The historical situation that gave rise to the meeting of the apostles in Jerusalem is recorded in Acts 15:1-2. The uproar that certain Judaizers (2) caused in Antioch was enough to justify sending a delegation from the Antioch church to Jerusalem to settle the matter. The challenge before the gathered apostles and elders in Jerusalem was to understand the implications of a new situation brought on by the admission of Gentiles into the church.
After a discussion that was most assuredly more lengthy and heated than the text indicates the council agrees to require of Gentile Christians the observance of certain restrictions as "matters of necessity." The decision is drafted in the form of a circular letter which is sent to the churches in and around Antioch.
The letter in 15:23-29 is in a rather formal style, as would be expected for the kind of correspondence it represents. In fact, several details of the wording are reminiscent of Hellenistic Jewish yhfi/smata, or community resolutions, drafted on the model of resolutions passed in the popular assemblies of the Greek cities. (3) The opening and closing formulae are typical of Hellenistic Greek letters. Within the body of the letter two words in particular mark the formal tone. The body begins with the word e0peidh/ which, as a technical term, bears the legal force of "whereas," and suggests that the document is "a Hellenistic decree for promulgating the decisions of councils and assemblies." (4) Another important epistolary term is e2docen, which was the word regularly used for making a decision in assembly. (5) There is no Greek word for "command" in the letter, but the wording leaves little doubt that the apostles and elders expected their decisions to be respected.
The textual problems of Acts 15:20, 29, and 21:25 represent perhaps the "most notorious" divergence between the Alexandrian and Western text types. (6) To summarize the problem, (7) the Alexandrian text (and most others) list four prohibited things: meat offered to idols, blood, things strangled, and unchastity. The Western text omits "things strangled" and adds a negative wording of the Golden Rule in 15:20 and 29. Finally, what may be the Caesarean text omits "unchastity" from those verses. Two questions must be asked, namely (1) were there originally three or four prohibitions? and, obviously in close relation to the first question, (2) were the restrictions ethical or ceremonial in nature, or some combination of both?
As to the first question, scholars are largely in agreement that the fourfold decree is original and that the two forms of the threefold decree are in some way derived therefrom. The second question remains open, although most would probably lean toward the decree being a purely ceremonial injunction. The classical question is whether or not these prohibitions relate to table fellowship between Gentile and Jewish believers. Many scholars would answer in the affirmative. Simon suggests that the clue to understanding the decree is in James' use of the word a0li/sghma in 15:20, which precisely means ritual pollution:
it is applied by James to defilement by food, but could probably just as well describe sexual uncleanness which, like unclean food, pollutes not only the sinner himself, but also those with whom he has social intercourse. (8)
At its most basic level, then, the decree legislates certain minimal restrictions on Gentile believers in order not to offend the scruples of Messianic Jews who may wish to share a meal with them. (And it must be remembered that the principle gathering of the first-century church was precisely a communal—Eucharistic—meal.) According to this interpretation, the four requirements do not constitute a legalistic imposition, but a concession which relieved them from the burden of the law as regards not only circumcision but a host of other legal injunctions. (9)
On the other hand, Barrett makes a rather convincing case for a strong ethical component in the decrees. Citing Talmudic authorities, Barrett observes that there were three matters on which, for a devout Jew, compromise was impossible: idolatry, bloodshed, and incest. (10) If ai3matoj in 15:29 is taken to mean bloodshed, then these three prohibitions are reflected in the Jerusalem decree, and the decree itself is not merely ritual in nature but primarily moral. Furthermore, the mere presence of the term pornei/a in the decree suggests that something is going on here that transcends table etiquette. As Perrot suggests:
the astonishing choice of these four prohibitions calls for an explanation that goes beyond the problem of table fellowship alone without, however, excluding it entirely—for the table is one of the privileged places where a given group recognizes itself in its unity and its limits. (11)
The first prohibition, following the order and wording of 15:29, is ei0dwloqu/ta, usually translated as "meat offered to idols." Meat which had been consecrated to pagan gods was, of course, forbidden for Jews. Tosefta Hullin 2:20 states, "that which goes forth from a pagan temple, lo, it is deemed to be meat from the sacrifices of corpses." The same source condemns slaughtering meat for the sake of sun, moon, stars, planets, and angels (t.Hul. 2:18). Other items associated with pagans are prohibited in m.'Aboda Zara 2:3. The Jewish aversion to all things related to idolatry is attested in 4 Maccabees 5:2-3, where one reads of Jews suffering torture and death rather than eat pork or food offered to idols. Was the gist of the apostolic decree to ban idol meat as such, or did James intend to impose a ban on the practice of idolatry in general? If the latter is the case, the decree can hardly be considered wholly ceremonial in nature.
The second prohibition is against ai{ma, which we have seen may refer to bloodshed, but may also imply the consuming of blood. Genesis 9:4 forbids the eating of flesh with its blood to Noah and his descendants. The blood of a sacrificial animal "as the bearer of life is a means of expiation before God, Lev. 17:11. Hence the general prohibition of eating blood." (12) According to Leviticus17:10, both the Israelite and the resident alien were to refrain from consuming blood or else be cut off from the people. In describing the Mosaic food regulations, Josephus states that "blood of any description [Moses] has forbidden to be used for food, regarding it as the soul or spirit" (Ant. III, 260). A later source calls the prohibition of blood the "least among all the commandments," and yet it is one diligently observed (Sif. Deut. 76:1).
The third prohibition deals with pnikta/, or "strangled things." In the present context, this is often understood to be improperly slaughtered animals, even though there is no direct evidence of the use of the word in terms of Jewish slaughtering customs. (13) Actually, a distinction is made in the Old Testament between two different kinds of improperly slaughtered animals. If an animal dies of natural causes, it is nebela (LXX qnhsimai/on), but if it is torn to pieces it is terefa (14) (LXX qhria/lwton). In either case, the flesh of such animals is prohibited for food (Exod 22:30; Lev 17:15; Deut 14:21). The concern is that all the blood should be drained from the carcass of an animal. If an animal is put to death in any improper way, the life (the blood) remains in the body, and so the beast has been "choked." (15) Philo also reflects the connection between strangled things and blood in his condemnation of pagan pleasure-seekers:
They devise novel kinds of pleasure and prepare meat unfit for the altar by strangling and throttling (a0popni/gontej) the animals, and entomb in the carcass the blood which is the essence of the soul and should be allowed to run freely away. (Spec. IV, 122)
There is thus a connection between "blood" and "strangled things," and it may be that the former should be understood as a commentary on the former. The debatable issue is whether pnikta/ in our context forbids only what is forbidden in the Old Testament, or whether it extends to later regulations such as are found in the rabbinic corpus. (16) Luke does not use the standard LXX words, but rather a word that does not appear in the Old Testament. A connection between terefa and pni/gw is suggested by the LXX translation of Nahum 2:13. According to Deuteronomy 14:21, a Jew may not eat nebela, but may freely give it or sell it to foreigners and resident aliens.
There is no shortage of suggested interpretations of the usage of pornei/a in the Jerusalem decree. Molland lists five from modern commentaries:
He then offers a suggestion of his own: 6. infringements on the levitical regulations concerning sexual purity. (17) Metzger suggests three possibilities if pornei/a is to be taken as a ceremonial matter: consanguineous marriage (Lev 18:6-8), mixed marriages with pagans (Num 25:1), or participation in pagan worship (throughout the Old Testament prophetic tradition). (18)
Frankly, it is hard to conceive of any of Metzger's suggestions in purely ritual terms, as if, e.g., incest were not a moral matter. The injunction against unchastity has been a stumbling block to the purely ritual interpretation since at least the days of Strack and Billerbeck, who argue, quite unconvincingly, that pornei/a cannot here mean "fornication," which was forbidden to everyone, but rather marriage within forbidden degrees. (19)
Contemporary Jewish thought certainly treated the sin of unchastity with utmost seriousness. Philo rejects all pornei/a, and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs contains exhortations to "flee pornei/a" (Test. Reu. 5:5) and to keep from it (Test. Reu. 6:1; Test. Levi. 9:9; Test. Jud. 18:2). Paul himself considers pornei/a a serious moral abomination in 1 Corinthians 5:1: "pornei/a ... and of a kind that is not found even among pagans."
Simon concludes that pornei/a here must be understood as the sum of various partial meanings, probably including most of those listed above, and maybe even including homosexual sex and copulation with animals, both explicitly condemned in Leviticus 18:22-23. (20) Furthermore, this injunction must be seen in ethical more than in ritual terms, although the ritual aspects are probably valid. If this moral point seems out of place in what may be otherwise a ceremonial decree, one must consider that, while Greco-Roman moralists decried theft, murder, etc., their views on sexual mores were far less stringent than Jewish or Christian teaching could tolerate.
We turn now to ask how to fit these "matters of necessity" together as a unified whole. Two major options have been proposed, and neither is without some merit. One is that the decree represents a condensed code of levitical purity, based mainly on Leviticus 17-18. The other is that it is a digest of the Noachian prohibitions.
That the contents of Leviticus 17-18 formed a basis for the contents of the Jerusalem decree can be seen in the ordering of the four elements as it is found in 15:29 and 21:25:
These rules are to be observed by Israel as well as by resident aliens in the land. These prohibitions "permitted good-neighbor relations, to the point of constituting a sort of contract of association between these residents of Israel." (21)
The Noachian covenant of Genesis 9:1-7 received a good deal of attention in later rabbinic thought, and from the simple proscriptions of Genesis a sevenfold code of conduct was derived:
Our Rabbis taught: seven precepts were the sons of Noah commanded: social laws; to refrain from blasphemy; idolatry; adultery; bloodshed; robbery; and eating flesh out from a living animal. (b.Sanh 56a)
One immediately notices the points of similarity with the Jerusalem decree. One also notices the "mixed" nature of the injunctions: some are religious (idolatry, blasphemy), some ethical (murder, theft, adultery, and the positive command of justice), and only one is strictly ritual (eating blood). The problem here is not a lack of clarity on the part of our sources, but the imposition of facile presuppositions about what is "ceremonial" and what is "ethical" where they simply do not belong. Simon suggests that the Jerusalem decree is an "extract" of this Noachian legislation which leaves aside what Gentiles would have known anyway (not to murder, steal, etc.) and formulates precisely what the conditions are for full religious fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers. (22)
In discussing the results of the Jerusalem council, Longenecker suggests that it (1) freed the gospel from any necessary entanglement with Judaism without renouncing the legitimacy of continued Christian activity within them, (2) clarified attitudes to Paul in Jewish Christianity, and 3) permanently antagonized many Jews. (23) While the second and third results are certainly the case, what of the first? Does Acts 15 leave the Gentile mission free from Jewish entanglements?
A careful reading of the New Testament suggests that there are more than two possible options for dealing with converted pagans. The first is to insist that circumcision remains a necessary part of belonging to the people of God. This is the position of the Judaizers. The second option is to give converted pagans a status similar to the resident alien in Leviticus, which the Acts 15 council accomplished. The third option, promoted by the apostle Paul, is to claim that the church exists distinct from Israel, and that Gentile converts are no longer strangers but fellow citizens. (24)
The Jerusalem council, gathered at a time when the Christian movement was not yet socially recognized as anything more than a new Jewish sect, chose to classify Gentile converts as a sort of "auxiliary organization" appended to the (Jewish) church. Converted pagans
would participate in the same faith, without being, as it were, joined to the messianic people. The "necessary" decisions made ... by the Jerusalem council permitted then a certain "cohabitation" between the diverse Christian milieux, without "marrying" the people of God and without injuring the mission. (25)
This much as been admitted by those who have not explored its deeper implications. Jervell correctly states that James understands there are to be two groups of people within the church. This is in fact the major presupposition behind the the Jerusalem decree. (26)
Would Paul have accepted the terms of such a decree? It is certainly true that, where no compromise of principle was involved, Paul could be very conciliatory (see, for example, Rom 14:1ff., 1 Cor 8:1ff., 2 Cor 9:19ff.). Yet one must wonder if a compromise of principle is exactly what the decree entailed for one who believed that in the church one "is neither Jew nor Greek ... for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:27-28). One must also consider Paul's attitude toward the content of the decree, as can be gleaned especially from 1 Corinthians 5-10. On at least one of the injunctions, that against eating meat offered to idols, Paul's position is almost diametrically opposed to the Jerusalem "party line." Paul considers this a matter of indifference, perhaps to be avoided for the sake of a weaker brother or sister's conscience, but not to be strictly prohibited. Paul could not have been entirely happy with the outcome of this debate. His neglect of some of the specifics of the decree can be read in his letters, and may in fact explain the "awkward, even irrelevant, intrusion" (27) of a reiteration of the prohibitions from James in 21:25.
Neither Paul nor the Judaizers would have been completely satisfied with the decree of the Jerusalem council. The push to require circumcision of Gentile Christians failed, but even so the Jerusalem "pillars" were unwilling to accept the radical brand of Christian freedom that Paul preached. The decree was a compromise between two extreme positions, and as such no doubt provided a measure of unity within the church, as is evidenced in the incredible durability of the decree as an ethical code in the early church. (28) Nevertheless, the Pauline position on the nature of the church and on Christian conduct in a pluralistic society must ultimately be allowed to triumph.
1. F. F. Bruce, Commentary of the Book of Acts, NICNT (Eerdmans, 1954), p. 298.
2. Bruce identifies these people as representing the rank and file members of the Jerusalem church, for many of whom "the church was little more than a new party within the frontiers of Judaism," p. 302.
3. Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, trans. S. Applebaum (Atheneum, 1959), p. 349. An example of such a document from the Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (vol. 3, no. 5361) is reproduced in Emil Schürer's A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, 2nd div, vol. 2., trans. Sophia Taylor and Peter Christie (T & T Clark, 1890), p. 246, n. 97.
4. David Edward Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment (Fortress, 1987), p. 128. See also Josephus Ant. XVI, 162. The Hellenistic Jewish yevfisma cited above uses the word ejpeiv with a similar thrust.
5. For example, Augustus' decree in favor of the Jews: "... e[doxe/ moi kai\ tw|= e0mw=| sumbouliw=| meta\ o0rkwmosi/aj, gnwmh=| dh/mou 9Rwmai/wn ..." Josephus, Ant. XVI, 163; and the aforementioned first-century CE Jewish inscription from Berenice: "e2doxe toi=j a2rcousi kai\ tw=| politeu/mati tw=n e0n Bereni/kh| ..." Corp. Inscr. Graec. III, 5361.
6. C. K. Barrett, "The Apostolic Decree of Acts 15.29," Australian Bible Review 35 (1987) 50.
7. Based on the discussion in Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, corrected ed. (UBS, 1975), p. 430.
8. Marcel Simon, "The Apostolic Decree and its Setting in the Ancient Church," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 52 (1970) 450.
9. Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, trans. Basil Blackwell (Westminster, 1971), p. 449.
10. Barrett, p. 53. The primary sources he refers to are: p.Sheb. 35a, 49f.; p.Sanh. 21b, 10f.; b.Pesah. 25ab; and b.Sanh. 74a.
11. "le choix étonnant de ces quatre interdits appelle une explication qui dépasse le seul problème des rapports de commensalité, sans néanmoins l'exclure entièrement—car la table est l'un des lieux privilégées où un groupe donné se reconnaît lui-meme dans son unité et ses limites," Charles Perrot, "Les décisions de l'Assemblée de Jérusalem," Recherches de Sciences Religieuses 69 (1981) 199.
12. Johannes Behm, "ai{ma, ai9matekxusi/a," TDNT I: 173.
13. Barrett, p. 53.
14. m.Hul 3:1 defines as terefa any aminal which could not continue to live in a similar state. At b.Hul 42ab we find enumerated the "eighteen defects" which render an animal terefa.
15. Hans Bietenhard, "pni/gw, ktl," TDNT VI: 457.
16. For example, see m.Hul. 1:1-4, 2:8-10; t.Hul. 2:1; and Sif. Dt. 75:2. Josephus in Ant. III, 260 states merely that Moses "has prohibited the eating of the flesh of an animal dying a natural death."
17. Einar Molland, "La circoncision, le bapteme et l'autorité du décret apostolique dans le milieu judéo-chrétien des Pseudo-Clementines," Studia Theologica, 1955, pp. 1-39, cited in Simon, p. 447. Simon also cites the Zadokite Documents, which define "fornication" as polygamy, infringement of the levitical prohibitions about the menstrual period, and consanguineous marriage; and Tobit 4:12, which mentions marriage to a pagan.
18. Metzger, p. 431.
19. Str-B II: 729. See also Bruce, p. 311, which speaks of conformity to "the high Jewish code of relations between the sexes instead of remaining content with the lower pagan standards to which they had been accustomed." Bruce has missed the mark here if he intends to say that adherence to standards of sexual purity higher than those of pagans is a concession to the scruples of a weaker Christian!
20. Simon, pp. 447-449.
21. "Les règles susdites permettaient des relations de bon voisinage, au point de constituer une sorte de contrat d'association entre ces résidents d'Israël," Perrot, p. 197.
22. Simon, p. 445.
23. Richard N. Longenecker, "The Acts of the Apostles," The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 9 (Zondervan, 1981) p. 450.
24. Perrot, pp. 200-204.
25. "[ils] participaient à la meme foi, sans etre, au meme titre, rattachés au peuple messianique. Les <<nécessaires>> décisions prises ... dans le cadre de l'Assemblée de Jérusalem, permettaient donc une certaine <<convivance>> entre les divers milieux chrétiens, sans <<casser>> le peuple de Dieu et sans nuire à la mission," ibid., p. 201.
26. Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People of God (Augsburg, 1972), p. 190.
27. David R. Catchpole, "Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree," New Testament Studies 23 (1977), 431.
28. This durability is documented in Paul J. Achtemeier, "An Elusive Unity: Paul, Acts, and the Early Church," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (1986), 25 n. 91, and Bruce, p. 315.