 
# Exploring the Word of God  
Acts of the Apostles  
Volume 4: Chapters 12-15:35

###### By Paul Kroll and Michael D. Morrison

###### Copyright 2012 Grace Communion International

######

###### All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com   
The "NIV" and "New International Version" are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

###### Artwork by Ken Tunell. Copyright Grace Communion International.

**Table of Contents**

Herod and the Church (Acts 12)

Saul's First Evangelistic Trip: Cyprus and Asia Minor (Acts 12:25-13:52)

Paul Takes the Gospel to Asia Minor, Continued (Acts 14)

The Council at Jerusalem Formalizes the Status of Gentiles (Acts 15)

Christians and the Law of Moses: A Study of Acts 15

Decree of the Council of Jerusalem, Part 1: The Literary Flow of Acts 15

Decree of the Council of Jerusalem, Part 2: The Purpose of the Decree

About the authors

About the publisher

Grace Communion Seminary

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

## Herod and the Church: Acts 12
### About this time (12:1)

Luke next turns his attention to an important episode of persecution against the Jerusalem church, which results in one item of sad news, and another of joy. He relates the death of the apostle James (the brother of John) (12:2), Peter's arrest and miraculous escape from prison (12:3-19), and the death of Herod (12:19-23). As we shall see, the three events form one unit with a special message for readers.

These things apparently happen during the same general period of time as the growth of the church in Antioch (11:19-26), and before Paul's trip to Jerusalem (11:27-30). Using secular records, historians place Herod's death (12:20-23) in A.D. 44, while Paul's visit to Jerusalem (11:30) may be two years later. Therefore, in recording the events of chapter 12, Luke backtracks, going behind the story of the Antioch church and Paul's trip to Jerusalem.

The persecution of James and Peter may be connected to bringing Cornelius into the church fellowship. Hence, chapter 12 describes events beginning sometime soon after Peter's defense of his visit to Cornelius in front of the Jerusalem church (11:1-18).

### Herod the king

Luke begins his account of persecution against the Jerusalem church by writing: "It was about this time King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them" (12:1). The King Herod mentioned here is the grandson of "Herod the Great," who ruled Judea before Jesus' birth (Luke 1:5), tried to kill the infant Jesus (Matthew 2), and died in 4 B.C. He was a Jew of Idumaean (Edomite) descent on his father's side. He refurbished the Jerusalem temple and built a splendid complex around it. [Herod was a brutal and self-aggrandizing ruler. His building projects included the temple in Jerusalem, the artificial harbor at Caesarea Maritima, and pagan temples in other cities.]

The second Herod prominent in the biblical account is "Herod the Tetrarch," or Herod Antipas, who ruled Galilee and Perea. He pops in and out of Luke's account throughout Jesus' life. [Luke 3:1, 19; 8:3; 9:7-9; 13:31; 23:7-15; Acts 4:27.] He is the Herod who executes John the Baptist and meets Jesus just before his crucifixion. The Romans depose him in A.D. 39.

The King Herod of Acts 12 is more precisely called "Herod Agrippa I." He dies in A.D. 44, as Luke will soon describe. Over time, various emperors give him more territories to rule, and his kingdom becomes larger than his grandfather's. Herod Agrippa I is a descendant of the Jewish Hasmonean dynasty through his grandmother Mariamne. The Hasmoneans, also called Maccabees, were a family of high priests and kings who descended from Hashmon. They ruled Judea between 165 and 37 B.C.

### Apostles are persecuted

Probably in the early spring of A.D. 43, or perhaps 44, Herod begins to persecute the church, particularly in Jerusalem. It appears that this time the apostles and leaders of the church are the intended victims. Rome holds Herod responsible for keeping peace in his territories. Almost certainly, then, he does not undertake the persecution without a reason, or apart from the desires of the Jewish authorities and populace in general.

The persecution of the apostles signals a change in the attitude of the Jewish community in Jerusalem and Judea. Earlier, after Stephen's death, the Hellenistic Christian Jews were singled out for persecution. However, the apostles and Hebraic Jewish Christians were apparently not persecuted or suppressed (8:1). The apostles were still respected by the people since they remained observant Jews (3:1). Their miraculous works caused the populace to hold them in awe as God's instruments for good (3:9; 5:13). The Pharisees were cautious about persecuting the apostles (5:34-39); only the Sadducee-dominated Sanhedrin had threatened them.

What turns the people of Jerusalem and Judea against the apostles? The answer may lie with Peter's evangelizing work. First, he teaches among the despised Samaritans. Worse still, he fellowships with and baptizes the Gentile Cornelius, without requiring that he live as a Jew. We know that the church in Jerusalem quickly hears about Peter eating with "uncircumcised men," referring to Cornelius and those with him (11:3). He is severely criticized even by the Jewish Christians; the scandal is presumably much greater for unconverted Jews. The rumor quickly spreads that Peter allows "unclean" Gentiles to taint the community of Israel.

People may see Peter, and by implication the other apostles, as abandoning the Torah and committing a terrible offense against the community. The Jewish leaders enlist the help of Herod to rid the land of the heretic Peter and his co-workers. Peter's action has the potential to cause riots in Jerusalem, creating a problem for Herod, who is accountable to Rome for revolts and disturbances within his jurisdiction. He may feel threatened politically by the results of Peter's action, because the Jews are making an issue of it.

#### Agrippa's policy was the Pax Romana through the preservation of the status quo. He supported the majority within the land and ruthlessly suppressed minorities when they became disruptive. He viewed Jewish Christians as divisive and felt their activities could only disturb the people and inflame antagonisms. [Richard Longenecker, "Acts," _The Expositor's Bible Commentary,_ vol. 9 (ed. Frank E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), page 408.]

### James, the brother of John (12:2)

To deal with the problem, Herod Agrippa I arrests some of the church leaders at Jerusalem. He singles out James, the brother of John, and has him killed. When the Jews voice their pleasure at this, Herod imprisons Peter, intending to put him on trial after Passover (12:3-4). It's not clear why James is singled out first. Perhaps as one of the "sons of thunder" he thundered out a Stephen-like defense of Peter's action before Jewish groups. Perhaps he is chosen as an object lesson to the others. It is obvious that Herod means business, and that Peter will die, too, unless God intervenes.

Herod wants to get into the good graces of his Jewish subjects. He knows that they hate him and his family, so he takes whatever opportunity he can find to gain their cooperation. In Jerusalem, Herod even acts the part of an observant Jew. Now, a new ploy is available. Executing the leaders of the heretical Christian community will (he hopes) make his subjects more favorably disposed toward him.

#### In his short reign of three years (A.D. 41-4) he sought to counter the distaste on the part of the Jewish religious leaders for his Roman background and Edomite ancestry by his sedulous observance of Jewish customs and support of the Jewish faith; it was, no doubt, as part of this policy that he sought to win general approval by this attack on the Nazarenes [the Christians]. [E. William Neil, _The Acts of the Apostles,_ The New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), page 148.]

By beheading James, Herod is making a gesture of solidarity with the Jewish majority. It is a public relations ploy to demonstrate his loyalty to Judaism.

### Peter is jailed (12:3-4)

The seven days of the festival of Unleavened Bread are just beginning when Peter is arrested (12:3). (Luke also refers to the entire festival as the "Passover" in 12:4.) Peter remains in jail until the festival is over. Herod intends to put Peter on trial and then execute him. But he waits until the festival ends because a public execution during the sacred season would offend the people. We remember that the chief priests didn't want to arrest and execute Jesus during the festival of Unleavened Bread "or the people may riot" (Mark 14:2).

#### Ironically, Peter's imprisonment comes during Passover, the feast of unleavened bread, the great and festive day of deliverance from Egyptian slavery. This day finds Peter languishing in bondage, not celebrating liberation. The people who once saw God deliver them from slavery now make prisoners of their own kin during the feast of liberation — a bitter irony Luke does not want us to miss. [William Willimon, _Acts_ (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Preaching and Teaching; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1988), 112.]

### Church prays earnestly (12:5)

While Peter is in prison, the church is "earnestly praying to God for him" (12:5). Here and throughout Acts Luke points out to his readers that prayer is central to the life of the church. In this case, the Jerusalem church is facing a life-threatening crisis. There is no doubt as to what Herod, and the Sanhedrin with him, are intending to do. The goal is to eliminate the leaders of the church and persecute the believers who accept Gentiles.

The church has no weapons against the forces arrayed against it. Their only recourse is to depend on God to make his will known, with the hope that Peter will be rescued and the church saved. Meanwhile, the apostle is languishing in the dungeon. Herod takes every precaution to make sure that Peter does not escape — he may know about Peter's former escape (5:19-24).

Peter is probably in the Antonia fortress, the military barracks where Paul is later confined (21:31-23:32). The fortress overlooks the temple. Peter is guarded by four squads of four soldiers each, probably on a rotating basis. He sleeps bound with two chains between two soldiers, with sentries standing guard at the entrance of his cell. Luke notes that Peter is sleeping peacefully on the eve of his trial and execution (12:6). He has faith in his Savior that whatever happens to him, his life is safe in Christ. Perhaps he also remembers that Jesus said he would live to old age (John 21:18).

### Peter escapes (12:7-10)

Suddenly, an angel appears, and Peter's cell is lit up. The angel nudges him sharply and he wakes up. "Quick, get up!" the angel demands (12:7). The angel tells Peter to put on his day clothes and wrap his outer garment around him. He follows the angel out of the prison. On the way out, they pass two guard posts, and as they approach the prison gate, it opens by itself. Peter is now in the city streets of Jerusalem, and the angel leaves him.

Peter is still in a daze, half asleep, thinking that his experience with the angel is simply a vivid dream. One can understand Peter's confusion, as everything that is happening is in all respects contrary to normal. Finally, Peter "comes to himself" and realizes the dream-like scene is real. Luke records Peter's thoughts as he walks along the quiet streets: "Now I know without a doubt the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from Herod's clutches and from everything the Jewish people were hoping would happen" (12:11).

The power of the resurrected Jesus is working mightily in his apostles and church. We may wonder why God allows Peter to escape but James to die. There is no easy answer except that they are among the mysteries of God. It has always been that way among God's people. God rescues some of his servants to do his work and others are killed while doing it (Hebrews 11:32-37). In Peter's case, God steps in and saves him (and with him, the rest of the Jerusalem church). Whatever plans Herod and the Sanhedrin may have to destroy the community of believers is stopped for the moment. As we shall soon see, the power behind the plot, Herod, will soon be eliminated.

### Mary, mother of Mark (12:12)

After his release, Peter heads for the place where a house-church of the Jerusalem congregation is meeting. This one is in the home of Mary, the mother of Mark (12:12). (The fact that she is mentioned as the head of the household indicates that she is a widow.) This is apparently a sizable home, for "many people" gathered there (12:12). Mary has at least one house servant, Rhoda. Obviously, the faithful Christian Jews did not sell all their possessions to donate to the common fund (2:44-45; 4:32-35). Donations are made on an as-needed basis and do not necessarily involve selling everything one owns. The fact that Mary keeps this home turns out to be a great and continuing benefit to the church in that it has a private place to meet.

As for Mary's son, he has both a Jewish name (John) and a Roman one (Mark, or Marcus), as do various other characters in Acts, including Paul (1:23; 13:9). John Mark will become an important figure in Luke's story. He will accompany Barnabas and Paul to Antioch after they complete their relief-mission to Jerusalem (12:25). Then, he will accompany the pair on their first missionary journey (13:5). However, for some reason, Mark will abandon the mission and return to Jerusalem (13:13). This will result in a contentious split between Barnabas and Paul (15:37-39). In later years, both Paul and Peter will mention a person named Mark as a co-worker in their missionary work (2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 24; 1 Peter 5:12). He is thought to be the Mark mentioned here.

Post-apostolic Christian writers refer to Mark as "the interpreter of Peter" and the founder of the church in Alexandria. Eusebius (c. A.D. 260-339), bishop of Caesarea, regarded by his contemporaries as the greatest Christian scholar of his time and "the father of church history," recounts a number of traditions about Mark. Among other things, he is called "the companion" and "interpreter" of Peter, as well as the writer of a Gospel at Rome. [Eusebius, _Ecclesiastical History_ 2.15-16; 3.39; 5.8; 6.14.]

### Church astonished (12:13-17)

When Peter knocks on the outer entrance of Mary's house, the servant Rhoda answers. She recognizes Peter's voice and is so overjoyed that she forgets to open the door. Rhoda runs back into the house to announce, "Peter is at the door" (12:14). "You're out of your mind," the church tells her in unison (12:15).

Earlier, the apostles (Peter included) had a similar response to the women's claim that Jesus' tomb was empty. There, the disciples said their words "seemed to them like nonsense" (Luke 24:11). Note, also, the fearful and incredulous reaction of the disciples (Peter included again) to Jesus suddenly appearing in their midst (Luke 24:36-40). How slow we are to respond to the words of God, especially when they contradict our understanding of reality!

When Rhoda keeps insisting that it is Peter's voice, the church answers, "It must be his angel" (12:15). They apparently think, as many people in the first century do, that guardian angels exist, and are a kind of spirit counterpart resembling the person. Meanwhile, Peter keeps banging on the door. Someone finally opens it, and a thoroughly astonished church gapes at him as though he is a ghost.

Commentators often remark about Luke's almost slapstick account of Peter's escape and the church's refusal to believe it really is him standing at its door. It begins with the comic scene of Peter's escape from jail juxtaposed with Herod's serious intent to keep him safely locked away. The disbelieving reaction to Peter's release by a church who is earnestly praying for God to save Peter is also ironic. These purposely lighthearted scenes are meant to make a serious point: God works his purpose in mysterious ways that humans find hard to understand.

#### The unfolding scene is one of confusion and joyful humor, which must have led to hilarity every time it was repeated among the early believers. There was Peter's knocking, becoming more and more urgent as he beat on the door; Rhoda's losing her wits for joy and forgetting to open the door; the Christians' refusal to believe it was Peter, even though they had just been praying for him; their belittling of Rhoda ("You are out of your mind.")... and of her saying she had heard Peter's voice at the door ("It must be his angel"); Rhoda's frantic persistence; and their utter astonishment when they finally opened the door and let him in. [Longenecker, 410.]

### "Tell James" (12:17)

There is probably a joyous outcry when the disciples at Mary's house finally realize that Peter is really there. He has to quiet the group to explain how God rescued him from prison. After finishing his explanation and saying his goodbyes, Peter asks his listeners to "tell James and the other brothers and sisters about this" (12:17). The James mentioned here is Jesus' half-brother, [Mark 3:21; 6:3; Matthew 13:55; John 7:5.] not the apostle. (James the apostle, the brother of John, was killed a few days ago.) Along with his brothers and sisters, James did not believe in Jesus before the Resurrection. But, as Luke has told us, James and his siblings were among the disciples meeting together before Pentecost (1:14). (In 1 Corinthians 15:7, Paul mentions that the resurrected Jesus appeared to James.)

This is the first mention of this James in the book of Acts. It is obvious from the way that Peter singles out James in Acts 12:17 that he is prominent in the Jerusalem church. Peter and the other original apostles are the primary spiritual leaders of the Christian community at large, but James seems to have a more visible leadership role in the Jerusalem church. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul calls James "the Lord's brother" and implies that he is one of its "pillars" (1:19, 2:9). Luke describes James as the leader of the Jerusalem church about a decade later (21:18).

Luke doesn't explain how or why the shift in leadership from Peter to James occurs in the Jerusalem church. (Luke focuses on the expansion of Christianity toward Rome, not the details of one particular congregation.) Antagonism in Jerusalem against people who seem to be untrue to Israel's traditions may cause the church to choose James as the leader, because he is acceptable to the Jewish community.

Also, growing numbers of Jews from a Pharisaic and priestly background are being converted in Jerusalem (6:7; 15:5; 21:20). Someone who is regarded as scrupulously Jewish, who respects the traditions, is needed to lead the congregation. Peter is tainted because of his association with Samaritans and Gentiles like Cornelius. The church in the city needs to be represented by someone known to be respectful of Jewish traditions, and whose qualifications in that regard are beyond reproach. The obvious person is James, who is called "the Just" because of his fastidious piety.

Hegesippus, a second-century Christian of Jerusalem, preserves a tradition, repeated by Eusebius, that James' knees are like camel's knees from his frequent prayers for the people. Such is his reputation as a pious man. Eusebius also preserves an ancient tradition that says it is the apostles themselves who chose James to be the leader of the Jerusalem church. [Eusebius, _Ecclesiastical History_ 2.23, 2.1.]

James acquires this authority in the church fairly early. At the time of Peter's escape from Herod in the mid-A.D. 40s, James seems to be the leader of the Jerusalem church (12:17). A few years later, in A.D. 49, James presides over the Jerusalem Council as chief spokesperson of the church. He has authority to finalize what churches in areas outside Jerusalem should practice (15:13-21).

James continues to maintain his presence in Jerusalem for many years (21:17-25) until the high priest has him killed in perhaps A.D. 62. [Josephus, _Antiquities_ 20:200-201.] Eusebius preserves a tradition that James is thrown from a wing of the temple and beaten to death with a club. [Eusebius, _Ecclesiastical History_ 2.1, 23.] This is done because James and some others (probably Christians) are condemned as "breakers of the law." This happens between the death of the Roman governor Festus in about A.D. 62 and the coming of the next governor, Albinus. (That is, when there is no Roman ruler to maintain order.)

Josephus has a brief account of this, in which he criticizes the high priest for having James murdered. The Pharisees protest this travesty of justice to Herod Agrippa II, and eventually the high priest has his office taken away from him. [Josephus, _Antiquities_ 20:197-203.]

#### James had a statesmanlike breadth of vision, as appears from his policy at the Council of Jerusalem (15:13-21). But he was careful to retain the confidence of the ordinary church members in Jerusalem, many of whom were "zealots for the law" (21:20). In addition, he continued to the end to command the respect of the Jerusalem populace, largely because of his ascetic way of life and his regular participation in the temple services of prayer, where he interceded for the people and their city.... When he was stoned to death in A.D. 62, at the instance of the high priest Ananus II, many of the people were gravely shocked; and some years later some ascribed the calamity which overtook the city and its inhabitants to the cessation of James's prayers on their behalf. [F.F. Bruce, _The Book of Acts,_ The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Rev. ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), page 239.]

### "Another place" (12:17)

Immediately after telling the story of his escape and asking the church to give James the details, Peter goes into hiding. Luke tersely describes it: "He left for another place" (12:17). Any of the other apostles remaining in Jerusalem probably leave the city as well. Thus, a shift in authority within the Jerusalem church occurs, leaving James with the task of keeping the church from looking like a threat to the Jewish authorities.

Where does Peter go? No one knows. The idea that he goes to Rome is not supported by any evidence. Only at the end of his life do we have biblical and extra-biblical evidence linking him with the capital of the Empire. [1 Peter 5:13; 1 Clement 5:4; Acts of Peter 7.] Perhaps Peter goes to Antioch in Syria. Here he will remain until "certain men came from James" and then he has a confrontation with Paul over table fellowship with Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-14). From Paul's letters, we have circumstantial evidence that Peter also goes to Corinth, and is at least known to this Jewish-Gentile church (1 Corinthians 1:10; 9:5).

As a postscript to this part of the story, Luke says that the next morning there is a great stir among the soldiers about Peter's whereabouts (12:18). Recriminations probably fly fast and furious about who is responsible for letting him escape. The soldiers' lives are on the line. Herod has a thorough search made for the missing prisoner. When Peter cannot be found, Herod tortures the guards to see if they have any information and then has them executed (18:19).

The later Code of Justinian shows that a guard who allows a prisoner to escape is subject to the same penalty the escaped prisoner would have suffered. This explains why the jailor at Philippi is about to kill himself when he thinks the prisoners have escaped (16:27). It's the reason the soldiers want to kill the prisoners, including Paul, who are on the shipwrecked boat. They don't want the prisoners to escape, because if the prisoners escape, the guards will have to suffer their penalty (27:42).

### Herod dies (12:19-23)

Luke now turns to record the shocking death of Herod Agrippa I. After the prison incident, Herod returns to Caesarea (12:19). Apparently there was some problem between him and the cities of Tyre and Sidon. Together with the support (probably through bribery) of Herod's trusted aide, a man named Blastus, these two cities hope to gain an audience with Herod and sue for peace. Luke says the reason they want to make a pact with Herod is economic: "They depended on the king's country for their food supply" (12:20).

Tyre and Sidon are the chief cities on the coast of Phoenicia, in the territory adjacent to Herod's kingdom. They have been centers of commerce and shipping since Old Testament times, but they are dependent on Galilee for their food supply. Josephus gives a parallel account to the event, from which we can fill in some important historical details Luke does not include. [Josephus, _Antiquities_ 19:339-352.] Josephus alludes to a dispute between Herod and Marcus the governor of Syria. He doesn't mention Tyre and Sidon in connection with the dispute, however. In any case, Luke's account implies some agreement has been reached between Herod and the coastal cities. Apparently, it is to be ratified publicly at a festival, at which Herod is to speak.

Luke writes that after Herod delivers the speech, his listeners shout, "This is the voice of a god, not of a man" (12:22). Immediately after this flattery, Herod is struck down with an illness because he does "not give praise to God" (12:23). Luke concludes the story of Herod's ghastly illness by saying "he was eaten by worms and died" (12:23). (Luke doesn't necessarily mean that Herod is eaten by worms on the spot, nor that he dies immediately.)

In Josephus' account, the occasion during which the Phoenicians are to be publicly reconciled with Herod is a festival in honor of Caesar at Caesarea. A large number of provincial officials and other important dignitaries are in attendance. Josephus is probably referring to a festival celebrated every five years in honor of the foundation of Caesarea. [Suetonius, _Claudius_ 2.1.] There are two possibilities for the date of the festival. It may be March 5, A.D. 44 — the anniversary of the founding of Caesarea — or on August 1, A.D. 44, the emperor's birthday.

Josephus describes Herod as donning a silver robe and entering the amphitheater early in the morning on the day of his death. He looks so utterly resplendent that the flattering mobs say he is a god. Josephus observes: "Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery." [Josephus, _Antiquities_ 19:346.] Immediately after, Herod begins having severe stomach pains. He dies five days later, after being king of Judea for three years. His death is placed in A.D. 44, in the fourth year of the Roman emperor Claudius.

Both Luke and Josephus attribute Herod's death to God's judgment on him. The king allows the crowd to hail him as a god, accepting the glory that belongs only to God. Thus, God punishes a vain king. Of course, many other despots and rulers accept — and even encourage — similar accolades. God doesn't strike them down with worms or a horrible death. So what is special here?

In times when God manifests his glory through miracles, he does so both to vindicate the church and to judge people opposed to his will. God heals the lame man at the temple gate through Peter and he also strikes Ananias dead after Peter accused him. God here strikes down Herod to make a point, to protect his church and further its work. Herod has become the chief enemy of the church. Working with the Jewish leaders, he is planning to have the apostles killed, and perhaps even ordinary church members martyred. By killing off the king, God effectively puts a stop to the conspiracy against the church. (After Herod's death, Rome sends Cuspius Fadus to be procurator of Judea.)

God also sends a message to the conspirators that their plot against the church isn't going to work. By ending the persecution and creating a chilling effect against any future attempt on the believers, God saves the church in Jerusalem for a few more years. The church is greatly encouraged, in that a major persecution is nipped in the bud. Having seen God's miraculous hand in its affairs since Pentecost, the church can read between the lines of Herod's death and know that God is involved.

### Word increases and spreads (12:24)

Luke juxtaposes the story of the death of Herod with good news about the church. Herod dies, "but the word of God continued to increase and spread" (12:24). Earlier we saw that Luke comments briefly on the progress of the church at regular intervals (6:7; 9:31). Here he does so again. This summary illustrates the pattern of reversals in Luke's account. The story begins with the future of the Jerusalem church being in grave doubt, with one of its leaders killed and its chief spokesperson awaiting trial and execution. But the tale ends with Peter's escape, the death of the despot, and the church growing and spreading.

There is also another fundamental change in the book of Acts. Up to now, Luke's story could be called "The Acts of Peter." But Peter is about to pass out of Luke's narrative, except for a brief appearance in chapter 15. From now on, Luke's account will be about "The Acts of Paul."

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

## Saul's First Evangelistic Trip:  
Cyprus and Asia Minor (Acts 12:25-13:52)

### Barnabas and Saul take Mark (12:25)

The closing verse of Acts 12 picks up the story of the trip of Barnabas and Paul to Jerusalem to deliver the relief fund, which is mentioned in 11:30. In neither place does Luke give any details about what happens in Jerusalem. In 12:25, Luke simply notes that Paul and Barnabas return to Antioch after the relief visit. Luke mentions that John Mark accompanies them from Jerusalem to Antioch. His presence will be important to a later disagreement between Paul and Barnabas.

As mentioned earlier, Paul's trip to Jerusalem probably occurs _after_ Herod dies. His death may be what makes Paul's trip to Jerusalem safe and feasible. (If Herod imprisoned Peter to please the Jews, he surely would have put Paul in prison, too, because that would have pleased them even more.)

### The church at Antioch (13:1-2)

We have reached a pivotal point in Luke's account of the growth of the church and spread of the gospel. Up to now, Jerusalem and Judea have been the center of his story. Peter has been the most prominent person in the narrative. Now, Luke shifts his interest to the church at Antioch. Luke says that in the Antioch church there are both prophets and teachers — two important classes of individuals in the church community.

Paul says that prophesying and teaching are gifts of God, given by him for the proper functioning of the church (Romans 12:4-8). In the outline of church roles Paul describes to the Corinthians, prophets and teachers are mentioned just after apostles (1 Corinthians 12:28). In a later epistle, Paul inserts the role of evangelist between that of prophet and teacher (Ephesians 4:11).

Luke names five prophets and teachers in Antioch: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been raised with Herod) and Saul. Their names show that they come from a wide variety of social and ethnic backgrounds.

_Barnabas_ is mentioned first by Luke, as he is the apostolic delegate and a leading figure in the Jerusalem church (9:27; 11:22-30). We already know him as a Levite from Cyprus who lived in Jerusalem (4:36-37). More than this, we know him as "a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith" (11:24).

_Simeon_ has the Latin nickname Niger, or "the Black." His name is Jewish, so it is unlikely that he is African, though he may have had dark skin. The nickname may distinguish him from other Simons in the church, such as Simon Peter.

_Lucius_ has a Latin name. It's possible though not certain that he is a Gentile, because he is from Cyrene in North Africa. Perhaps he was part of the Cyrenian group that first preached the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles of Antioch (11:20).

_Manaen_ is the Greek form of the Hebrew Menahem, which means "comforter." He was "brought up with Herod the tetrarch" (13:1). This is the Herod of the Gospels, whom Jesus once called "that fox" (Luke 13:32). This Herod was responsible for the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14-28). If Manaean grew up with him, it is possible that he was taken to the royal court to be a companion of the prince; such boys were then called "foster brothers."

#### What a commentary on the mystery and sovereignty of divine grace that, of these two boys who were brought up together, one should attain honor as a Christian leader, while the other should best be remembered for his inglorious behavior in the killing of John the Baptist and in the trial of Jesus! [Bruce, 245.]

_Paul_ is mentioned last by Luke, and he continues to use the Jewish form of his name, Saul. He is last because he is a relative newcomer to Antioch (11:25). But he will soon take center stage in Luke's account, while the others, with the exception of Barnabas, will no longer play a part in the story.

### Holy Spirit sets apart (13:2-3)

After introducing us to the leaders of the Antioch church, Luke tells us that the church is "worshiping the Lord and fasting" (13:2). He doesn't explain why the disciples are fasting, but some reason is probably behind it. Perhaps the church is thinking of moving its missionary venture beyond the confines of Antioch. Or they have already decided to do so and are wondering who should lead the endeavor. The church may be in a special meeting, asking God to make his will known in the matter. That is exactly what God does. The answer to the mission question comes from the Holy Spirit, who says: "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them" (13:2).

#### The importance of the present narrative is that it describes the first piece of planned "overseas mission" carried out by representatives of a particular church...and begun by a deliberate church decision, inspired by the Spirit, rather than somewhat more causally as a result of persecution. [I. Howard Marshall, _Acts,_ Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), page 214.]

Luke doesn't define what this "work" is, but from subsequent events, it's clear that it has to do with a mission to the Gentiles. Neither does Luke explain how the Holy Spirit makes his will known. Perhaps what happens is that the Spirit moves one of the prophets to name the missionaries. Here we have echoes of the Old Testament prophets bringing God's message through his prophets. We are reminded of the story of the Judean king Jehoshaphat and his people who were praying and fasting in Jerusalem. They were hoping for God's intervention against a large army coming against the nation. Then, suddenly, "the Spirit of the Lord came upon" a prophet who gave God's will. The nation would be saved without having to fight a battle with the enemy (2 Chronicles 20:14).

Now, at Antioch, God is showing his will about another, quite different concern. This new and monumental enterprise of spreading the gospel around the Roman Empire, particularly to Gentiles, will be no mere human initiative. God will guide it through the Holy Spirit. One of Luke's continuing purposes is to show that the Holy Spirit initiates and guides the activities of the church. This theme — pointed up in 13:2 — is a regular occurrence in the first half of Acts. [Acts 4:31; 8:29, 39; 10:44; 16:6.]

Thus, it is through the Spirit that Barnabas and Paul are separated for the task of evangelizing. Then they are "sent on their way by the Holy Spirit" (13:4). While the church "sent them off," they are really dispatched by the Spirit. Luke is showing that Paul's work will occur in cooperation and continuity with the church and the other apostles. Paul is not a lone ranger, but a person who respects both the church and the congregation of Israel, even as he preaches a revolutionary message to Gentiles.

Even after the prophet utters God's will regarding Barnabas and Paul, the church continues to fast and pray, no doubt for God's continuing guidance. The leaders then place "their hands on them and sent them off" (13:3). The imposition of hands used on this occasion shows that the church supports these men as doing God's will. The Antioch church leaders, by the laying on of hands, agree that Barnabas and Paul have the authority to act on behalf of the Christian community at Antioch. The church leaders' action of imposing hands is taken on behalf of the entire church community at Antioch.

In Acts, the leaders of the church make decisions and take actions that represent its thinking as a whole. [Acts 1:15, 6:2, 5; cf. 14:27; 15:22.] The idea is that the church as a whole, not just the leaders or a single prophet, is motivated by the Spirit. Both the leadership and the community together are working under the direction of the Spirit to set apart Barnabas and Paul for evangelistic work.

### Work on Cyprus (13:4)

Luke now begins the story of Paul's first missionary journey. The entire trip, perhaps about three years in length, is described in chapters 13 and 14. Barnabas and Paul leave from Seleucia, the port city about 16 miles (26 kilometers) west of Antioch and four or five miles northeast of the mouth of the Orontes River. Their destination is the island of Cyprus, in the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean Sea. The journey by boat is about 130 miles (210 kilometers), and when the wind is favorable, takes only one day. Cyprus is about 140 miles (225 kilometers) long and 60 miles (96 kilometers) wide. Cyprus was once part of the imperial province of Cilicia. But in 22 B.C. it became a senatorial province, and in Paul's day it is administered by a proconsul.

Cyprus is a sensible place to begin the church's outreach program because it is Barnabas' native land. He is acquainted with its idiosyncrasies, terrain and people. Christian communities probably exist on the island and can serve as bases of operation (11:19).

### At Salamis and Paphos (13:5-6)

John Mark accompanies Barnabas and Paul on the journey as their assistant. The fact that he has a family connection with Barnabas and perhaps is familiar with Cyprus, are probably the reasons he is taken along. Luke describes him as the "helper" of Barnabas and Paul. "Helper" translates the Greek word _hyperetes,_ which is used of a synagogue attendant (4:20).

The first of two Cypriot cities Luke mentions is Salamis, the administrative center of eastern Cyprus (13:5). Salamis is a few miles from the modern city of Famagusta. Barnabas and Paul "proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues" of the city (13:5). There is a substantial Jewish population in Salamis, as there are several synagogues for Barnabas and Paul to preach in. Paul continues this pattern of beginning his missionary work in a city by first working within the synagogue. [Acts 13:14, 46; 14:1, 16:13; 17:1, 10; 18:4, 19; 19:8; 28:17.] That is a logical starting point, for it is a gathering place for people likely to be interested in a message from Jewish preachers based on the Jewish Scriptures, about the Messiah.

### Proconsul Sergius Paulus (13:7)

The other city Luke mentions is Paphos, the provincial capital, 90 miles (145 kilometers) southwest of Salamis. At Paphos, the island's proconsul, Sergius Paulus, requests a meeting with the two missionaries. Presumably, Barnabas and Paul preach in the city for some time before they come to the proconsul's attention. Luke describes Sergius Paulus as "an intelligent man," that is, a man of intellectual curiosity and open-mindedness — a person of discernment. As we will see throughout Acts, Luke wants his readers to understand that Roman officials are sympathetic to the gospel message. Here he says of the proconsul that he "wanted to hear the word of God" (13:7). Luke doesn't say why Sergius Paulus wants to hear the message of these traveling Jews. Perhaps it is more for the purposes of inquiry, than a desire to be converted.

#### At Paphos the Roman proconsul Sergius Paulus asked them to present their message before him. This was probably meant to be an official inquiry into the nature of what the missionaries were proclaiming in the synagogues so that the proconsul might know how to deal with the charges already laid against these wandering Jewish evangelists and head off any further disruptions within the Jewish communities. Like a "command performance," the invitation could not have been refused. [Longenecker, 419.]

Luke doesn't say that Sergius Paulus becomes a Christian. However, he implies that a false prophet is unable to turn the proconsul "from the faith" (13:8). Later, when the proconsul sees that Paul causes a sorcerer to become blind, "he believed, for he was amazed at the teaching about the Lord" (13:12). However, it is not clear whether this means that he becomes a Christian. He may have believed in the miracle, but not necessarily the message about Christ.

### Bar-Jesus, the sorcerer (13:8-12)

Whatever Sergius' Paulus final relationship with the church may be, Luke seems not to be interested in documenting it. (Nor does he give us a single scrap of information as to what happens as a result of Barnabas and Paul preaching in synagogues all across Cyprus.) Luke's main interest in the proconsul is only as the setting for Paul's confrontation with a magician who is the proconsul's court advisor, and who opposes the preaching of the gospel (13:7-8). Luke gives him two names — Bar-Jesus and Elymas the sorcerer. The meaning of "Elymas" is not clear.

Josephus mentions a Jewish magician from Cyprus by the name of Atomos. He is later employed by Felix, the procurator of Judea, to entice the married Drusilla to become his wife. [Josephus, _Antiquities_ 20:7, 142.] Some commentators speculate that Bar-Jesus and Atomos may have been the same person. Bar-Jesus means "Son of Jesus." But, ironically, he opposes the servants of God. He does this so vehemently and frequently that Paul finally confronts him, probably at the court of the proconsul.

Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, says to Bar-Jesus: "You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?" (13:10). The individual who calls himself "Son of Jesus" is now shown to be a "son of the devil." Paul pronounces a curse on the magician, saying he will be temporarily blinded (3:11). Although Paul brings light to the Gentiles (13:47), he brings blindness to this obstinate man — an external indication of his spiritual condition.

The action so impresses Sergius Paulus that he believes. But this doesn't necessarily mean he becomes a Christian. Simon the magician also "believed" upon seeing the miracles Stephen performed (8:13). Simon was baptized, but Luke says nothing of Sergius Paulus being baptized. It would be surprising if he became a Christian.

Luke is more interested in the story of Bar-Jesus being confronted and cursed by Paul. He is interested in telling the story not of a conversion, but of the superiority of God's power over the magic of the pagan world. Luke wants to show how Paul uses his apostolic authority to neutralize the evil spirit influence of Bar-Jesus. Luke wants his readers to understand that the power behind the gospel is superior to that of pagan magic. In the same way, Moses' miracles in the land of Egypt are more powerful than the magicians' magic. Paul's squaring off with Bar-Jesus is also reminiscent of Elijah confronting and defeating the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:19-40).

Luke probably has another parallel in mind, this one with the gospel message preached earlier in Samaria. The first major missionary work in Samaria, this one from Jerusalem, was challenged by Simon the Sorcerer (8:9-24). In the same way, the first outreach from Antioch encounters the false prophet Bar-Jesus, who is also defeated.

### Saul also called Paul (13:9)

Luke seems to be purposely juxtaposing names in this section. Bar-Jesus is paired with Elymas. The proconsul's name "Paulus" reminds us of Paul, though the sharing of the name is probably only a coincidence. It is here that Luke tells us for the first time that Saul is "also called Paul" (13:9). He has referred to him as "Saul" since he introduced him (7:58). But from now on he will call him only "Paul." Luke introduces Paul's two names casually, as though he already has both names. "Saul" is more appropriate in the Jewish world. But now he is moving into the wider Gentile and Roman world, and "Paul" is more suitable.

Luke does not mention whether the preaching of Barnabas and Paul results in any converts on Cyprus. He says nothing about the work in general on Cyprus, nor how long the two missionaries remain on the island. Barnabas and Paul travel "through the whole island" of Cyprus (13:6). This takes some time. Presumably, they preach in a number of towns, and teach some converts.

### Paul in Perga (13:13)

The missionary group now sails from Cyprus to Perga in Pamphylia, on the southcentral coast of Asia Minor (13:13). Perga is a river port on the Cestrus River about 12 miles (19 kilometers) inland from the seaport of Attalia (14:25). Luke gives no indication that Paul and Barnabas preach the gospel in Perga or the surrounding area — but they do preach there on their way back to Syrian Antioch (14:25).

It is during the trip to Perga that Luke no longer speaks of "Barnabas and Saul." From now on, Paul is usually in first place, ahead of Barnabas. Before this, Barnabas was usually mentioned first (11:30; 12:25; 13:2). In the account here, Luke speaks of "Paul and his companions," which literally means "those around Paul." This expression indicates that Paul is the leader of the group. Luke appears to be signaling to his readers that Paul has become the dominant partner in the missionary team. Luke doesn't explain why the change occurs. Perhaps it is obvious that the Holy Spirit is working through Paul, as in the case of his confrontation with the magician. Paul's speaking may be getting results, indicating that God is using him in a special way.

John Mark leaves the evangelizing team at Perga and returns to Jerusalem. His departure will later lead to a disagreement between Barnabas and Paul, and their permanent split (15:2). Luke gives no reason for Mark's departure. Perhaps John Mark does not like the fact that his uncle, Barnabas, is no longer the leader of the team. Or he may be in disagreement over some policy regarding preaching to the Gentiles, or admitting them into the fellowship. He may even be homesick or afraid of traveling into the hinterland. Whatever the reason for Mark's departure, Paul doesn't like it. He calls it desertion (15:38).

### Pisidian Antioch (13:14)

Paul and Barnabas leave Perga and travel to Antioch in Pisidia. [In the ancient word, there were several cities named Antioch, just as there were several cities named Alexandria. Rulers who built cities often named those cities after themselves. The Seleucid empire had several rulers named Antiochus.] Luke devotes the rest of chapter 13 to the preaching of the gospel in the city, and much of his account centers around a single sermon in a synagogue.

Surprisingly, Antioch of Pisidia is not in Pisidia, but in Phrygia, _near_ Pisidia. It may be called Pisidian Antioch because the city is adjacent to, or over against Pisidia. [Strabo, _Geography_ 12.3.31; 12.6.4; 12.8.14.] It's about 100 miles (161 kilometers) north of Perga, some 3,600 feet above sea level. To reach Antioch of Pisidia the missionaries have to cross the Taurus mountains — a difficult and dangerous journey. The Pisidian highlands are subject to sudden flooding. Another danger is from brigands, as the Romans have not yet fully suppressed the robber clans that lived in these mountains.

Thus, on first view it seems strange that Paul and Barnabas would struggle to make their way to such an out-of-the-way town in the center of Asia Minor. Luke doesn't let us in on Paul's thinking, except that it is his goal to preach the gospel in whatever town he can. Some commentators speculate that Paul or someone in the party became ill while in Perga, perhaps a victim of malaria that plagues the marshy coastal strip of Asia Minor. In Paul's later letter to the churches in Galatia he says that he came to them because he was ill (Galatians 4:13).

Some commentators think that Paul contracted his "thorn in my flesh" at Perga, the illness for which he beseeches God's healing on three occasions (2 Corinthians 12:7). However, one must wonder how a deathly ill Paul could survive the rigors of crossing the Taurus mountains. Another view is that Paul has a practical reason for going to Pisidian Antioch: The town sits astride the Via Sebaste, the Roman road from Ephesus going to the Euphrates.

### In the synagogue (13:14-15)

Luke now turns to describe a sermon Paul delivers in the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch (13:14). Paul's practice of presenting the Christian message in the synagogues of Roman cities becomes a regular feature of his itinerary. Because of this, Paul can put into practice the principle that the gospel should be given "first to the Jew" (Romans 1:16). The synagogue plays a major role in Jewish life in the Diaspora. It serves as a meeting place, schoolhouse, library and court. The synagogue houses the Scriptures and other important writings, so it is a center of religious education and learning. And it is the place where Jews came to worship.

For these reasons, the synagogue is a place in which the Christian missionaries can find a receptive audience, primed for the gospel message. This is true because Gentile proselytes and God-fearers attend the synagogue as well as Jews. The synagogue-attending Gentiles serve as a bridge to pagan relatives, acquaintances and business associates.

### After the reading (13:15)

During the synagogue service, Paul listens to the reading from the Law and the Prophets. After this is completed, the synagogue "rulers" ask if Paul and Barnabas have any words of encouragement for the assembly. One might wonder why these strangers are allowed to speak. This is not necessarily their first Sabbath at the synagogue. Thus, they may be known to the synagogue rulers or officials. Paul's dress or some other symbol may identify him as a rabbi and Pharisee.

The "ruler" or leader of the synagogue is usually an elder or leading layman. He takes charge of organizing and arranging the service and is responsible for maintaining the building. Luke mentions two individuals who hold the office of ruler, Crispus (18:8) and Sosthenes (18:17), both in Corinth.

Luke provides us with two vignettes in which he describes parts of a synagogue service. The first is a service in the Nazareth synagogue at the beginning of Jesus' public ministry (Luke 4:16-17). The other is the one given here at Pisidian Antioch.

From the details Luke gives and our knowledge of later customs, we can reconstruct the following pattern of a Jewish synagogue service. It begins with the _Shema,_ summarized in the phrase: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4). Prayers follow the _Shema._ Then comes two readings, one from the Law and a second from the Prophets. A sermon of explanation and exhortation is drawn from the second reading, as was done by Jesus at the Nazareth synagogue (Luke 4:17). The address is given by one or more persons judged to be competent by the synagogue rulers. Philo in his description of a Sabbath synagogue service writes, "Some of those who are very learned explain to them [the audience] what is of great importance and use, lessons by which the whole of their lives may be improved." [Philo, _Special Laws_ 2.62.] After the instruction period is over, the synagogue service closes with a blessing.

### Paul's sermon (13:16-41)

A large part of the rest of this chapter is devoted to Paul's sermon in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch. It is one of three sermons or speeches Luke records for Paul during his missionary tours (13:16-41; 14:15-17; 17:22-31). This sermon is the only one in a synagogue, and it is by far the longest of the three. Luke gives a rather complete summary so he won't have to repeat himself every time Paul preaches in a synagogue. In later episodes, Luke simply tells us that Paul goes into the synagogue to preach, without giving any details (14:1; 17:2; 18:4).

At most, Luke offers only a sentence or two, tersely summarizing what Paul says. We can infer that Luke wants his readers to understand that Paul preaches a similar message in synagogue after synagogue. If we compare Paul's sermon in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch with other speeches given in a Jewish setting, we find they contain the same message and similar elements.

#### It has often been remarked that this sermon bears a striking resemblance to the speeches of Peter in both outline and content and to a lesser extent to the speech of Stephen (both contain a resume of Israel's history)....It is now widely accepted that all of the early preaching followed a common pattern that to some extent was based on rabbinic models. These models, no less than the form of preaching based on them, were familiar to Paul, and naturally he adopted this pattern himself. [David J. Williams, _Acts,_ New International Bible Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990), page 229.]

Paul's exhortation here begins with a survey of Israel's history. Like Stephen, Paul describes how God dealt with the Jews' ancestors. However, he begins not with Abraham and the patriarchs, but with God's saving grace in the Exodus. Paul then moves on to Israel's history in the Promised Land, but he focuses on the life of King David. The reason for Paul's emphasis has to do with his being able to proclaim Jesus as the promised Son of David, using proof-texts about the Messiah from the Hebrew Scriptures. He then moves the point of his speech: that through Jesus his listeners have forgiveness of sins. Paul's speech ends with an appeal not to reject the Savior and a solemn warning about the consequences of unbelief.

### Gentiles who worship God (13:16)

Paul begins by addressing not only the Jews, but also "you Gentiles who worship God" (13:16). Besides Jews, there are Gentile proselytes and God-fearers listening to him. Because of their presence, Paul can fulfill his commission to preach the gospel to the Gentiles by preaching in the synagogue!

The Gentiles worshiping in the synagogue are an informed audience, already familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures and knowing the messianic hopes of the Jews — which have become their hope as well. Thus, Paul can present his speech as though he is talking to Jews. These Gentiles already recognize the one true God. There is no need to begin at the more elementary level of identifying God and contrasting him with the false gods of the pagans. Later, when Paul talks before purely pagan audiences, he is forced to take this extra step before moving on to explain that Jesus is Savior.

### God chose our fathers (13:17-20)

Paul's first point is that God chose Israel — "our ancestors" — to show his grace and mercy (13:17). He wants to emphasize God's redemptive activity among the Jews, which would bring him in line with Jewish interests. Paul's speech is characteristic of rabbinic models of exhortation. The recitation of Old Testament history is a kind of confessional recognizing God's mighty and merciful hand in the nation's history. We can see the same pattern in Stephen's speech, Matthew's Gospel and in the book of Hebrews. Paul is beginning on thoroughly familiar and acceptable ground.

But Paul doesn't begin his sermon about God's redemptive acts with Abraham and the patriarchs. Even Moses is not singled out for discussion. Paul moves quickly to events in the wilderness, and then talks about the entrance of Israel into the Promised Land. "All this took about 450 years," Paul says (13:20). This would include the centuries of sojourning in Egypt (Genesis 15:13; Acts 7:6), the 40 years wandering in the desert and an additional 10 years conquering the Promised Land (Joshua 14:1-5).

### David, king of Israel (13:21-23)

Paul then recounts events from the period of the judges until the time of Samuel. This enables him to describe Saul as the nation's first king, who was anointed by Samuel. Saul isn't often mentioned in surveys of Israel's history, since he was not a very good example of faith or obedience to God. Perhaps Paul's reference to him reflects his personal interest in a king who bore the same name as he did, and came from the same tribe (Philippians 3:5).

In any case, the reference to Saul's reign is only an aside. Paul is much more interested in Israel's next king, David. Here Paul lingers over the details, as David's example is pivotal to his sermon. Paul quotes God's testimony of David: "I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do" (13:22). This seems to be a composite quote from at least two Old Testament Scriptures: 1) "I have found David" (Psalm 89:20) and, 2) "A man after his own heart" (1 Samuel 13:14).

For Paul, David is pivotal as the servant in whom the purpose of God is centered. After picturing David as a man of faith, Paul says: "From this man's descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised" (13:23). Paul's comment about David's "descendants" may be based on an interpretation of 2 Samuel 7:6-16, which describes a descendant of David in the following words: "I will be his father, and he will be my son" (2 Samuel 7:14). This passage may be considered messianic by first-century Jews. It is similar to Psalm 2:7 ("You are my Son; today I have become your Father"), which is usually considered messianic.

David is a type of the Messiah ("he will do everything I want him to do") and also the Messiah's forbearer ("from this man's descendants"). The promise of 2 Samuel 7:12-16 refers to a continuing line of kings. But Paul, and Peter before him, interprets the verse messianicly, as referring to one king, the Messiah (Jesus). Paul here builds a bridge from the Jewish expectation of a Messiah — David's Son — to Jesus as the one in whom the hope is fulfilled. Paul's proclamation to the Jews in Pisidian Antioch is that God has brought forth the Savior-Deliverer from David's line, and it is Jesus.

### John the Baptist's work (13:24-26)

Paul's speech skips from David to the work of John the Baptist. John is highly regarded by the Jews. Some even thought he was the Messiah (John 1:19-20). Most consider him a prophet (Matthew 21:26). Paul uses John's testimony as a further piece of evidence that the promised Messiah is Jesus. Paul quotes John's statement that the Messiah is one who is "coming after me whose sandals I am not worthy to untie" (13:25). John clearly pointed out that Jesus is the Messiah "who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

Paul has made his case about Jesus from ancient Jewish history and the recent testimony of John. Then he begins to show why all this is vitally important to his listeners. "Fellow children of Abraham and you God-fearing Gentiles," Paul shouts, "it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent" (13:26).

### Jesus the Savior (13:27-31)

Paul next preaches the gospel message, that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). He proceeds to explain that the people and rulers of Jerusalem condemned Jesus and thereby "fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath" (13:27).

Here is an irony. Jews (and worshiping Gentiles) are in the synagogue every Sabbath listening to the prophets speak of Jesus. Yet they are unable to recognize that the Scriptures are pointing to him. By rejecting Jesus, they are fulfilling the scriptures that foretell his rejection. The very things the Scriptures say should happen to Jesus, the Jews of Jerusalem carried out (13:29). The people who want to live in accordance with the Scriptures had fulfilled the prophecies by (ironically) rejecting God's messenger!

The Jewish rulers took steps to ensure that Jesus' body would not be displayed when the Sabbath began (John 19:31). They tried to make the tomb secure so the disciples couldn't steal the body (Matthew 27:62-66). This is a further irony. The Jews thought they could prove Jesus to be a fake because they had his body. What they didn't know was that "God raised him from the dead" (13:30). His disciples, however, knew he had been raised because they saw him after his resurrection (13:31). And the guards became unwitting supporting evidence that the disciples did _not_ steal the body.

God raised up Jesus to be the Messiah even before his death, but God also raised him up after his death. And both "raisings" are predicted in the Scriptures that are read every Sabbath in the synagogues. But people do not have to rely on proof-texts from Scripture to prove that Jesus has been raised from the dead. The resurrection is a verifiable fact because Jesus appeared to his followers over a span of several weeks. "They are now his witnesses to our people" (13:31).

Interestingly, Paul speaks of others as witnesses and not himself. That's because he is not among the original disciples who saw Jesus over an extended period of time after his resurrection.

#### Neither did Paul say anything of Jesus' appearance to him, perhaps because the circumstances were different and he had not followed Jesus as the others had done or seen him die. So instead of including himself among the witnesses, he presented himself as an evangelist. [Ibid., 235.]

### "You are my Son" (13:32-37)

Paul quotes three more texts and says that they also speak of "raising up Jesus" (13:33). This raising up is prefigured in Psalm 2:7: "You are my son; today I have become your father" (12:33). This is echoed when God spoke after Jesus' baptism: "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17). Jesus is then anointed by the Holy Spirit, "raised up" or assigned to be the Messiah.

#### With a Jewish audience it had first to be established that Jesus was the Messiah. The resurrection was the key to that, hence the emphasis not only of this sermon but of all the early preaching in Acts. Only with their acceptance of his messiahship could the Jews be expected to come to grips with the fact and manner of Jesus' death. For most, however, his crucifixion remained an insuperable obstacle to accepting him as Messiah. [Ibid., 237.]

Acceptance of Jesus as Savior-Messiah is the critical difference between those who remain Jews and those who become Christian Jews. As Paul says, "We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews...but to those whom God has called... Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:23-24).

Jesus is also "raised up" in another way. Paul later writes that Jesus "was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4). He was already the Son of God; but after the resurrection, he is declared even more powerfully to be the Son. Thus, Jesus becomes Savior of the world by being "raised up" in resurrection. In his synagogue speech, Paul cites Isaiah 55:3 as his second proof-text: "I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David" (13:34). This, says Paul, refers to "the fact that God raised him [Jesus] from the dead so that he will never be subject to decay" (13:34). Paul is moving from discussing the "raising" of Jesus as a "sending," to his "raising" in the resurrection of the dead. He does this by claiming that the resurrection itself is the fulfillment of the blessings promised to David.

In his third prooftext, Paul quotes Psalm 16:10: "You will not let your holy one see decay" (13:35). Paul understands this to be a prophecy about someone other than David. After all, David died an ordinary death and his body decayed. But Jesus' body does not suffer corruption. His tomb is empty and his body has not been found. This is the argument Peter used at Pentecost, even citing the same scripture (2:24-32). Peter is a witness to the fact of the resurrection, something Paul mentioned earlier (13:31).

Of the three prooftexts, the last one from Psalm 16:10 is probably the most compelling. It is recognized as a messianic prophecy. But it contains a strange discussion about the Holy One, the Messiah, seeing decay — that is, dying. Those who accept the verse at face value are led to the conclusion that the Messiah had to die. But he would also be resurrected — not see decay. Jesus fits both qualifications.

### Justified from sin (13:38-39)

Paul now comes to the conclusion of his argument. "Therefore, my friends," he says, "I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you" (13:38). The need for this forgiveness is a common thread through Acts. [Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43; 26:18.] Humans are sinners, and on their own, there is nothing they can do to change their condition. God must pronounce a person righteous, and he does so upon one's acceptance of Jesus as Savior.

This brings us to the concept of "justification," discussed in the next verse. Paul says: "Through him [Jesus] everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses" (13:39). [Justification is an important term in Paul's writings, but Luke uses the word only once, in this synagogue speech of Paul.] To be justified is a legal way of expressing the same thing as forgiveness of sin. When a person is justified, he or she is made right with God, or declared to be righteous. But only through Jesus will God justify a person so that he or she is considered righteous.

Can the law of Moses justify people from some sins? If that were so, Jesus' work would be needed only to make up the difference — to atone for those sins for which observance of the law could not provide forgiveness.

But this would contradict other verses in the New Testament, which demands the all-sufficient work of Christ. The idea that the law of Moses has power to forgive sins is incompatible with Paul's teaching throughout Romans and Galatians. [Romans 3:21-28; 5:1, 9; Galatians 2:16; 3:11.] The book of Hebrews makes the point that the law of Moses provides no real justification for sin (10:1-4, 11).

Acts 13:39 does not say that the law can justify anyone. It might say that you did one certain thing right — you met the legal requirements in respect to a certain incident in your life — but that cannot justify you for everything you did wrong. In the final analysis, the law of Moses cannot provide justification for any sin, period. "Everything" — all sins — must be atoned for by Christ.

### Heed the prophets (13:40-41)

At this point, Paul had said enough about the gospel. He has shown that Jesus is the expected Messiah, except he came in an unexpected way. Paul also pressed home the importance of putting one's faith in Jesus. In conclusion, Paul warns his hearers about the danger of rejecting God's offer of salvation. He concludes by quoting Habakkuk 1:5: "Look at the nations and watch—and be utterly amazed. For I am going to do something in your days that you would not believe, even if you were told."

In its original context, the prophecy of Habakkuk 1:5 referred to the failure of the nation to recognize the Babylonian invasion as the judgment of God for sin. Paul here applies it to any failure on the part of God's people to recognize Jesus as having been "raised up" to be Messiah and Savior. Paul is trying to pre-empt any challenge to his message. What he is doing is saying: If you are ridiculing and scoffing at what I'm telling you, here is one of your own prophets who predicts that you would scoff. So take the prophecy to heart and accept the good news.

### The people invite Paul (13:42-45)

After giving his message in the synagogue, Paul and Barnabas prepare to leave. But many people are interested, and crowd around him. They invite him to talk further about this topic the next time they gather, that is, the following Sabbath (13:42). Paul's speech arouses intense interest because it gives a unique explanation of the Scriptures, and the people want to hear more of this message. Of course, Luke wants us to remember that the unseen Holy Spirit is also at work in the minds of the listeners. Many Jews and Gentile converts to Judaism who hear Paul engage him and Barnabas in conversation after the synagogue service. They want to discuss the topic of salvation further (13:43). Paul and Barnabas give the crowd further words of exhortation. Luke tells us they encourage the crowd around them "to continue in the grace of God" (13:43).

Word gets around during the week about Paul's message. Luke says "the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord" (13:44). Luke's expression "the whole city" does not mean that every person from Pisidian Antioch is gathering in front of the synagogue. He uses exaggeration to make the point that a large crowd gathers to hear this new doctrine. And strange it must have been: a traveling Jewish rabbi describing to Gentiles a Jewish Messiah, who died, but was now resurrected, and is forgiving sins.

But conflict with the synagogue leaders is looming. When they see the large crowd of Gentiles attempting to get into the synagogue to hear Paul, they are upset. Luke says "they were filled with jealousy" (13:45). (The same motive was attributed to the Sanhedrin regarding the preaching of Peter and John in 5:17.) We can imagine some of the thoughts in the minds of the synagogue leaders, and some of the faithful. The strange ideas Paul is preaching are turning out to be more attractive than Judaism. Proselytes and God-fearing Gentiles might leave the synagogue and no longer support it. Or Gentiles might flood the synagogue and take it over for their own purposes — to hear about Jesus rather than Moses.

### We turn to the Gentiles (13:46-48)

Paul is probably denied permission to speak during the next synagogue service. At some point, he turns to the unbelieving Jews and says: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles" (13:46). This is a pattern that will be repeated in city after city: Paul begins his missionary work by preaching in the synagogue. After he is rejected by the leaders and the majority of the Jewish worshipers, he then preaches to the Gentiles in that city.

Luke records three statements in which Paul says, "I go to the Gentiles." The first is here. It is followed by one in Corinth (18:6), and a final one in Rome, which closes the book of Acts (28:28). Paul's commission includes preaching to the people of Israel, which he will continue to do. In his mind, the gospel is always to go to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles (Romans 1:16). Paul has a special desire to bring the gospel to the Jews in hopes that all Israel will be saved (Romans 9:1-3; 10:1).

But Paul's specific mission is to the Gentiles. On this occasion, he quotes Isaiah 49:6 in support of his contention that he has been commanded by the Lord to preach to the Gentiles. This scripture speaks of someone being made "a light for the Gentiles" that he "may bring salvation to the ends of the earth" (13:47). The words of Isaiah 49:6 were originally addressed to the Servant of Yahweh, and then they are applied to Jesus (Luke 2:32). Now Paul applies it to the missionaries who are bringing the good news of Jesus, the Servant. Thus, Paul is saying that the mission of Jesus (the Servant) is also the mission of the followers of Jesus. It is the task of the new Israel (the church) as the servant of God to bring the light of the gospel to all peoples.

When the Gentiles listening to Paul hear that God has purposed to give them salvation, "they were glad and honored the word of the Lord" (13:48). As many as "were appointed for eternal life believed" (13:48). This verse suggests that a person cannot simply decide to believe in Christ. There is a matter of divine election involved (John 6:44; 1 Corinthians 2:14). That is not to say that salvation is restricted by God in the sense of limiting it to a few people. God's purpose is that all people come to know about the truth and find salvation (1 Timothy 2:3). However, a person must respond in faith as the Spirit leads him or her to saving knowledge. In the words of William Neil:

#### It is a pictorial way of expressing the conviction of the sovereignty of God — i.e. that salvation is God's gift, and does not depend on man's efforts. But it is not in any sense narrowly predestination, as if some are scheduled for salvation and others for damnation; the Bible constantly stresses the element of free choice: we may accept or reject the Word of God. [Neil, 161.]

### Jews incite persecution (13:49-52)

Paul and Barnabas meet with great success in the area around Pisidian Antioch. Luke says, "The word of the Lord spread through the whole region" (13:49). The Jewish leaders are angry, and enter a plot with "the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city" (13:50). Luke is probably referring to Gentile women who are adherents of Judaism and their politically connected husbands.

Apparently, the Jews put pressure on the wealthy women who attend the synagogue. They are probably urged to convince their husbands, the city's leading magistrates, to expel Paul and Barnabas from the area. This is what happens (13:50). Luke doesn't say what excuse is given; perhaps the accusation is that the local Jewish community believes Paul and Barnabas to be heretics. Since they are not representing Judaism, a legal religion in Rome's eyes, Paul and Barnabas are teaching a religion that is not legal. As such, they should be expelled since they are disturbing the Roman peace.

Upon being expelled, Paul and Barnabas shake "the dust off their feet" in protest (13:51). This is a gesture that Jesus himself suggested his disciples practice upon encountering persecution (Luke 9:5; 10:11).

#### It was customary for Jews to shake off the dust of a pagan town from their feet when they returned to their own land, as a symbol of cleansing themselves from the impurity of sinners who did not worship God. For Jews to do this to their fellow Jews was tantamount to regarding the latter as pagan Gentiles. The Christians were demonstrating in a particularly vigorous manner that Jews who rejected the gospel and drove out the missionaries were no longer truly part of Israel but were no better than unbelievers. [Marshall, 231.]

Luke ends his story of gospel preaching in Pisidian Antioch by saying, "The disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit" (13:52). Paul and Barnabas have established a congregation of believers in Pisidian Antioch. But they are forced to move on, this time to Iconium.

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

## Chapter 14: Paul Takes the Gospel to Asia Minor, Continued

### Missionaries at Iconium (14:1-3)

Iconium (modern Konya) is the next city in which Paul and Barnabas carry on missionary work. The city is on the Sebaste Road about 90 miles (145 kilometers) east-southeast of Pisidian Antioch. Following their usual procedure, the two missionaries enter the Jewish synagogue to preach (14:1). Luke tells us that Paul and Barnabas speak so effectively that large numbers of Jews and Gentiles believe the gospel.

But as usual, the nonbelieving Jews embark on a smear campaign that eventually poisons the minds of the Gentiles "against the brothers" (14:2). This probably entails a sustained campaign to discredit the teaching of Paul and Barnabas, perhaps ridiculing their claim that Jesus is the Messiah. In spite of the persecution, the two missionaries "spent considerable time" in Iconium (14:3). Luke gives few details of their preaching here, and compresses the work of several months into a few sentences.

The missionaries preach the "message of his grace" (14:3). Luke has already used the phrase to describe the gospel, and he will do so again (23:43; 20:24, 32). The idea of "grace" is prominent in Paul's letters, and Luke's use of it in his messages may reflect Paul's emphasis. [Romans 3:24; 6:14-15; Galatians 2:21; Ephesians 2:8.]

The preaching of Paul and Barnabas is accompanied by "signs and wonders" (14:3). Paul later refers to these miracles in a letter to the churches in the province of Galatia. He appeals to the miracles as evidence that the good news he preaches is approved by God (Galatians 3:5).

### Plot against the apostles (14:4-6)

Paul and Barnabas preach effectively in Iconium, and God performs miraculous wonders through them. Nonetheless, the population of the city remains divided about them. "Some sided with the Jews, others with the apostles" (14:4). Because of the support Paul and Barnabas receive, it takes a long time for any serious opposition to develop. But eventually the Jews are able to hatch a plot with some of the townsfolk and political leaders of Iconium. Apparently, the Jews intend to gather a mob, beat up Paul and Barnabas, and stone them to death (14:5).

The missionaries are informed of the plot, perhaps by sympathetic Jews who accept the gospel. The apostles leave the city before the plotters can capture them (14:4).

Verses 4 and 14 contain the only reference in Acts to Paul being an apostle. This may seem odd in view of the fact that Paul often stresses his apostleship. [See the first verse of many of his letters: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.] Apparently, Luke restricts his use of the term "apostle" as a special "office" to the Twelve. They are the ones who were with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry and who are witnesses of his resurrection (1:21-25; 10:39-42).

Luke probably thinks of Paul and Barnabas as "apostles" only in a general sense, as special emissaries, envoys, or messengers commissioned by the church at Antioch (13:3-4), and in this sense were apostles, or people "sent out." Paul himself uses the word _apostle_ in a broad sense of a person who is given the responsibility of being a messenger, but who doesn't hold a special office. He says that Epaphroditus, a co-worker, was, "My brother, fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger [Greek, _apostolon_ ]" (Philippians 2:25).

### Flee to Lystra (14:6-7)

The Jewish plot against Paul and Barnabas is about to be put into operation. Having learned of it, and to avoid stoning, Paul and Barnabas travel to "the Lycaonian cities of Lystra and Derbe" (14:6). Here, they continue to preach the gospel. By mentioning that Lystra and Derbe are in the region of Lycaonia, Luke is implying that Iconium is in a different political realm — apparently part of Phrygia.

### Healing a crippled man (14:8-10)

The first city in Lycaonia Barnabas and Paul visit is Lystra, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) south-southwest of Iconium. Luke limits himself to narrating a single event in Lystra, which begins with the healing of a crippled man lame from birth (14:8). Paul is speaking to what is probably a crowd of Gentiles in a public place. (From Luke's account, we have no indication that Lystra has a synagogue.) Apparently, Paul is drawn to this man, somehow perceiving that he has faith to be healed. Paul interrupts his speech and says to the cripple: "Stand up on your feet!" (14:10). At Paul's words, the man jumps up and begins to walk.

This story portrays Paul as an authentic messenger of God in the tradition of Peter, who also healed a lame man (3:1-10). Luke uses parallel expressions in the two accounts: "lame from birth," "looked directly at him," "jumped up and began to walk." Both Peter and Paul are shown to be using the same power as did Jesus, who also healed a crippled person (Luke 5:17-26).

#### This incident, selected by Luke for detailed description from among the "signs and wonders" of the Galatian mission (verse 3), parallels the similar cure by Peter in chapter 3, and doubtless was chosen for this reason. In opposition to those who would challenge Paul's claim to apostolic authority based on his direct commission from the risen Christ, Luke is concerned to show that his hero shares with the chief apostle the healing power vested in his disciples by the Lord himself. [Neil, 163.]

### Gods in human form (14:11-13)

When the beggar jumps up and walks, something unexpected happened. Seeing the healed beggar, the crowd shouts in their own language, "The gods have come down to us in human form!" (14:11). Barnabas is called Zeus, and Paul is thought to be Hermes, because he is the main speaker. Hermes is called the messenger of Zeus and the patron of orators.

### Barnabas and Paul refuse worship in Lystra

The people of Lystra, as in other towns of Asia Minor, probably use or are acquainted to some degree with three languages. Latin is the official language of the Roman administration. Greek, the _lingua franca_ of the Eastern Roman empire, is understood by most of the Lystrans. The third language in use is the native vernacular — "the Lycaonian language." Almost certainly, Paul preaches in Greek, which the people understand. However, it's doubtful that Barnabas and Paul understand Lycaonian. Therefore they don't know at first what the shouting is all about — even the names of the gods may have been in the local dialect.

The Lystrans think that they are experiencing a divine visitation. The idea of gods coming to earth in human form is familiar in this region because of a legend. The existence of this ancient legend may explain the wildly emotional response of the Lystrans to the healing of the cripple by Paul and Barnabas. According to the legend, Zeus and Hermes came to earth in the neighboring district of Phrygia disguised as human beings. They seek lodging, but no one shows them hospitality and takes them in. Finally, an old peasant couple, Philemon and his wife Baucis, welcome them as house guests, even though it depletes their meager resources. The gods are angry and destroy the whole population for their lack of hospitality, except for the gracious Philemon and Baucis. The couple's humble cottage is transformed into a temple, of which they are given the charge until their death.

This legend is preserved in a Latin story-poem by Ovid. [Ovid, _Metamorphoses,_ "The Story of Baucis and Philemon," 620-724. Ovid called them by their Latin names, Jupiter and Mercury.] He tells the ancient legend about half a century before Paul's first missionary journey. This ancient legend is well known in southern Galatia, and it may explain why Paul and Barnabas become the objects of such a wild celebration. Paul's healing of the crippled man make the Lystrans think he and Barnabas are the gods Zeus and Hermes once again come down in human form.

If the people of ancient times failed to pay homage to the gods on their previous visit, the Lystrans are determined not to make the same mistake and incur their wrath again. Thus, the priest at the local temple arranges for a sacrifice to honor the presence of Paul and Barnabas. Luke says he "brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them" (14:13).

### We are only humans (14:14-15)

Paul makes an impassioned speech in hopes of thwarting the attempt of the Lystrans to worship the missionaries. This speech, in verses 14-17, is an example of how the gospel might be introduced to purely pagan audiences. A more complete example is the speech delivered by Paul to the Athenian Court of the Areopagus (17:22-31). The speech here differs widely in content from those Peter, Paul and others deliver to Jewish and Gentile followers of Judaism. When speaking to Jews and those worshiping with them, Christian speakers can assume their listeners have some knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures, and that they know about the one true God of Israel.

With a purely pagan audience, the speaker has to back up a step to first proclaim the existence of the one true God. In his speech to the Lystrans, Paul begins by explaining that the one God is the Creator of all living things (14:15). Even before this, however, Paul and Barnabas are forced to deny that they are gods. When they understand what the Lystrans think — and that they are going to sacrifice to them — they race into the crowd yelling for them to stop.

"We too are only human, like you," Paul shouts (14:15). (This assumes that Paul gives the speech, as he is chief speaker.) More literally, the Greek means we are "of the same nature as you." That is, Paul is saying that he and Barnabas share the human condition with the Lystrans and they have no special qualities about them. The Bible rejects the idea that humans have any spiritual uniqueness worthy of special homage. This is true for even the greatest of God's servants. James says to Jewish Christians that Elijah was "a human being, even as we are" (5:17). Peter refuses any special reverence from Cornelius, saying, "I am only a man myself" (10:26). Even angels are not to be given special adoration (Revelation 19:10).

### Turning from idols (14:15-18)

Paul and Barnabas urge the Lystrans to give up their idolatry — to "turn from these worthless things to the living God" (14:15). The rejection of idolatrous worship practices is a basic test of conversion for Gentiles. Of course, these Gentiles should also accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. But knowing _God_ is the starting point for pagan Gentile conversion. As Paul will later write, the Gentile Thessalonians understand this and turn "to God from idols to serve the living and true God" (1 Thessalonians 1:9).

At Lystra, Paul identifies the true God as the One "who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them" (14:15). Paul and Barnabas are beginning their sermon on an elementary level, starting with nature rather than Scripture. They are saying that nature itself testifies to the existence of a Creator. Paul says the same in his letter to the Romans (1:20). If people understand and accept that God is the Creator of everything, they are also led to worship him.

It is said that there are two books of God. One is his word, the Bible. The second is nature, and the lessons about God that people should draw from it. The existence of the creation can help people understand that God exists and is the creator. But nature does not tell us about a Savior — that is normally communicated through evangelism.

Even further, Paul and Barnabas insist that the works of creation should lead us to understand that God is kind and merciful (14:17). God does not fall into a rage in response to minor matters (as Zeus and Hermes supposedly did when they destroyed people who failed to show them hospitality). Paul says that God's kindness is shown in his providing rain in due season for crops. The one true God, the missionaries insist, "provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy" (14:17). God demonstrates his presence through the good things we enjoy. The goodness of God in providing rainfall and bountiful harvests is an Old Testament theme (Genesis 8:21-22). It is also a common theme in pagan religions. The idea is that the gods supply bounteous harvests. Since Paul's audience is probably composed largely of farmers, they understand the importance of food — and that they are dependent on God for its supply.

As a beginning for the preaching the gospel of salvation, Paul's speech is a good start. At best, however, this sermon based on natural theology is only a preamble to the gospel. The speech is incomplete, for it doesn't go on to discuss the death and resurrection of Jesus and its meaning for the listeners. Luke doesn't say if Paul and Barnabas go on to relate this vital aspect of the gospel. Perhaps their immediate intent is simply to stop the crowd from sacrificing to them. Luke implies that the Lystrans don't really understand Paul's message; his words barely achieve the immediate goal of stopping the townspeople from sacrificing (14:18).

### Paul is stoned (14:19-20)

Sometime after this tumultuous event, Jews antagonistic to Paul and Barnabas from Pisidian Antioch and Iconium come into Lystra and begin to preach against the missionaries. Eventually, they win the crowd over (14:19). How soon the fickle Lystrans forget! At one time they are calling the missionaries gods. Now they call them charlatans and frauds. No doubt they are disappointed that Barnabas and Paul claim to be nothing more than ordinary human beings. Because of the Lystrans' disappointment, it is only a small step for the Jews to persuade the townspeople that the missionaries are really hucksters.

The mob singles out Paul for a beating, perhaps because he is the main messenger, and they stone him. After thinking he is dead, they drag his body away and dump it outside the city limits (14:19). But then something astonishing occurs. As the small number of converted Lystrans gathered around Paul's body, probably to give him a decent burial, he gets up, and then goes "back into the city" (14:20). Luke does not present Paul's revival as a miraculous restoration to life. Rather, Luke says that Paul's attackers think that he is dead (14:19) — Luke is implying that Paul is not dead. Paul was beaten into unconsciousness, and then he revives. Nonetheless, the fact that the stoning does not kill him indicates that Paul is under God's protection.

A few years later Paul writes to these Lystrans who live in the region of Galatia, saying, "Let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus" (6:17). Some of these marks or scars may be from the beating Paul received at Lystra — something the disciples receiving his letter would remember. Later, when Paul writes the Corinthians, he refers to being stoned and "exposed to death again and again" (2 Corinthians 11:23). It is probably the stoning at Lystra that he has in mind as one of those times during which he is almost killed. Even near the end of his life, Paul recalls the abuse from these Galatian towns. He asks Timothy to remember the "persecutions, sufferings — what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them" (2 Timothy 3:11).

Among those who hear Paul, and even see him stoned and left for dead, may be Eunice and Lois, the mother and grandmother of Timothy (2 Timothy 1:5). Timothy is from Lystra, where his mother Eunice, a Jewess, probably lives as well (16:1-3). Timothy is to become an important worker in Paul's missionary campaigns. It's possible that Timothy provides eyewitness testimony for Luke's account of these events.

### In Derbe (14:21)

After Paul revives, he goes back into Lystra, and then he and Barnabas leave the next day for Derbe. Though there is some doubt about its exact location, Derbe is probably about 60 miles (97 kilometers) southeast of Lystra, on the eastern end of the Lycaonian region of Galatia. Luke gives no details about the activities of Barnabas and Paul in Derbe. However, their missionary work must be successful, because their preaching wins "a large number of disciples" (14:21). Among those converts may be Gaius, who becomes a member of Paul's missionary company (20:4). Apparently the missionaries do not suffer any persecution in Derbe. Luke records none, and 2 Timothy 3:11 implies that there isn't any.

This is, in a sense, the end of the first missionary journey as far as preaching the gospel to outsiders is concerned, except for a brief notice of it in Perga (14:25).

### Disciples encouraged (14:22)

Paul and Barnabas prepare to return to Syrian Antioch (the sponsor church) after finishing their missionary activity. They could return by continuing eastward along the Via Sebaste, and then south through the Cilician Gates, a mountain pass near Tarsus. However, it would be a difficult journey, especially in winter.

What the missionaries do is to backtrack and return to Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch, in that order. They revisit each city, not to make more converts, but for pastoral purposes. Of course, the threat of harm from mobs and city officials is still possible. But the missionaries keep a low profile and avoid public preaching. Paul and Barnabas are apparently able to gain entry into the cities without incident. Their objective is "strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith" (14:22). Luke repeats what must have impressed him as a central point Barnabas and Paul make to the disciples: "We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God" (14:22).

The missionaries apparently see that this type of encouragement is especially necessary for the Galatians. As events are to prove, these people are easily influenced away from the simple gospel message. Paul will later write his strongest letter to the churches in this area because they are accepting false teaching. "I am astonished," he writes, "that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel" (Galatians 1:6).

Presumably Paul and Barnabas exhort the disciples not to fall back into either Judaism or paganism. The new converts will be persecuted by relatives and friends for abandoning their ancestral faiths. This will cause them much trouble. They need to be given realistic warnings that the path into the kingdom of God is strewn with such obstacles (2 Timothy 3:12).

Luke mentions the "kingdom of God" several times in Acts. [Acts 1:3, 6; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31.] The contexts in which it is discussed are varied: The risen Jesus speaks of it to the disciples; the disciples wonder if Christ is going to restore it to Israel; Philip preaches it; Paul teaches it in the synagogue, to the disciples, and in Rome during his two-year imprisonment. In this context, the reference to gaining entry into the kingdom seems to refer more to the future realm to be established by God (2 Timothy 4:18).

### Appoints elders (14:23)

Paul and Barnabas also appoint "elders for them in each church" (14:23). They commit the Galatian elders to the Lord with prayer and fasting. Paul and Barnabas must feel that these individuals have enough spiritual maturity to serve their fellow disciples. These individuals are not brought in from outside, such as from Antioch, to be pastors. These are members of the congregation in which they are given the responsibility of aiding the community of believers. This is the first reference to "elders" outside of the Jerusalem church (11:30). Antioch has only prophets and teachers, though the latter probably serve in the same capacity as elders. Later in Acts, we will hear of elders in the Ephesian church (20:17). [They are also mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; and 1 Peter 5:1, 5.]

#### Every community needs some kind of organization, and the most obvious expedient that lay to Paul's hand for these largely Gentile congregations would be to follow the pattern of the synagogue, since Jews and Gentiles alike were now incorporated into the "Israel of God." The elders (or presbyters), therefore, would be chosen from the older members of the community, and charged with the oversight of worship, discipline, administration and instruction — more or less along the lines of the "rulers of the synagogue." [Neil, 166.]

Luke is describing the organization of new congregations, but on a somewhat dangerous base. Barnabas and Paul are forced to give the oversight of the church to converts who have been in the faith for only a few weeks or months. The missionaries probably have no other choice. A church with poorly trained leaders would be better off than one with no leaders. Paul and Barnabas cannot remain in Galatia as pastors. It's doubtful they can return anytime soon to instruct these congregations. In fact, there is no evidence they ever return, though Paul does write to the churches in this area.

Barnabas and Paul's responsibility is in planting and setting up churches, not in watering or pastoring them. In later years, Paul will instruct people responsible for appointing elders to be careful about their qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9).

### To Perga and home (14:24-28)

After organizing the churches as well as they could, Paul and Barnabas travel south through Pisidia and then Pamphylia. Luke makes no mention of the gospel being preached in these regions. The two missionaries finally reach the coastal city of Perga, where they had begun. This time Luke says they "preached the word in Perga" (14:25). But Luke gives no details about the length or nature of their preaching, nor its success or failure.

Paul and Barnabas then go a few miles south to the Mediterranean port of Attalia (modern Antalya). There they board a ship that takes them to Syrian Antioch (14:26). The first missionary tour is over. It's difficult to say how long Paul and Barnabas have been gone, but the time must be measured in years — anywhere between one to four years.

After arriving in Antioch, Paul and Barnabas gather their sponsoring church to give it a full report of their activities. Luke is careful to point out that the two missionaries are loyal members of the church at Antioch. They report back to the body that commissioned the tour. Paul and Barnabas especially point out how God "had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles" (14:27). Here we see Paul's use of "door" in a metaphorical sense as an opportunity to have the gospel message heard. Only Paul uses the word in this way. [1 Corinthians 16:9; 2 Corinthians 2:12; Colossians 4:3.]

Luke ends the account by saying that Paul and Barnabas "stayed there a long time with the disciples" (14:28). The time notation is indefinite, but perhaps it is up to a year in length.

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

## The Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15)

### "Certain people came down" (15:1)

While Paul and Barnabas are teaching at Antioch, some people come from Judea and demand that the Gentiles should become practicing Jews before being regarded as real believers. Luke summarizes their claim in a sentence: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved" (15:1).

These hard-line Jewish Christians are confronted by Paul and Barnabas, who get "into sharp dispute and debate with them" (15:2). This is a key moment in the conflict about Gentile conversion. As Luke tells the story, he will also address some doctrinal arguments, but before we get to that, let us see how Paul deals with the question in his letter to the Galatians.

Apparently, the extremists took their legalistic message to other churches, including those in Galatia, which Paul had recently evangelized. The controversy broadened so that Jewish Christians were not even allowed to _eat_ with Gentile believers. At some point Barnabas, and even Peter, seemed to side with the extreme position (Galatians 2:11-13).

At this point, the crisis is threatening the unity of the church. It is also striking a blow at the heart of the gospel of salvation by grace. Paul writes: "This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you" (Galatians 2:4-5).

Peter probably thinks that it is a centrist position: Gentiles can be part of the church, and Jews can continue to be scrupulous about table fellowship if they wish. Doesn't everyone get what they want? No, says Paul. He cannot accept a church in which Jews and Gentiles have to eat at separate tables, as if the Gentiles are unclean, unacceptable, not even part of the same family.

If the Jewish rigorists have their way — insisting on strict observance of Mosaic rituals — the church will eventually split. At best, two separate churches will form, one Gentile and the other Jewish. Or Gentile Christians will be forced to place their faith in Jewish regulations rather than the work of Christ.

The people from Jerusalem consider themselves to be representatives of James, not renegade teachers. (But James did not authorize them — see 15:24.) Paul refers to them as "certain men [who] came from James" (Galatians 2:12). But they claimed more authority than James had given them (Acts 15:24).

As we shall see, James, Paul and Peter will eventually agree. The rigorous view implies that a Gentile must become a Jew in order to be saved, and the apostles do not want this false message preached in the church.

### "Unless you are circumcised" (15:1)

Luke presents the hard-line argument as one that stresses the need for Gentile converts to be circumcised. But he soon shows that the circumcisers want Gentile converts to practice the entire "law of Moses." Basically, they are teaching that a person cannot be saved unless they become proselytes, converts to Judaism.

The conflict exists because there are people in the church from sharply varying cultural backgrounds. At one end are devout Jerusalem Jews who continue to worship at the Temple. They scrupulously observe all the cultic practices that define the Jewish way of life — all the laws found in the covenant God made with the Jews at Mt. Sinai. Circumcision is a crucial point. From the time of Abraham, circumcision helped define a person's faith in God and being part of the people of God. [Genesis 17:10-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:15-24; Exodus 12:44, 48; Leviticus 12:3; Joshua 5:2-8].

But now an increasing number of formerly pagan Gentiles are entering the church. Their religious life had been centered around pagan temples and their culture had been that of the wider Greek and Roman world. They had been idolaters with little interest in the Jewish way of life. And they do not want to undergo the painful circumcision process since it has no cultural meaning for them.

However, Jewish Christians fear that the Gentiles entering the church will change the nature of the church. In Judea, the religious leaders tolerate the Jewish Christians because they keep the law – they are faithful to the covenant of Moses, even if they do happen to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Their messianic beliefs are merely a harmless superstition, as long as they continue keeping Jewish customs. But now, if Gentiles come into the church without keeping Jewish laws, that will encourage Jewish believers to be less zealous about the laws as well, thereby bringing persecution from the Jewish leaders.

The Jewish Christians are afraid that many Gentiles have grown up in a culture of loose morals. Their easy entrance into the church might weaken the moral standards. Thus, the circumcisers want Gentiles to become like Jews in lifestyle — as evidence of their conversion, if nothing else.

Many Jewish Christians consider themselves to be part of the righteous remnant of Judaism. God has given them salvation, but as their part of the bargain, as evidence that they are part of the covenant, they must keep its laws.

#### The mental background of the Jew was founded on the fact that he belonged to the chosen people. In effect they believed that not only were the Jews the peculiar possession of God but also that God was the peculiar possession of the Jews. (William Barclay, _The Acts of the Apostles,_ revised edition, The Daily Study Bible Series, page 112)

And circumcision is one of the proofs of this exclusive relationship with God (Philo, _The Migration of Abraham_ 92). No doubt many Jews of the time, like Philo, believe that circumcision is more than a ritual ( _Special Laws_ 1.8-11; 1.304-306). It is a symbol of religious commitment. The rigorists, like other Jews, see the physical act of circumcision as proof of one's allegiance to God (Josephus, _Antiquities_ 20:38-48).

Zealous Jews believe that a man must be circumcised in order to enter the nation of Israel and to be part of its righteous remnant. A failure to circumcise is regarded as a sign of apostasy (1 Maccabees 1:11-15). Gentiles who are not circumcised and who do not practice the Jewish religious life are considered unclean.

#### It was the age-old horror of the strict Jew, based on the Law of Moses, of contamination with those who were technically not within the covenant relationship — outwardly signalized by circumcision — and who ate food not permitted by the Law from utensils which had not been ceremonially cleansed. Thus the issue was more than that of admission to membership of the church. It involved also the question whether Jewish Christians ought to mix socially with uncircumcised Gentile Christians, to eat...at the same table, and to share in the same eucharistic celebration. (Neil, 168).

### "You cannot be saved" (15:1)

It's important to look at circumcision and the Law of Moses from the point of view of conservative Christian Jews. As far as they know, the entire Torah is still in force. There had been no clear teaching from Jesus to the contrary. In fact, he even seemed to teach the continuance of circumcision and various other rituals (Matthew 5:18; 23:1-2, 23; Luke 2:21-24; 5:14). He certainly lived as a Jew.

#### They [the Judaizers] found it hard to believe that Gentiles could be saved and become members of the people of God without accepting the obligations of the Jewish law. One can sympathize with their position; after all, what evidence was there that the law, which represented the will of God for his covenant people, had been repealed? This was the point which was pressed by some Jewish visitors to Antioch. (Marshall, 242)

Peter's experience with Cornelius (Acts 10) shows that any effort to distinguish between "clean" and "unclean" people has no relevance as far as salvation is concerned. Peter explained this to the Jerusalem church. At the time, the Jewish Christians swallowed their concerns and accepted the fact that God is giving salvation to Gentiles (11:18).

The Jewish extremists accept the idea that the gospel is going to Gentiles; they know that the covenant of blessing extends to all nations (Genesis 12:3; 22:18; 26:4). The Scriptures say that the Gentiles will be saved in the last days (Isaiah 2:2; 11:10; 25:8-9; 49:6; 55:5-7; 56:7; 60:3-22; Zephaniah 3:9-10; Zechariah 8:23).

So what's the problem? They do not want to exclude the Gentiles, but they insist on certain requirements for how inclusion is possible: The Gentiles should be proselytized in the context of Jewish faith, and not apart from it. Hence, they call for Gentile circumcision, for Gentiles to become Jews. That is why these people are commonly called Judaizers.

#### For these overscrupulous Christians in Jerusalem, the outreach to Gentiles was to come from within their group and to follow a proselyte model, not to come from outside their group and be apart from the law. In the last days, [they said] all nations are to flow to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem...not depart from it. (Longenecker, 444)

The Judaizers see Israel — or at least the righteous people within it — as God's agent in bringing the blessings of salvation to the Gentiles. They can be saved only through Jewish customs, the methods God approved to keep the remnant righteous, or within the covenant of salvation.

Thus, the conclusion about Jewish observances is obvious to the Judaizers. Yes, God is giving salvation to the Gentiles. But if they _want_ salvation, they must begin observing the Jewish ritual laws. Before they can be accepted as first-class Christians they must begin living like the Jewish Christians do. In short, the Judaizers say that Gentiles have to become Jews before they can be Christians.

#### The rapid influx of Gentiles into the church in both Antioch and the cities of southern Galatia had raised again the whole question of Gentile admission or, more precisely, _the terms on which they should be admitted._ It was one thing to accept the occasional God-fearer into the church, someone already in sympathy with Jewish ways; it was quite another to welcome large numbers of Gentiles who had no regard for the law and no intention of keeping it. (Williams, 256)

Thus, the stage is set for a fundamental showdown between the Judaizers and people like Paul, who say that Gentiles are grafted into the church through faith alone.

### Go up to Jerusalem (15:2-4)

With the controversy over circumcision for Gentile converts raging in the church at Antioch, and no doubt spreading to other cities, something needs to be done. So the church at Antioch appoints Paul, Barnabas and some other leaders to go to "Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question" (15:2).

We know Paul's beliefs about this from his own writings (Romans 2:28-29; Galatians 5:2-3; 6:15). A strict and vocal Jewish Christian minority in Jerusalem and Judea does not agree with Paul. They insist that Gentile converts accept such aspects of Jewish life as circumcision. This forces Antioch to ask for a major church synod, in approximately A.D. 49, with the apostles and elders of Jerusalem. The unity of the church is threatened, and an official ruling by the leaders seems necessary.

The Antioch delegation travels through Phoenicia and Samaria on its way to Jerusalem. The delegates preach in the churches along the way, explaining how the Gentiles are being converted (8:4-15; 11:19).

Paul and his group are enthusiastically received by the churches in these areas. Finally, the delegates arrive in Jerusalem where they are "welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders" (15:4). Luke is preparing his readers for the good news that Paul's Gentile program will be positively received by the leaders and the church.

### Pharisees demand circumcision (15:5)

Upon coming to Jerusalem, Paul and his delegation officially meet with the church leaders and report "everything God had done through them" (15:4). But certain Jewish Christians who belong "to the party of the Pharisees" then rise up to challenge Paul (15:5).

This is the first mention (except for Paul) of converts from the sect of the Pharisees. This group within the church — Christian Pharisees — are calling for circumcision. These Pharisees are _believers_ who accept Jesus as the Messiah. As influential members of the Jewish _and_ Christian community — and being experienced teachers — they are leaders among the Judaizing group. Clearly, the pro-circumcision lobby within the church is a powerful one.

#### The fact that there were enough converted Pharisees to have an influential voice in the affairs of the church indicates that the Jewish-Christian party had a powerful case for dictating terms to the pro-Gentile faction. (Neil, 171)

### Must obey Moses' law (15:5-6)

At the Jerusalem conference, the Pharisaic believers immediately begin to insist: "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses" (15:5). There is a long debate on the issue, but Luke dismisses it with a short phrase: "After much discussion..." (15:6).

Luke doesn't give us any of the Judaizers' supporting arguments. But they probably base their teaching on Genesis 17:1-14, which says that God's covenant with Abraham was ratified by circumcision. This applies to members of his household and to foreigners. If anyone refuses circumcision, that person is to "be cut off from his people" (verse 14). First-century Jews believe that the promises of salvation go back to this covenant with Abraham, and circumcision is part of it.

The Judaizers may also be referring to Exodus 12:48. This verse says that a foreigner living in Israel who wants to observe Passover has to be circumcised. So the circumcision party is using strong evidence from Scripture and from tradition in defense of circumcision as being necessary. On the other hand, Paul and the Antioch delegation do not have proof-texts that say circumcision is not needed. For the moment, it seems like the Judaizing party has the upper hand.

The apostles are faced with this question: Should the church follow the Torah literally in all its details? That is, do Scripture and tradition have a greater authority than the principle of faith in determining the basis who is in the people of God?

### Peter's speech (15:7-11)

At some point in the meeting Peter gets up. He makes a strong case for admitting Gentiles into the church on the basis of faith alone. He argues that God established a precedent, perhaps a decade earlier, of bringing Gentiles into the body of believers through faith. (He is referring to the example of Cornelius and his family discussed in Acts 9:32 through 11:18.)

"God, who knows the heart," said Peter, "showed that he accepted them [the Gentiles] by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith" (15:8-9). God showed that he accepted a Gentile even while he was uncircumcised.

This summarizes Peter's argument. He insists that faith is more important than ritual observance in defining a Christian. The proof is that God is giving his Spirit to the Gentiles without them first becoming Jews. Peter emphasizes that conversion is God's doing, not the work of either the preacher or the believer. People do not decide on their own to take a place among the people of God. God is the one who converts them, and he does it by giving his Spirit, not by requiring the person to practice certain rituals.

Although the council doesn't make an issue of it, only faith can cleanse Jews as well (a point made in the book of Hebrews). Everyone is saved by the grace of God, not through the practice of any system of cultic religious works. Faith is the basis of salvation for Jews and Gentiles alike. This faith is a righteousness that comes from God through the Holy Spirit, and is mediated by Christ. It is this faith that saves (Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8; Romans 3:28).

### Unbearable yoke to bear (15:10)

Peter brands the zealots' desire to force the Gentiles to live as Jews a test of God — challenging something he has already done — and "a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear" (15:10). He says the legalistic faction is calling into question God's will — which he had already made quite evident.

God is circumcising the Gentiles through the Spirit, not with the knife. Insisting on the ritual law is challenging God himself on his actions, Peter is saying. It is questioning the rightness of God in his cleansing the Gentiles through the Spirit. The call for circumcision has the effect of putting God on trial. The Judaizers are saying that God is not doing enough, nor doing it right, in allowing Gentiles _as Gentiles_ to be full participants in his body, the church.

Rather, what should be on trial is the cultic cleansing system of the Jews. It had been tried for hundreds of years and found deficient. The law of Moses is irrelevant as far as salvation is concerned and is simply a burdensome lifestyle of "do's-and-don'ts." In one word, it was a "yoke."

The word "yoke" (Greek, _zygos_ ) refers to a restraint. It can be a physical restraint placed on oxen (Deuteronomy 21:3). Or it can be a metaphor for political or social oppression (2 Chronicles 10:10; 1 Timothy 6:1). In this case, the law of Moses is both a physical burden and a form of religious oppression, even though well-meaning Jews are using it to keep themselves separate from the world. But when people use it to separate themselves from other believers, they are failing to keep in step with what God is now doing, bringing Gentiles and Jews into one people.

Jesus said "my yoke is easy and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:30). People burdened and weary with sin, guilt and religious duty can come to Christ and find rest in him. That is what Peter is saying. The Christian way of life should not be religiously burdensome. That is a lesson all churches and religions need to learn.

Peter ends his speech by echoing the thought of Paul: "We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" (15:11). Peter is on Paul's side and his thoughts are quite Pauline. Peter puts his stamp of approval on Paul's work, phrasing salvation in terms of grace — as the apostle to the Gentiles will frequently do as well. Luke, quoting Peter's words to this effect, now makes no further mention of Peter anywhere in Acts.

### Barnabas and Paul speak (15:12)

Barnabas and Paul now rise to defend their view about circumcision, and "the whole assembly became silent" (15:12). Barnabas spoke first. He was a respected member of the Jerusalem church, and its trusted representative to Antioch. Both he and Paul tell the story of Gentile conversion as it happened. The two missionaries recount the miraculous signs and wonders God did among the Gentiles through them. Once again, this underscores the fact that God is blessing their work, hence it is in line with his purpose with the Gentiles.

Luke devotes only a single sentence to what Paul and Barnabas say at the conference. We don't know exactly how they argue their case. However, we know from Acts and especially Paul's writings exactly where he stands on the matter of circumcision. In this case, they probably again report on their experiences. Hundreds of Gentiles are now converted and God is working miracles through Paul. He and Barnabas appeal to such things, just as Peter had argued from his experience with Gentile conversions.

### James speaks (15:13-21)

At the end of the conference, James speaks. He is the leader of the church in Jerusalem (12:17; 21:18), and supposedly the one who had originally authorized the overly zealous people to visit Antioch. Everyone respects him, and when all three apostles agree, that settles the matter.

James is clearly representing the Jerusalem church. The Judaizers look to him for support partly because of his respected position among non-converted Jews, and partly because James himself zealously keeps all the Jewish laws. However, they misread him on the most basic issue, one he held in common with Peter and Paul: faith is the basis of salvation, not religious observance. Just because I keep these laws does not mean that Gentiles have to as well.

### A people for himself (15:14)

James' speech sums up the testimony already presented. James begins his comments before the assembly by summarizing Peter's speech. But he makes no reference to the comments of Paul and Barnabas. That is rhetorically shrewd, for it is _their_ teaching that is the subject of the controversy. James wants to win his audience, and using the evidence of controversial persons is not the best way to do it.

The point of James' speech is that God is taking the Gentiles as "a people" for himself (15:14). There is no disagreement on this. If nothing else, the experience of Cornelius proves it. Acts intimates that there is no longer any debate on whether Gentiles are being converted. James is beginning on common ground.

In his speech, he emphasizes the presence of God's hand in the work of the apostles (15:14). In this he is echoing the thoughts of both Peter and Paul. Paul had referred to "everything God had done" (15:4) including his "wonders" (15:12); Peter said that "God made a choice" (15:7) and that "God... showed" (15:8). The three leaders are making the same point: this outreach to the Gentiles is nothing that humans dreamed up. They are only fulfilling the purpose of God.

### Prophets agree (15:15)

After James cited the _experiences_ of the apostles as dynamic encounters with God's purpose, he refers to a text of Scripture relevant to the discussion. James says, "The words of the prophets are in agreement with this" (15:15). "This" refers to the fact that God is calling Gentiles to his church, and that he does it through faith.

Luke gives only a single example of the verses James cites in defense of the ruling he is about to make. They are the words of Amos 9:11-12. It is probably representative of the other verses James cited.

We should pay attention to the subtle way in which James uses Scripture. He doesn't say that the experiences of Peter and Paul agreed with Scripture. Rather, James says the words of the prophet are in agreement with what God has _done,_ that is, the conversion of the Gentiles on the basis of faith! For James, the experience of what God had done interprets the scripture, not the other way around.

James' decision regarding the practice of circumcision and the Jewish law by Gentile converts is based on three vital factors. It depends, first, on the _revelation_ of God. The decision is then confirmed in the _experience_ of the apostles. Finally, the decision is supported by a new understanding of _Scripture._

### Rest of humanity (15:16-18)

When we analyze the scripture James refers to, we are in for some surprises. The quotation comes mostly from the Septuagint version of Amos 9:11-12, not the Hebrew text on which English translations are based. Amos 9:12 reads this way in the NIV: "So that they [Israel] may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name" (Amos 9:12). This is a promise that the nation of Israel will possess the remaining people of Edom as well as other nations in a restored kingdom.

That is strikingly different from the Greek Septuagint version of Amos 9:12 which reads like this: "That the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name" (the NIV of Acts 15:17). Here, the remnant of Israel seeks the Lord _together with_ the Gentiles. Thus, all people are invited to become part of the people of God in a restored kingdom.

The Septuagint version allows James to support his contention that the people of God should include Gentiles as well as Jews. God's people consist of a restored remnant of Israel and the nations as part of David's rebuilt nation.

Some commentators object that James would not use the Septuagint version in Aramaic-speaking Jerusalem. But the council might have been conducted in Greek, since the representatives from Antioch might not know Aramaic. In addition, James might be using a Hebrew text that agrees more closely with the Septuagint than the Masoretic. (The Masoretic is the basic Hebrew text from which the Old Testament is translated into English.) Parts of Amos 9:11-12 are quoted in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls, and they agree with James' version of this verse.

By quoting Amos 9:11-12, James is saying that the promised enlargement of "David's fallen tent" (Israel) over Gentile nations is taking place _in the church,_ the new Israel. The Gentile mission is the instrument by which Gentiles are becoming part of this new "tent," the church.

The Hebrew and Greek versions are different, and yet both say that Gentile nations are included in the future kingdom of Israel. But the use of the Septuagint version gave better support for the evangelization of Gentiles and admitting them to fellowship. No longer did Gentiles have to come _through Israel,_ the nation, in order to become a people of God.

### "It is my judgment" (15:19-20)

At the end of the meeting, James makes his decision: "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God" (15:19). That is, no one should require Gentiles to be circumcised or to obey other laws of Moses. There are no such entrance requirements for the family of God.

However, James does have a public-relations problem. He is refusing to discriminate against the Gentiles by making them live as Jews. But he also feels the need not to offend pious Jewish believers who have been brought up to observe such things as Old Testament food restrictions.

With this in mind, James outlines four prohibitions that the Gentile Christians should observe. These practical considerations will help keep peace in a church that includes people from two widely different cultures, Jewish and pagan. By stressing the observance of these regulations, James believes it will be easier for Christian Jews to accept Gentiles "as they are" and live in harmony with them.

The four things James asks of the Gentile Christians touch on ethical, ceremonial, and even health aspects of the law — behaviors that are particularly offensive to pious Jews.

James' four regulations direct Christian Gentiles to "abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood" (15:20). There are several theories about why James selects these four rules. One theory traces them to Leviticus 17-18, which gives laws applying not only to Jews but also to resident aliens within Israel.[See later for further comments on this theory.]

Three of the restrictions concern food. First, any food associated with idolatrous worship is to be avoided — especially meat offered to pagan deities in ritual sacrifices. Such meats are eaten in temple banquets, and the excess is sold in the meat markets.

#### In Gentile cities most of the meat for sale in shops or markets consisted of the carcasses of animals which had been used for sacrificial purposes in one or other of the pagan temples.... In the process they had been dedicated or offered to some god, represented by his statue. From the Jewish point of view, the eating of such meat condoned polytheism and was an act of sacrilege. There was the added complication that social occasions among Gentiles involving banquets or even family gatherings were often held on temple premises where sacrificial meat that was abhorrent to Jews was consumed. (Neil, 173)

The second prohibition concerns the flesh of animals that are improperly killed (hence, "strangled"), and from which the blood has not been properly drained (Leviticus 17:10, 13). This prohibition is connected with the Noachian covenant (Genesis 9:4), and is considered by Jews as being applicable to all humanity. Jewish slaughter practices ensured that an animal killed for food had its blood drained. Any slaughtered animal that comes from a non-Jewish butcher — where the blood may not have been drained — is questionable, even repulsive to Jewish sensitivities.

The third prohibition cautions Gentile Christians to avoid eating blood (Leviticus 3:17; 7:26; 17:10; 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:16, 23; 15:23). In a sense, this is an extension of the restriction on eating improperly slaughtered animals.

The three food restrictions are rather straightforward. They are something of a compromise so strict Jewish Christians will not be offended. One of the prohibitions, the ban on eating meat (or any other food) offered to idols, is not a permanent restriction.

When Paul's congregations in Corinth later ask him about food sacrificed to idols, he says "an idol is nothing at all" (1 Corinthians 8:4). That is, food is not actually polluted just because it was offered in pagan rituals. It is physically no different than other meat. Thus, it can be eaten by Christians – but not as part of pagan worship. Paul does not want believers to participate in banquets held in pagan temples. Nor should they eat meat when someone _tells_ them it has been offered to an idol – that is giving the meat a religious significance, and the believer should refrain, to avoid offending someone's conscience.

Meat sold in the public shops might not be properly killed and bled, and hence might violate the decree on not eating strangled meat or blood. The Bible does not directly tell us how first-century Christians are to deal with such questions.

### Sexual immorality (15:20)

A fourth restriction James imposes had to do with unchastity or sexual immorality (Greek, _porneia_ ). The New Testament condemns all forms of sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18; 7:2; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Hebrews 13:4). So did Jewish writings of the time (Tobit 4:12; 8:7; Sirach 23:23). Sexual immorality is so detested in Scripture that it symbolizes idolatry (Hosea 5:4; 6:11; Ezekiel 16:15-46; 23:7-35; Jeremiah 3:6-8; 1 Corinthians 10:8 and Revelation 2:14, 20).

Fornication and adultery — sexual immorality in general — are forbidden either directly or in principle. These moral principles are already being taught to Gentile converts as elementary aspects of Christian instruction. So it seems that James does not need to mention sexual promiscuity, since this is forbidden among all Christians — Gentile or Jewish — as much as it is among Jews. Many pagan Gentiles also recognize the evils of sexual immorality.

Why, then, does James mention sexual immorality? He may be referring to something quite specific when he forbids _porneia._ That may be breaches in the special incest regulations of Leviticus 18. (These come after the prohibition of eating blood in Leviticus 17.) Those regulations forbid sexual relations with close relatives. They also forbid adultery with neighbors (18:19); homosexual activities (18:22); and sex with animals (18:23). But the laws of Leviticus 18 are mainly a corrective to various forms of incest that may have been prevalent in the pagan world of the time.

Is incest a problem in the first-century church? It was in Corinth. The very kind of sexual immorality James writes about occurred in the Corinthian church. A man is having sexual relations with "his father's wife," presumably his step-mother (1 Corinthians 5:1).

The situation is so bad that Paul says not even the pagans go this far. Yet, what is more shocking, the Corinthian church prides themselves on allowing this behavior! In the light of this situation, James' injunction against sexual immorality takes on a quite practical turn.

Despite this, as Paul states, even the Gentiles tend to avoid this kind of incestuous activity. It's reasonable to suppose that the Christian Gentiles (especially those who have some prior teaching in synagogue and church) are not committing these outrageous sexual offenses to any great degree.

The reason James insists on mentioning this, and the other proscriptions, was primarily for the benefit of the _Jewish_ Christians. He wants more to relieve their fears than to correct any widespread disregard of these laws within the church. He wants to assure them that such immorality will not be allowed. (Though, as we see in Corinth, violations can occur.)

In the first century, people eat with others only if they share the same values. In the church, eating together symbolizes spiritual oneness (1 Corinthians 10:14-17). Thus, James' ruling provides the understanding for a safe and wholehearted table-fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians. [For a more detailed analysis of James' decree, with a different emphasis, see below.]

### Moses is preached (15:21)

James has declared that the church should not make it difficult for the Gentiles by requiring them to observe a Jewish way of life. He then lays out four prohibitions for the Gentiles to follow, as described above. James then concludes by saying: "Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (15:21). This statement seems puzzling. Why does James refer to Moses?

One answer is that James is stressing the reason for the four prohibitions. James would be saying that there are Jewish communities everywhere who regularly hear the law of Moses read in the synagogues, and the four prohibitions are part of their most fundamental beliefs — and they determine their life-style. The Christian Gentiles should therefore respect Jewish beliefs, and practice them as well.

However, it seems James is doing more than making a concession to Jewish scruples. After all, circumcision is a much more venerable institution, and James lays it aside. Clearly, the prohibition on sexual immorality, for example, has intrinsic value. It is more than a public relations ploy, since it is important in governing family values and relationships.

Perhaps James' reference to Moses being preached is his way of saying that the four principles he set out are rooted in the Torah. They are the norms the Torah sets down for proselytes and sojourners, and they have value for the Christian life, whether Jewish or Gentile. In that case, James would be saying the following: These principles have been preached from the Torah (Moses) since earliest times and are so today each Sabbath in the synagogues. That underscores their importance. Unlike circumcision or ritual washings, these principles (James might be arguing) have intrinsic worth. The problem here, however, is that one might question whether the ban on food offered to idols had permanent merit. Later, Paul himself seems to compromise it.

A third way to understand James' statement in 15:21 is to see him giving what he feels are the basic essentials of Christian observance in such matters as food and sex. This would be due to Jewish sensitivities. The decree might be given to calm Jewish Christian fears that the Torah is going to be disregarded. In this theory, James is saying that if Christian Gentiles want to find out more details about the Jewish law, then it is up to them to do so. The church will make no more prohibitions, or concessions to Jewish feelings. Interested Christian Gentiles can attend the local synagogue for further instruction — if they so desire.

Yet another possibility is that James is mentioning a different reason for publishing the decree: There are synagogues all around teaching decrees that do _not_ apply to Gentile Christians. James is advocating a far more lenient approach – that they should not make it so difficult for Gentile converts, and he says that the lenient decree needs to be published because so many synagogues are teaching the legalistic way.

### The whole church (15:22)

James' proposal is accepted by the apostles, the elders and "the whole church" (15:22). That is an important point. Now, almost everyone is on the same page regarding the matter of Jewish beliefs and practices.

The extremist Jews lose the argument, and the church embarks on a more liberal policy. It makes a fundamental statement about the Hebrew Scriptures as well: The church is released from following a strictly literal interpretation of Scripture. Its own experience with God is a more vital element in determining its policy. In the right circumstance, experience can interpret Scripture instead of the Scripture always determining church policy.

Also, Paul's mission and person are now publicly legitimated in the church. Though Paul insists that he received the gospel by revelation and does not need human vindication (Galatians 1:11-12), church members in general have no way of being convinced of this. A formal agreement by the leading apostles gives comfort to both Jews and Gentiles that the path the church is choosing is within God's will.

James' ruling marginalizes a hard-core group of Jewish Christians who are permanently opposed to Paul. They will continue to be a source of friction in the church for decades to come. This, too, is an important part of the story of the apostolic church.

### Judas and Silas (15:22)

A letter regarding James' decision is drafted and sent to the churches in Antioch, as well as the provinces of Syria and Cilicia (15:22-23). Two leading members of the Jerusalem congregation, Judas Barsabbas and Silas, are appointed to take the letter and read it to the various congregations. They do more than carry the letter: They give personal witness that the letter is authentic, and as authorized representatives of the apostles, they can answer whatever questions arise.

We are introduced to Judas and Silas as "some of their own men" (15:22) who are prophets (15:32). These leaders represent the viewpoint of the apostles and the Jerusalem church, lest anyone think that Paul was twisting the decision of the church. (The Jerusalem church wisely had Judas and Silas, not Paul, read James' letter.)

We know nothing of Judas Barsabbas, though some have speculated he may have been the brother of Joseph Barsabbas (1:23). Joseph was one of two men selected to possibly replace Judas Iscariot. Neither Judas nor Joseph appears again in Luke's story.

On the other hand, Silas plays a key role as Paul's future partner in missionary work (15:40-41; 16:19, 25, 29; 17:4, 10; 14-15; 18:5). Like Paul, he is a Roman citizen (16:37). Silas is generally identified with Silvanus (a Latin name), a co-worker Paul mentions several times in his letters (2 Corinthians 1:19; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1). Peter also mentions a Silas, who may be the same individual (1 Peter 5:12).

### A letter to believers (15:23-29)

Luke reproduces, at least in summary, the letter crafted by the council regarding circumcision. It is addressed to the Gentile Christians in Antioch, the church that serves as a kind of headquarters for the Gentile mission. It is also addressed to the churches in the provinces of Syria and Cilicia, who presumably were the most affected by the controversy. (Syria-Cilicia was the double province of which Antioch was the capital.)

James' letter apparently is not sent to the entire church. However, as Paul later travels from town to town in Galatia, he delivers "the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey" (16:4).

The letter begins by acknowledging that the extremist Christian Jews who stirred up the controversy over circumcision came from Jerusalem. But they did so "without our authorization" (15:24). Thus, the letter rebukes the Judaizers for overstepping their authority in laying down requirements Jerusalem had not agreed to.

Barnabas and Paul (the letter mentions Paul in second place) are called "our dear friends" (15:25) and "men who have risked their lives" for the gospel (15:26). Paul, the letter is saying, is held in the warmest regards by Jerusalem. Thus, James, Peter and the Jerusalem church make it clear that they stand together with Paul and Barnabas in what they have been teaching. The church presents itself as unified against the Judaizers.

The letter next appeals to divine guidance in the circumcision matter by saying, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (15:28). The Holy Spirit is called the author of Jerusalem's decision. The council is claiming that it reached its decision under the guidance of God through the Holy Spirit. The letter ends with a restatement of the four requirements. The decrees were the same ones given in verse 20, except for a slight change in order.

The final statement in James' letter tells the Gentile Christians: "You will _do well_ to avoid these things" (15:29). It does not even say that people _must_ avoid these things in order to be saved; it just says that it is good to avoid these things.

Luke gives us evidence of the letter being read in three localities where a Gentile mission occurred: Antioch of Syria (15:30-35), Syria and Cilicia (15:46-41), and the southern part of Galatia (16:1-4).

Judas and Silas read the decision in Antioch, and their message is warmly received. After encouraging everyone in the church, they return to Jerusalem (15:33). Paul and Barnabas remain in Antioch, teaching the church and preaching the gospel.

Luke's story now takes a decisive turn. Paul and his associates will dominate the account from now on. Peter and the rest of the Twelve disappear. James and the Jerusalem church appear only once more, in 21:17-26, and then only in the context of Paul's trip to the city.

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

## Christians and the Law of Moses: A Study of Acts 15

Michael Morrison

Acts 15 describes the most important meeting the early church had. The future of the church was at stake—was it to be a Jewish group, or would it allow Gentiles?

If Gentiles could enter the church without following Jewish laws, the church would attract more Gentiles, and eventually Gentiles would be the majority. The church would no longer be a sect of Judaism, but a distinct faith. Let's see how the council of Jerusalem developed.

### Literary context

The council comes in the center of Luke's inspired history. His book begins with the Jewish church, dominated by Peter in chapters 1 to 5. The book ends with Paul's mission to the Gentiles, in chapters 16 to 28. Chapters 6 to 15 form a transition, alternating between Jewish and Gentile growth.

Chapter 15, the council of Jerusalem, forms the climax of the transition between Jewish and Gentile evangelism. In the story flow, the council forms the decisive step that propels the Gentile mission into dominance.

Paul and Barnabas had returned from a successful missionary trip in Gentile areas. They told the church in Antioch how God had "opened a door of faith to the Gentiles" (14:27). Thus the stage is set for chapter 15.

### Controversy arises

"Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: 'Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved'" (15:1). They were saying that circumcision was required for salvation. They probably thought the question was simple: Christians should obey God, and God had commanded circumcision. If people want the blessings of Abraham, they should act like children of Abraham, and that meant circumcision for Gentiles as well as for Jews (Gen. 17:12).

Paul and Barnabas had a different opinion: "This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them" (Acts 15:2). How was the argument to be resolved? "Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question." In this way the church could have unity.

So "the church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad" (v. 3). Luke is letting us know that most Christians supported the Gentile mission.

"When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them" (v. 4). What God had done was part of the evidence. The miracles and conversions supported what he was saying.

### The formal debate

Then they debated the question: "Some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, `The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses'" (v. 5). We saw in verse 1 that they believed that circumcision was necessary for salvation. Here we see that they also believed the laws of Moses were required. Circumcision was the first step in the process—they believed that Christians must keep all the laws of Moses.

What were these laws? Were they biblical laws, or the unbiblical traditions of the elders? In every other New Testament mention of the "laws of Moses," the biblical books of Moses are meant (Luke 2:22; 24:44; John 7:22-23; Acts 28:23; 1 Cor. 9:9; Heb. 10:28). Luke could have said "traditions," but he did not. Anyone who knew the teachings of Jesus would already know that unbiblical traditions were not required of anyone. They did not need to debate about Jewish traditions.

Just as circumcision was biblical, so also were the laws of Moses. The claim was that Gentile believers should be circumcised, and then, as part of the covenant people of God, obey the laws of the covenant. One of the laws of Moses was that males were to be circumcised.

Today, we might explain that Jesus instituted a new covenant, and that the Jewish believers were God's people not because they were Jewish, but because they were believers. Membership in the new covenant is by faith, not by ancestry. But the Jerusalem council did not approach the question from this perspective. Let's see how they did it.

### The apostles speak

"The apostles and elders met to consider this question" (v. 6). Perhaps dozens of elders were involved. "After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: `Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe'" (v. 7).

Peter reminded the people that God had used him to preach the gospel to Cornelius and his family (Acts 10). As far as we know, Cornelius was not circumcised, but Peter did not use that precedent as proof. Rather, he focused on the theological foundations of how a person is saved—by believing.

"God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith" (vs. 8-9). God gave the Holy Spirit to this uncircumcised family, purifying their hearts, pronouncing them holy, as acceptable to him, because of their faith.

Peter then began to scold the people who wanted the Gentiles to obey the laws of Moses: "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" (vs. 10-11).

Peter's point is that the yoke of Moses was a burden that the Jewish people were not able to keep successfully. Those rituals showed that, no matter how hard people worked, they could never be perfect. They showed, for anyone who ever wondered, that works can never lead to salvation. Salvation is attained in a different way—by grace. We can't earn it, so it has to be given to us.

Since the law of Moses cannot bring us salvation, there is no need to require the Gentiles to keep it. God gave them the Holy Spirit and showed that he accepts them without all those rituals. They are saved by grace, and the Jews are, too.

If we follow Peter's logic, we will see that Jewish believers do not have to keep the laws of Moses, either. They are saved by grace through faith, just as the Gentiles are. The old covenant is obsolete, so its laws are no longer required for anyone, and that is why Peter could live like a Gentile (Gal. 2:14). But that is getting ahead of the story. In Acts 15, the question is only whether Gentiles have to keep the laws of Moses.

### The judgment of James

After Barnabas and Paul told "about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles" (Acts 15:12), James spoke. As leader of the Jerusalem church, he had a lot of influence. Some of the Judaizers even claimed him as their authority (Gal. 2:12), but Luke tells us that James was in complete agreement with Peter and Paul.

"Listen to me. Simon [Peter] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles" (Acts 15:13-14). The fact that God has already acted was powerful evidence. James then quoted from the Greek translation of Amos to show that Scripture agreed with what was happening (vs. 15-18). He could have used other Old Testament prophecies, too, about Gentiles being included among God's people.

Experience and Scripture pointed to the same conclusion. "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God" (v. 19). There is no need to require the yoke of Moses, for that would make things unnecessarily difficult for the Gentile believers.

James then suggested four rules: "Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood" (v. 20). Instead of making things difficult for the Gentiles, these four rules would be enough.

Obviously, Gentile believers should not lie, steal and murder. They already knew that, so they did not need a special reminder about it.

Why, then, these four rules? Some scholars say the Jews believed that these laws dated back to the time of Noah, and therefore applied to all nations. Others say that all four rules were associated with idolatry. Some say that these four rules were laws of Moses, and were given so Gentiles and Jews could eat together. None of these suggestions is fully convincing. (See later for more details.)

However, the decree makes it clear that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised, nor do they have to obey the laws of Moses. They are circumcised spiritually, not physically. God never gave those commands to the Gentiles.

### Moses is preached

We should not make it difficult for the Gentiles, James said. Instead, it will be enough to give them four rules, which they will find easy to comply with. Why give them these rules? Notice the reason that James gives: "For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (v. 21).

James was not encouraging Gentile Christians to attend the synagogues. He was not saying they should listen to the laws of Moses. No, but because those laws were commonly preached, the apostles should tell the Gentiles four rules. Then they would not think that Christianity is more difficult than it is.

To summarize: Some men said that Gentiles should be circumcised and obey the laws of Moses or else they could not be saved. Not so, said the apostles. Gentiles are saved by grace and faith. God is pleased to dwell in people who aren't circumcised and who don't keep the rituals. But since Moses is widely preached, we need to give a decree that clearly distinguishes the Christian faith from the Law of Moses. This pleased the entire church, so they wrote it in a letter and sent it to Antioch, where they "were glad for its encouraging message" (v. 31).

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

## Decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15)  
Part 1: The Literary Flow of Acts 15

Michael Morrison

Acts 15 is the center of the book of Acts. In the story-flow of Acts, the Jerusalem council resolves crucial issues and enables the Gentile mission to go forward with the approval of the Jerusalem church. The council helps portray the unity of the church and helps explain the church's transformation from being essentially Jewish toward being a predominantly Gentile community freed from laws characteristic of Judaism.

The apostolic decree (15:20, 29; 21:25) summarizes the results of the council: an inspired list of requirements for Gentile converts. It shows how Gentiles fit into the people of God.

Despite the crucial role of the Acts 15 council, despite the crucial role of the council's decree, and despite numerous detailed studies, the council and decree remain controversial in several respects. I will bypass questions about the precise date of the council and differences in the Greek texts.

I will focus on literary context, literary source and purpose of the decree. My theses are: 1) The decree is given not as steps required for salvation, but in context of Gentiles _already_ being in the people of God. 2) This list was created at the council, not simply borrowed from rabbinic Noachic law lists or Levitical laws concerning aliens living in Israel. 3) I will argue that 15:21 implies that the decree was given in opposition to synagogue preaching, not in harmony with it. 4) Last, I will give evidence that the four prohibitions of the decree were idolatrous practices that Gentiles should avoid.

### Literary setting

The apostolic council was called because some Judean Christians were teaching Gentile Christians in Antioch that they had to be circumcised or else they could not be saved (15:1). However, Luke's readers already knew that uncircumcised people had been given the Holy Spirit and had been baptized (10:44-48). God had called Gentiles to repentance and salvation (11:18), but a formal policy about circumcision had not yet been made.

Many Gentiles had come into the church because of the work of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13-14, especially 14:27), and it became evident that Gentiles would become a substantial part of the church. It became necessary to clarify some theological and practical details of Gentile membership in the church. Some Pharisees had also become believers (15:5). The council was called to determine how both Pharisees and Gentiles could be part of the same community of believers.

Luke was inspired to present the story with a bias that helps his readers be favorable toward the decree. First, Luke's readers already knew that circumcision was not required. Luke is contrasting the decree with an obviously erroneous position. Luke also tells us that Phoenician and Samaritan believers expressed great joy when they learned that Gentiles were becoming believers (15:3). Paul and Barnabas were warmly welcomed by the Jerusalem church (15:4) — implying that the circumcision advocates were a minority even within the Jewish church. Both 14:27 and 15:4 remind us that the Gentile mission was being done _by God_ — implying that the opponents were opposing God.

Luke emphasizes the error of the Pharisee believers when he says that they taught that Gentile believers must be circumcised _and_ obey all the law of Moses to be saved (15:5).1 [See end of chapter for notes.] As more evidence of Luke's bias, we see that he reports arguments against circumcision, but none in favor. And he tells us that the people of Antioch reacted to the decree with joy (15:31).

### Peter's speech

There was a lengthy discussion, as there had been in Antioch, but without the discord mentioned in 15:2. Luke is moving the discussion from "sharp dispute" toward resolution.

Peter reminded the group of the precedent set by Cornelius: God is the one who chooses to have Gentiles hear and believe, and this was done first through Peter (15:7). Paul, probably a target of criticism both in Jerusalem and perhaps among Luke's readers, was not the initiator — God chose to do it. God knew the heart of the believing Gentiles and gave them the Holy Spirit (15:8). Luke says it was a witness to them — to the Gentile believers — but it now serves as a witness to the Jews, too. God did not discriminate; he treated Gentiles and Jews alike (15:9).

By means of faith, God had purified Gentile hearts, or made them ritually clean (cf. 10:15). Ritual purity was a major concern for strict Jews, especially Pharisees. After Peter's involvement with Cornelius, criticism focused not on Gentile salvation, but on Jew-Gentile fellowship, which had been forbidden as a matter of purity (11:3). In Peter's vision, too, purity was a major concern. In 15:9, Peter is saying that God had made the Gentile believers clean in the heart, where it is most important, and acceptable to him even in their uncircumcised state.

Peter criticized the circumcision advocates by asking: "Why do you try to test God?" (15:10). The Cornelius event had happened much earlier, and they all understood it (15:7), so, Peter seems to imply, the question about circumcision shouldn't have even been raised. If Gentile believers are acceptable to God, they ought to be acceptable to Jewish believers. The extremists were advocating laws that the Jewish people had never been able to carry successfully (15:10).

Though modern readers may think that "yoke" and "burden" (15:10) are derogatory terms, Peter may not be criticizing the law by his use of those words. "When a Jewish writer spoke of the Law as `the yoke of the kingdom of heaven,' he spoke of an obligation to which one gladly committed himself."2 However, Peter says that the law is not an effective means of gaining acceptance with God. The Jews, even though they struggled with the yoke, had never achieved the kingdom of God. Law-keeping cannot save. Jews are saved by grace and faith (15:11), just as Gentiles are.

The principle of salvation for those born Jews is measured by that for Gentiles, in a complete reversal of the expected order. God uses the salvation of the Gentiles to reveal to the Jewish believers the true ground of their own salvation. Peter's statement stands as a direct rebuttal to the opening attack, "Unless you are circumcised...you cannot be saved" (15:1).3

The question about salvation has already been answered: Gentiles do not need to be circumcised. They do not have to become Jewish by becoming proselytes. The assembly was silent (15:12), apparently in agreement, and they then heard about the miracles God had done in the Gentile mission through Barnabas and Paul — the only reported contribution of Paul to the public debate!

### James' speech

James then spoke. Galatians presents him as a strict conservative, but Luke tells us little about him. He is a leader of the Jerusalem church (12:17). He speaks with authority (15:19); he and the elders tell Paul what to do (21:18, 23). He is presumably accepted by the readers as authoritative. "He is the only character in Acts whose authority no one questions."4

James does not directly address the question of salvation or of circumcision, but his topic is related: the Gentiles' place in the church, the people of God. "Peter's discourse tackles the issue of the salvation of the Gentiles in fundamental terms, while the discourse of James wrestles with this problem from the perspective of the Gentiles' relationship to Israel."5

James starts with God as the initiator, saying that God is taking a people out of the Gentiles, a people for his name (15:14). Just as God was taking Jews to be his special people, he was also taking Gentiles. "The Gentiles now turning to God are God's people in the full sense that Israel is."6 And since both Gentiles and Jews are saved in the same way, the implication is that they are the same people of God. Nevertheless, Gentiles can be saved without circumcision.

In 15:15-17, James said that the prophets (the Septuagint version of Amos 9:12) agreed with what God was doing. "Luke does not have James declare that 'this thing'...agrees...with the prophets, so that the scripture text is the measure of how God can work, but the opposite: the working of God precedes the perception of the text's agreement."7

God will rebuild David's fallen tent — a reference to Christ and/or his kingdom — so the everyone else, including Gentiles who have God's name, may seek him. This quote from Amos helps "bring out more clearly the way in which the progress of the church is in accordance with the Old Testament prophecies."8

By quoting Amos, James puts the Gentile mission into a new age. As Marshall says, "God is doing something new in raising up the church; it is an event of the last days, and therefore the old rules of the Jewish religion no longer apply."9 This prophecy had been known for ages, James said (15:18), so Gentile converts should be no surprise nor cause for controversy.

Therefore, said James, I decide not to harass the Gentiles (15:19). "James characterizes the Pharisees' demands as a form of harassment of the Gentiles that he wants stopped."10 Because God is doing this, James said, we should not put obstacles in the way of the Gentiles who are turning to God.

In contrast to harassment, James decided to tell the Gentiles to abstain from four things (to be discussed in detail below). The four restrictions are presented as _minimal_ requests, as small, easy-to-comply-with requirements — perhaps things the Gentiles in Antioch were already doing. As Johnson says, "According to Luke's presentation...the prohibitions are neither new to these Gentile converts nor a burden to them. This implies that they...would have already been observing them."11 As Dunn notes in a similar setting, "Many of these Gentiles were sufficiently ready to conform to Jewish practices as to make possible regular social intercourse, including at least guest friendship and table-fellowship."12

### Moses preached in synagogues

Why these four restrictions? Because Moses is preached in every city (15:21). However, that's not the only reason for the decree. The "therefore" at the beginning of 15:19 indicates that 15:14-18 is also a reason for the decree. The logical sequence is this:

"A; therefore B, because of C."

C (15:21) is relevant because it explains how B (15:19-20) should be a consequence of A (15:14-18).

A: God is doing this work. B: Therefore we need a decree. C: Because Moses is preached in synagogues. The decree is needed not only because God is calling Gentiles but also because Moses is being preached in synagogues. The sequence implies a _contrast_ between the decree and the preaching of Moses, as has already been implied in 15:5.

The thought is this: Because God is doing this work (15:14-17), and because we do not want to hinder his work (15:19), we should therefore give Gentile converts this decree (15:20) because much stricter rules are being preached in the synagogues (15:21). Synagogue rules are too strict for Gentile Christians, but because those rules are being taught in every city, we need to write a decree to let all Gentile believers know that they don't have to keep the laws of Moses. James is advocating a contrast, not just a pared-down version of synagogue rules.

The "instead" that begins 15:20 also supports this. We do not want to harass the Gentiles, James said. Instead, we should write an easy decree, because Moses is widely preached. This implies that synagogue preaching (the laws of Moses as interpreted by Pharisees) was a harassment for Gentile Christians. The decree was needed because there was a conflict between God's work and Pharisaic teaching. The decree is needed to counteract the harassing rules of the Pharisees.

This interpretation is further supported when we analyze the audience of the synagogue preaching. Some commentators have assumed (without analysis) that James is referring to preaching that _Gentiles_ were hearing in the synagogues. But Gentiles who attended synagogues had already changed their behavior to be acceptable to Jews; they had little or no need for a decree. Moreover, Gentiles were coming into the church who did _not_ have a background in the synagogue (11:20).

There was a synagogue in Iconium (14:1), but none is mentioned for Lystra or Derbe, but there were disciples in each city, presumably from pagan backgrounds (14:8-22). James' comment in 15:21, if it referred to Gentiles who attended synagogues, would fail to address the situation the church was facing. The decree was needed even by Gentiles who did not have a background in Judaism —- even by those who lived in cities that may not have had a synagogue (16:1-4).

The thought in 15:21 seems to be that in every city there are _Jews_ who are being instructed in the laws of Moses.13 James was not encouraging Gentiles to go to the synagogues to hear Moses be preached. Throughout the book of Acts, Christ is the one who is preached. It was the Pharisees who preached the law of Moses, and the decree was given in opposition to Mosaic law, not as a supplement to it. The decree was needed because of the discrepancy between synagogue preaching and God's purpose.

### The Council's letter

The Jerusalem sent two men with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch (15:22) to testify to the truth of the decree (15:27). These men strengthened the Antioch church (15:32) and contributed to the sense of unity.

The decree was addressed only to Gentiles (15:23), since the four requirements were not designed for Jewish believers (who presumably kept a stricter code). The letter acknowledged the problem (admitting that the troublemakers had been part of the Jerusalem church), praised Barnabas and Paul, and introduced the delegates from Jerusalem (15:24-27). The decision was presented as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The four requirements were necessary, but not burdensome (15:28). The decree was not a heavy-handed demand for obedience; there was no reference to salvation and no mention of penalties for infraction. Rather, the letter ends with the mild words: "You will do well to avoid these things." Seifrid gives ample evidence for the rendering "you will prosper" or "do well."14

### Endnotes

1A few people have said that the Pharisee claim was not that Gentiles had to be circumcised _and_ to obey the law of Moses, but to be circumcised _in order to_ obey the law of Moses. The people then argue that the council rejected only circumcision and not the need to obey the law of Moses — that is, that the council merely concluded that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised in order to obey the law of Moses (as if everyone agreed that the law of Moses should be obeyed; only that the decree did not require Gentiles to be circumcised).

This interpretation would make the decree unnecessary. The Greek words do not support this translation, and I am not aware of any published translation that conveys this idea. Moreover, Acts 21:20-25 shows that Gentiles do _not_ have to obey the law of Moses. Also, John 7:22-23 shows that circumcision _is_ part of the law of Moses. Last, Gal. 5:3 shows that circumcision cannot be separated from the law as a whole; they are part of the same package. The Pharisees were claiming that Gentiles had to obey the whole package of old covenant law.

2Royce Dickinson Jr. "The Theology of the Jerusalem Conference, Acts 15:1-35." _Restoration Quarterly_ 29 (1987) 65-83, p. 70, citing an article by John Nolland.

3Luke Timothy Johnson. _The Acts of the Apostles._ Sacra Pagina Series, vol. 5. (Collegeville, Minn.: Michael Glazier/Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 263.

4Jacob Jervell. _Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts._ (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972), pp. 185-6.

5Dickinson. p. 68.

6Robert C. Tannehill. _The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation._ Volume 2: The Acts of the Apostles. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), p. 187.

7Johnson, p. 264.

8Ian Howard Marshall. _The Acts of the Apostles._ Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 253.

9Ibid.

10Johnson, p. 266.

11Johnson, p. 273.

12James D.G. Dunn. _Jesus, Paul, and the Law._ (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox, 1990), p. 150, citing Josephus, _Jewish War_ 7.3.3.

13Luke is favorable to Mosaic law — for Jews. He points out the circumcision of Jesus, for example, and the circumcision of Timothy, whose mother was Jewish (16:1-3). Luke defends Paul from the accusation that he encouraged Jews to abandon the law of Moses. But Luke has a different approach when discussing the role of Mosaic law for Gentiles.

14M.A. Seifrid. "Jesus and the Law in Acts." _Journal for the Study of the New Testament._ 30 (1987) 39-57, p. 56, note 41.

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

## Part 2: The Purpose of the Decree

### The four requirements

The decree told Gentile Christians to abstain from four things.15 Minor variations occur in order and number (15:20, 29; 21:25); these variations suggest that order and number are not significant. The four prohibitions:

1) Pollutions of idols (15:20) or things sacrificed to idols (15:29; 21:25). Wilson notes that "pollutions" could have either a religious sense or a reference to morality.16 All four prohibitions may be described as pollutions, as ritual uncleanness.17

2) Blood. This is a prohibition of eating or drinking blood.

3) Strangled things. Perhaps meat from strangled animals was forbidden because blood remained in the meat, but if that is the only reason, it would not seem necessary to mention strangled things in addition to blood. Wilson points out uncertainties in the meaning of strangled things. The verb means "strangle," but the noun may refer to a method of cooking as well as of killing.18 Either way, it is an unusual dietary restriction. Strangled meat played a role in some pagan cults, and may have been mentioned because of that.19

4) Sexual immorality ( _porneia_ ). Achtemeier notes that some scholars say it means fornication, others that it cannot mean fornication; some say it means incest; others say it cannot; some say adultery, or marriage to an idolater, or ritual prostitution.20 If the writer(s) of the decree wished to be precise, he picked the wrong term. Incest is included in the meaning of the term (1 Cor. 5:1), but other sexual aberrations were, too. The Gentile recipients of the decree would probably have understood it as major sexual misconduct or perhaps more specifically as pagan temple prostitution.

Wilson says, "The ban on _porneia_ is a standard part of Christian exhortation... [often] in connection with or in the same list as idolatry."21 Seifrid emphasizes the connection between porneia and idolatry: "Although _porneia_ has an ethical dimension, there is good reason to think that all four elements are tied together by a common thread of concern with ritual defilement."22

These four laws, of course, are not the _only_ laws that Christians need. Many other Old Testament laws have greater claim to permanent validity. Why are they not mentioned? Does the decree assume that the Gentiles know all the valid laws except these four? Why would it be necessary to list these four laws, but not others? To answer that, scholars have explored some possible literary sources of these prohibitions.

### Source of the rules: two common theories

What was this collection of restrictions based on? Luke does not tell us. Common suggestions are either rabbinic "Noachic" laws, or laws for Gentiles living in the land (Lev. 17-18). Most scholars have advocated either one or the other, but there are weaknesses with each.

A Noachic theory neatly explains the prohibition of blood (and, as a corollary, strangled meat, which contains blood), because Gen. 9:4 forbids blood. Since Noah is the ancestor of Gentiles as well as Jews, these commands could with reason be applied to Gentiles.

The rabbis listed **seven** Noachic laws: "idolatry, incest/unchastity, shedding blood, profanation of God's name, robbery, injustice, and eating the flesh of a living animal."23 Since the Talmud was written long after the apostolic decree, Sanders suggests that the Acts 15 decree is "an early version of the Noachic laws."24 This might explain the discrepancy in number — the Talmudic list is an expanded list, or the decree is a selective list. At least the Talmud shows that Jews discussed which laws applied to Gentiles who wished to obey God. Dunn notes a variety of rabbinic opinions about which laws were applicable to proselytes, Gentile Godfearers and resident aliens.25 It seems that the lists were flexible, not fixed.

However, the Noachic theory has serious shortcomings. In the rabbinic lists, blood is not directly forbidden. Strangled things are not specifically mentioned, either, and it is not clear that the prohibitions about _porneia_ or idol-meat can be traced back to Noah. Wilson, after a thorough analysis (his discussion of the decree is probably the single best treatment), summarizes the weaknesses of the Noachic theory:

#### Noachic laws are dissimilar in both number and in content.... They do not, for example, forbid the consumption of "things sacrificed to idols," although this might be subsumed under the general prohibition of idolatry, and it is the shedding rather than the consumption of blood which is banned.26

The most common theory is that of a Leviticus source. With a little creativity, Lev. 17-18 can be correlated to all four prohibitions. Lev. 17:2-9 prohibits sacrifices to any god except Yahweh; 17:10 prohibits blood; 17:13-15 might be construed as prohibiting snare-strangled game; and 18:6-26 prohibits incestuous sex, homosexuality and other sexual aberrations. What makes the Leviticus theory especially attractive is that all four prohibitions apply specifically to alien Gentiles as well as to Israelites.

But the correspondence is not exact, and Wilson lists numerous problems.27 Lev. 17 is a questionable source of a prohibition about strangled meats, and it is unlikely that Gentiles would understand the word _porneia,_ by itself, to include the Leviticus incest tabus. As Seifrid says, "It is hard to see how Luke intended the readers of the Decree in the narrative, Gentile believers, to discern a narrow Jewish sense."28

Scholars often mention incest, because Lev. 18 includes it in great detail, but it is unlikely that the decree had that as its main meaning. Wilson notes, "The common meaning of _porneia_ — fornication, licentiousness, harlotry — is far broader than the notion of consanguineous [incestuous] marriages."29 Nor would Jews assume that the sexual behavior of Gentiles was acceptable except for their definition of incest. It seems best to understand _porneia_ in a broad sense; the discussion of incest in Lev. 18 is a coincidence rather than the primary sexual guideline needed by Gentile Christians.

Another problem with the Leviticus theory is that Luke does not indicate that the decree has a biblical origin. Wilson notes: "Luke presents the decree as apostolic rather than Mosaic in origin...and we might suppose that, with his penchant for quoting the Old Testament to prove a point, he would have referred clearly to Lev. 17-18 [or Gen. 9] if that was the connection he had wished to make."30

Another objection is that other Mosaic laws applying to aliens living in Israel were **not** included in the decree. The alien ( _ger_ in Hebrew, _proselytos_ in the Septuagint31) was also required to keep the Sabbath (Ex. 23:12; Deut. 5:14), to keep the annual festivals (Lev. 16:29; Deut. 16:11, 14)), to be cleansed by the ashes of a red heifer (Num. 19:10), to give sacrifices (Num. 15:27-29), and to be circumcised if he wanted to observe the Passover (Ex. 12:48-49).32 Is there any logic for including some alien laws but not others? None is given.

The mention of strangled meat is especially puzzling, for either theory. Is avoiding strangled things just as important as avoiding sexual immorality? Neither the Old Testament nor the New gives strangled things that much importance. The old covenant penalty for eating blood was being "cut off" (Lev. 17:14), but the penalty for eating meat that might have blood in it was only ritual uncleanness (Lev. 15:15). Moreover, Deut. 14:21 _allows_ Gentiles to eat animals that die without proper slaughter. So even by Old Testament standards, "strangled things" doesn't seem to be a very important prohibition. The New Testament contains many prohibitions, but "strangled things" is not repeated anywhere else in the New Testament. Neither theory explains why it is in the decree.

Another weakness of both Noachic and Leviticus theories is that, if the list were based on the law of Moses, it would imply that the law of Moses was still in force — four laws for Gentiles, and 613 laws for Jews. This would perpetuate Jew-Gentile distinctions in contradiction to Peter's statement in 15:9-11 and Paul's in Eph. 2:11-18. It does not make sense to see the council's decree as based on the law of Moses.

Both Noachic and Levitical theories have serious inadequacies. The variety of rabbinic opinions — long after the date of Acts — about which laws applied to Gentiles33 suggests that there was **no** list of undisputed authority, whether Noachic or Levitical, that the apostles could have quoted from. More likely, the decree was created specifically for the early Christian church. The four prohibitions do not need to have a common source; one may have come from Gen. 9 or Lev. 17, another from a different scriptural passage; yet another from a cultural custom, etc.

### Purpose of the decree

Many commentators have concluded that the decree was designed to make it possible for Jewish and Gentile Christians to fellowship together without requiring the Jewish Christians to compromise their purity customs. Indeed, there is almost a consensus that the decree required Gentiles to conform to the most important sensitivities of Jewish Christians. This view is held by Longenecker, Neyrey, Seifrid, Tannehill, and others.34

Some commentators specify that the issue is **table** -fellowship: eating together. It is true that table-fellowship was an important part of social acceptance, and it is true that three parts of the decree may involve dietary restrictions, but Luke says nothing in this chapter (unlike 11:3) about table-fellowship. Sanders35 correctly notes three problems with the table-fellowship theory:

1) "The four prohibitions in the decree hardly cover the laws of _kashrut:_ one need think only of pork, shellfish, and meat with milk." It is unlikely that Gentiles would know all the Jewish table-fellowship rules except for the four mentioned in the decree. Nor does it seem likely that these four are the most important rules. If Gentiles kept the decree, they could still be unclean by Pharisee standards (even pious, God-fearing Cornelius was controversial).

2) "The [Jewish] dietary laws do not, in fact, prevent Gentiles and Jews having a common meal — if the Jews do the cooking." If table-fellowship had been the problem, it could have been solved without a decree. Common sense would have told the Gentiles that fellowship could proceed if they followed Pharisee rules.

3) "The Apostolic Council is not convened to deal with the issue of dining together." The council was about salvation; Acts 11:3 had already addressed the matter of eating together.

4) There is a fourth problem with the fellowship theory: There is no decree to Pharisee Christians that **they** must accept decree-observant Gentiles as clean for fellowship. A decree only to Gentiles (whether in the original setting or in Luke's readership) is an inadequate basis for fellowship because the Gentiles were given fewer rules than the Pharisees wanted them to have. Also, for this theory, it is odd that _porneia_ would be mentioned but other sins not mentioned.

### Other suggestions

Because the more common theories about purpose are not entirely convincing, other suggestions are worth examining in greater detail. Some have suggested that the decree simply prohibited customs associated with pagan cults.36 This view answers some questions and may be the least unsatisfactory explanation.

All four prohibited things had some connection with pagan customs. Pollutions of idols has an obvious connection with paganism. _Porneia_ can, too, since it can refer to cultic prostitution, or it may be a metaphor for religious disloyalty.37 Blood could also have connections with pagan religion:

#### That _haima_ [blood] refers to the bloody rites of pagan sacrifices, one of their most prominent features, is certainly feasible.... It was also the custom in some cults to drink the blood of the victim.... It is not difficult, therefore, to see how blood could have been associated in a variety of ways with pagan cults, especially if that association had already been established by other terms of the decree [such as beginning the list with "pollutions of idols"].38

What about strangled things? Origen wrote that blood, including that in strangled meat, was said to be the food of demons: "If we were to eat strangled animals, we might have such spirits feeding along with us."39 Scythians and Indians were known to strangle their animals, but most Greek cults bled the sacrifices, so the "strangled things" prohibition doesn't fit perfectly. But strangling was a pagan custom in Alexandria, and old Macedonian cults killed without bleeding the animals.40 The word was also used for some unusual (pagan?) cooking method.41 Since Antioch in Syria included many ethnic groups from the east, it is possible that strangulation was a cultic custom there.42 Would Gentile Christians be tempted to continue or resume such pagan practices? Apparently they were in Corinth; it is plausible that a decree to this effect would be needed. This is possible, but not proven. Perhaps it seems unlikely.

Unfortunately, the word for "strangled things" is so rare that almost any meaning is "unlikely" and "difficult." But in the Acts 15 decree, it is not any more difficult to interpret it as referring to paganism than it is to interpret it in terms of Jewish sensitivities. Since the decree already forbad blood, there would be no need to mention "strangled things" unless they were wrong for additional reasons. At least the pagan-cultic theory of the decree's purpose gives a possible explanation for mentioning strangled things in addition to blood.

However, it may be misleading to expect all four prohibitions to be of the same category. Old Testament laws mixed ritual and moral laws; Jewish vice lists also did, and other Christian lists did, too. The first three items may have been prohibited for cultic associations, and _porneia_ for moral reasons; all were considered equally polluting and ungodly. Since idolatry and sexual immorality were considered chief sins of Gentiles, it would be reasonable to address both problems in an early decree.

### Conclusion

The best explanation of the decree, if a single explanation must be sought, is that it forbids Gentile Christians to participate in four things associated with pagan cults. This conclusion is supported in part by the failure of other theories to explain the decree, and it harmonizes with these facts:

##### • Gentiles without synagogue background were coming into the church — a situation significantly different than that faced in Acts 10. Their single greatest instructional need would be to avoid paganism or syncretism.

##### • The decree lists four things demonstrably associated with pagan cults as well as with Jewish sensitivities. The words have other associations, too, but pagan cultic associations are a viable option.

##### • The decree is presented as easy to comply with, not a burden, something the Gentiles may have already been in compliance with.

##### • James says the decree is needed because he did not want to hinder Gentile conversions, but he implied that synagogue preaching would. The decree is much less than synagogues taught and much less than Pharisee Christians would observe.

##### • The decree is given in answer to people who taught that Gentiles had to keep the law of Moses. This implies that the decree is not based on the law of Moses. It does not perpetuate ritualistic laws for either Jews or Gentiles.

##### • This theory explains why all Gentiles needed to comply with the decree, whether they lived near Jews or not, and why there was no decree for Jewish Christians.

### Endnotes

15In some Western Greek manuscripts, the decree contains only three ethical admonitions: Avoid idolatry, blood (in the sense of bloodshed) and sexual immorality. This fits in with "the rabbinic tradition which considers the three primary sins of the Gentiles to be precisely idolatry, shedding of blood and immorality" (Stephen G. Wilson. _Luke and the Law._ [Cambridge: University Press, 1983], p. 80). However, Wilson also observes that "the Western version consists of such widely accepted ethical norms that a decree to this effect would be superfluous" (Stephen G. Wilson. _The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts._ [Cambridge: University Press, 1973], p. 188).

All major English translations, including the King James and the NIV, use a Greek text with four prohibitions. The textual questions are discussed in detail in Bruce Metzger. _A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament._ (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), pp. 429-433.

16Wilson, _Luke,_ p. 82.

17Seifrid, p. 48

18Wilson, _Luke,_ pp. 88-91.

19Hans Bietenhard. " _Pnigo, apopnigo, sympnigo, pniktos._ " _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament._ Ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), vol. 6, pp. 455-8, citing Philo).

20Paul J. Achtemeier. _The Quest for Unity in the New Testament Church: A Study in Paul and Acts._ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), p. 84.

21Wilson, _Luke,_ p. 93.

22Seifrid, p. 48.

23Wilson, _Luke,_ p. 86, citing _Sanhedrin_ 56b and _Sibylline Oracles_ 4:28-29. Dunn (p. 144) cites _Aboda Zara_ 64b and _Sanhedrin_ 56a. Maxwell cites _Midrash Genesis Rabbah_ 16:6 (Soncino ed., p. 131), _Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah_ 1:2(5) (Soncino ed.. pp. 26-7), and _Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah_ 1:21 (Soncino ed., pp. 23-4) (C. Mervyn Maxwell and P. Gerard Damsteegt, eds., _Source Book for the History of Sabbath and Sunday._ [Berrien Springs, Mich.: Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1992], pp. 74-75).

24Jack T. Sanders. _The Jews in Luke-Acts._ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp. 121-2.

25Dunn, pp. 142-147.

26Wilson, _Luke,_ p. 74.

27Wilson, _Luke,_ pp. 84-94.

28Seifrid, p. 48.

29Wilson, _Luke,_ p. 88.

30Wilson, _Luke,_ p. 85.

31The Septuagint version of Lev. 17-18 has the restrictions apply to the _proselytos._ But a major conclusion of the Acts 15 council was that Gentiles did not have to become proselytes, so it would be confusing for the decree to quote, without clarification, _proselytos_ laws.

32If the council were discussing alien laws and chose only four, the Sabbath and annual festivals were specifically excluded — not required for Gentiles. We might be tempted to argue this, but it does not seem exegetically sound, since the decree probably was not based on the alien laws. Rather, the council concluded that Gentiles did not have to look to the law of Moses for a description of Christian conduct.

33Dunn, pp. 142-7.

34Richard N. Longenecker. "The Acts of the Apostles." _The Expositor's Bible Commentary._ Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), p. 448; Jerome H. Neyrey. "Ceremonies in Luke-Acts: The Case of Meals and Table-Fellowship." _The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation._ Ed. Jerome H. Neyrey. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 380-382.; Seifrid, p. 47; and Tannehill, p. 191.

35Sanders, p. 120.

36Wilson, although not dogmatic, seems to favor this cultic theory ( _Luke,_ pp. 94-99, citing Lake and Kümmel as scholars who also supported this view).

37Lake points out "a serious difficulty" in understanding _porneia_ as a reference to cultic prostitution: "none of the early Christian writers interpreted the decree in this way" (Kirsopp Lake, "The Apostolic Council of Jerusalem," _The Beginnings of Christianity_ [ed. Frederick J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. Part I, _The Acts of the Apostles,_ vol. 5.; London: MacMillan, 1933], pp. 195-212; quote from p. 207).

38Wilson, _Luke,_ pp. 97-8.

39Ibid., pp. 96-7, citing _Contra Celsum_ 8.30.

40Bietenhard, pp. 457-8.

41Wilson, _Luke,_ pp. 89-91.

42Christians in the West would be less likely to know that strangled things were associated with pagan customs. Perhaps this explains why the word was omitted in the Western text.

••This study was done in 1992, and many studies have been published on the decree since then. I don't have time to update the study, but I publish it here as a resource for future studies.

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

## About the Authors

**Paul Kroll** worked for Grace Communion International for many years, writing hundreds of articles for our magazines. He is now retired. He wrote the first half of this e-book, the commentary on Acts 12-15, in the mid 1990s. We updated it with the latest version of the NIV for this e-book in 2012.

Michael Morrison received a PhD from Fuller Theological Seminary in 2006 and is Dean of Faculty and Instructor in New Testament for Grace Communion Seminary. He and his wife live in La Verne, California; their two children are adults. He is also associate pastor of Grace Life, in Glendora, CA. He is the author of numerous books, including:

Who Needs a New Covenant? The Rhetorical Function of the Covenant Motif in the Argument of Hebrews (print only)

Sabbath, Circumcision and Tithing: Which Old Testament Laws Apply to Christians?

E-books:

The Bible: A Guided Tour (co-author)

Discipleship 101: Basic Christian Teachings

Evangelism Without Guilt

Exploring the Word of God: Studies in Matthew

Exploring the Word of God: Studies in Luke

Exploring the Word of God: Acts of the Apostles (co-author of volumes 1 & 4)

Exploring the Word of God: Reading Through Romans

Exploring the Word of God: The Corinthian Letters

Exploring the Word of God: Reading Through Galatians

Exploring the Word of God: Reading Through Philippians

Exploring the Word of God: Reading Through Colossians and Philemon

Exploring the Word of God: Reading Through 1 & 2 Thessalonians

Inspiration, Authority, and Reliability of Scripture

The Proverbs 31 Woman and Other Biblical Women (co-author)

The Purpose for Human Life: Learning to Be Like Jesus Christ

Using Microsoft Word for Academic Papers

What Does the Bible Say About Prophecy and the Millennium?

What Does the Bible Say About Speaking in Tongues?

What Does the Bible Say About the Kingdom of God?

What Does the Bible Say About the Old and New Covenants?

What Does the Bible Say About the Sabbath?

What Does the Bible Say About Women in Church Leadership?

For this publication, Dr. Morrison wrote the short chapter on Acts 15 and the detailed study of the Decree. He edited the entire e-book in 2012.

### Speaking of Life...

Dr. Joseph Tkach, president of Grace Communion International, comments in a video blog each week, giving a biblical perspective on how we live in the light of God's love. Most programs are about three minutes long – available in video, audio, and text. Go to www.speakingoflife.org.

### You're Included...

Dr. J. Michael Feazell talks to leading Trinitarian theologians about the good news that God loves you, wants you, and includes you in Jesus Christ. Most programs are about 28 minutes long. Our guests have included:

Ray Anderson, Fuller Theological Seminary

Douglas A. Campbell, Duke Divinity School

Elmer Colyer, U. of Dubuque Theological Seminary

Gordon Fee, Regent College

Trevor Hart, University of St. Andrews

George Hunsinger, Princeton Theological Seminary

C. Baxter Kruger, Perichoresis

Jeff McSwain, Reality Ministries

Paul Louis Metzger, Multnomah University

Paul Molnar, St. John's University

Cherith Fee Nordling, Antioch Leadership Network

Andrew Root, Luther Seminary

Alan Torrance, University of St. Andrews

Robert T. Walker, Edinburgh University

N.T. Wright, University of St. Andrews

William P. Young, author of _The Shack_

Programs are available free for viewing and downloading at www.youreincluded.org.

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

## About the Publisher...

Grace Communion International is a Christian denomination with about 50,000 members, worshiping in about 900 congregations in almost 100 nations and territories. We began in 1934 and our main office is in North Carolina. In the United States, we are members of the National Association of Evangelicals and similar organizations in other nations. We welcome you to visit our website at www.gci.org.

If you want to know more about the gospel of Jesus Christ, we offer help. First, we offer weekly worship services in hundreds of congregations worldwide. Perhaps you'd like to visit us. A typical worship service includes songs of praise, a message based on the Bible, and opportunity to meet people who have found Jesus Christ to be the answer to their spiritual quest. We try to be friendly, but without putting you on the spot. We do not expect visitors to give offerings—there's no obligation. You are a guest.

To find a congregation, write to one of our offices, phone us or visit our website. If we do not have a congregation near you, we encourage you to find another Christian church that teaches the gospel of grace.

We also offer personal counsel. If you have questions about the Bible, salvation or Christian living, we are happy to talk. If you want to discuss faith, baptism or other matters, a pastor near you can discuss these on the phone or set up an appointment for a longer discussion. We are convinced that Jesus offers what people need most, and we are happy to share the good news of what he has done for all humanity. We like to help people find new life in Christ, and to grow in that life. Come and see why we believe it's the best news there could be!

Our work is funded by members of the church who donate part of their income to support the gospel. Jesus told his disciples to share the good news, and that is what we strive to do in our literature, in our worship services, and in our day-to-day lives.

If this e-book has helped you and you want to pay some expenses, all donations are gratefully welcomed, and in several nations, are tax-deductible. If you can't afford to give anything, don't worry about it. It is our gift to you. To make a donation online, go to www.gci.org/participate/donate.

Thank you for letting us share what we value most—Jesus Christ. The good news is too good to keep it to ourselves.

###### See our website for hundreds of articles, locations of our churches,  
addresses in various nations, audio and video messages, and much more.

###### www.gci.org

######

###### Grace Communion International

###### 3120 Whitehall Park Drive

###### Charlotte, NC 28273

###### 800-423-4444

######

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

##

### Grace Communion Seminary

Ministry based on the life and love of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

Grace Communion Seminary serves the needs of people engaged in Christian service who want to grow deeper in relationship with our Triune God and to be able to more effectively serve in the church.

### Why study at Grace Communion Seminary?

##### • Worship: to love God with all your mind.

##### • Service: to help others apply truth to life.

##### • Practical: a balanced range of useful topics for ministry.

##### • Trinitarian theology: a survey of theology with the merits of a Trinitarian perspective. We begin with the question, "Who is God?" Then, "Who are we in relationship to God?" In this context, "How then do we serve?"

##### • Part-time study: designed to help people who are already serving in local congregations. There is no need to leave your current ministry. Full-time students are also welcome.

##### • Flexibility: your choice of master's level continuing education courses or pursuit of a degree: Master of Pastoral Studies or Master of Theological Studies.

##### • Affordable, accredited study: Everything can be done online.

For more information, go to www.gcs.edu. Grace Communion Seminary is accredited by the Distance Education Accrediting Commission, www.deac.org. The Accrediting Commission is listed by the U.S. Department of Education as a nationally recognized accrediting agency.

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents
