of Acts SNTS Bulletin 2 (1951), pp. 19–32, especially pp. 22–28; C. S. C. Williams, Alterations to the Text of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1951), pp. 72–75; for the view that it was a threefold prohibition, omitting the reference to fornication, see G. Zuntz, Opuscula Selecta, pp. 224’29.

71. The Western text characteristically adds “being carried along by the Holy Spirit” (cf. 2 Pet. 1:21).

72. SOH. Lietzmann, The Beginnings of the Christian Church, p. 108. D. W. B. Robinson, “The Circumcision of Titus, and Paul’s Liberty,” Australian Biblical Review 12 (1964), pp. 40–41, reading rather than in Gal. 2:12 (see n. 10 above), treats the form as neuter plural and takes “certain things” to be the contents of the decree; for the view that the dispute of Gal. 2:11–14 was precipitated by the arrival of the decree Paul, James and at Antioch see also D. R. Catchpole, “the Apostolic Decree” (p. 282 above, n. 1); J. D. G. Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch,” JSNT, issue 18 (1983), pp. 3’57.

73. W. L. Knox (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 50) regards the unusual expression as one of a number of peculiarities in this letter “which suggest that we are dealing with an original document copied by Luke more or less verbatim.” Cf. E. A. Judge, who says with regard to this letter and that of Lysias (23:26’30), “We must ask … whether the author of Acts did not mean his readers to take them as the direct citation of transcripts available to him” (New Docs. 1 [1976], § 26, p. 78).

74. The Acts of the Apostles, p. 50, n. 1.

75. Cf. F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia (London, 1897), p. 82.

76. New Docs. 2 (1977), § 7, p. 37. The term was used by Jews and Christians, to whom the pagan divinity was a mere idol; a pagan would call it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:28).

77. See p. 285. C. K. Barrett, “Things Sacrificed to Idols,” NTS 11 (1964’65), pp. 138–53, suggests that the issue became a live one in the church of Corinth because of an attempt to impose the Jerusalem decree there.

78. See F. Hauck/S. Schulz, TDNT 6. p. 593 (s.v. ); W. K. L. Clarke, New Testament Problems (London, 1919), pp. 59–65; J. Bonsirven, Le divorce dans le Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1948), pp. 46–60; W. A. Heth and G. J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce (London, 1984), pp. 153–68. Heb. is used in a similar specialized sense (CD 4.17). But G. Zuntz dismisses this restricted interpretation of in the decree as “wishful thinking” (Opuscula Selecta, p. 228).

79. Eusebius, HE 5.1.26, reports one of the martyrs of Vienne and Lyon as protesting, “How could Christians eat children, when they are not allowed even to drink the blood of brute beasts?” So also Tertullian: “We abstain from eating strangled animals and those that have died of themselves” (Apology 9.13).

80. The Western text adds “full of the Holy Spirit.”

81. Lit., “with peace” (), i.e., with the greeting “Go in peace” or “Peace be with you.”

82. The Western addition, “But Silas resolved to remain there; only Judas went,” was designed to pave the way for v. 40 (which does not necessarily imply that Silas was still in Antioch; in any case, there is a change of source between this paragraph and the next). The former of the two clauses was taken over by the Byzantine text, and appears as v. 34 in the textus receptus (cf. KJV).

83. The statement that they “were also prophets themselves” may imply that they added their prophetic gifts to those of the local “prophets and teachers” (13:1).

↑ Back to top