Last week we began exploring Acts 15, the most important chapter of the New Testament outside of the Gospels. We outlined the social issues within the chapter surrounding Jews and non-Jews. Our attention today turns to the decree itself and its meaning.
Before we can understand what the decree meant, we need to establish the original version of the decree. Two versions of the decree exist within the manuscript traditions of Acts 15:28-29: the Western text tradition and the Eastern text tradition.
“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell” (Acts 15:28-29; Eastern text tradition; emphasis added).
“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from fornication, and whatever you do not want others to do to you, you should not do to others” (Acts 15:28-29; Western text tradition; emphasis added).
“Blood” does not refer to a dietary restriction, but rather offers a shorthand for the phrase “the spilling of blood,” i.e., murder. The Western text tradition also attaches to the decree the negative form of the Golden Rule (Acts 15:20, 29). The mention of “strangled meat” found in most of the manuscripts of Acts does not appear in the Western text tradition, and most likely did not appear in the original decree. “Strangled meat” refers to meat from animals not slaughtered by pouring out their blood, in conformity with biblical and Jewish practice. The addition of “strangled meat” in the Eastern text tradition of Acts does not represent a scribal error or addition in the manuscripts; rather, it represents the severity in food laws of the Eastern Churches, which avoided eating blood. Eastern Christians attached importance to dietary laws, as can be seen in the writings of the Eastern Church Fathers. So too, this may explain, in part, why some Eastern Christians accepted Islam with its similar dietary laws. It seems likely that the addition of “strangled meat” to the Apostolic Decree happened among certain Christian communities shortly after the Jerusalem council, within the first century. The addition, however, of “strangled meat” transform the edict from a moral credo into a ritual prescription. This suggests a later stage in the development of the tradition.
These stipulations were much stricter than the normal synagogue response to non-Jewish God-fearers.
The three stipulations found in the Western text tradition—avoiding meat sacrificed to idols (v. 20 mentions the “pollution of idols), sexual immorality, and murder—preserve the moral essence of Judaism, and likely represent the original list.
Scholars have noted the similarity of the Apostolic decree and the list of the three prohibited sins of Judaism. These were articulated by a rabbinic synod held in Lydda, modern Lod, in AD 120. The Sages gathered in the upper chambers of the house of Nitza and determined:
“Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Yehozadak: By a majority vote, it was resolved in the upper chambers of the house of Nitzah in Lydda that in every [other] law oof the Torah, if a man is commanded: “Transgress and you will not suffer death,” he may transgress and not suffer death, except idolatry, sexual immorality, and bloodshed” (murder; b. Sanhedrin 74a; see also y. Shevuot 4:2, 35a).
Jews cannot commit these three sins—idolatry, sexual immorality, and murder— under any circumstances. They offer an ethical foundation of the essence of Judaism.
Ancient Judaism summarized the essence of one’s religion in formulations, which could be called a credo, a confession of faith, a statement of principles. These were not dogmatic statements about the contents of faith. The central dogma of Judaism appears in Deuteronomy 6:4-9 (which formed the center of Paul’s theology). These statements of principles articulated the essence of the Jewish ethic, which manifested itself in the performance of individual commandments. The universal nature of Jewish morality often attracted non-Jews to Judaism in the ancient world, whether as God-fearers or even converts. The humanism expressed by Hillel, his followers, and other Jewish groups articulated universal ethics and wisdom, which non-Jews found attractive.
Many held, within ancient Judaism, the Ten Commandments provided the clearest expression of the religion of Israel, with preference often given to the second half of the Decalogue. Because the second half of the Ten Commandments pertain to relations between people, many saw Leviticus 19:18, “And you will love your neighbor who is like yourself,” as a summary of the second half of these commandments (see Jubilees 20:2; 36:4-11; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Leviticus 19:18; b. Shabbat 31a; Avot de-Rabbi Nathan version B, 26; Sifra Kedoshim 45; Didache 1:1-2).
The central dogma of Judaism appears in Deuteronomy 6:4-9.
The Western text of the Apostolic decree belongs to these moral formulations within Judaism. It provided a moral ethic and summary of the essence of Judaism. Two of the three sins mentioned, bloodshed and fornication, appear in the second half of the Ten Commandments. The sin of idolatry is mentioned in the first half of the Decalogue. The Golden Rule fits within the genre of a moral summation of Judaism tied to the Ten Commandments and was seen as a summary of Leviticus 19:18.
The Old Testament-Hebrew Bible often connects idolatry and sexual immorality. One sees this in Numbers 25 where the Moabite women lead the Israelites astray into idolatry by use of sexual incitement. The prophets often compared Israel’s going after other deities to playing the harlot. This connection continued within the thought of ancient Judaism. Idolatry was often seen as the source of the moral depravity of the nations of the world.
The Greek word, porneia (πορνεία), usually translated as “sexual immorality” or “fornication,” would be better translated as “prohibited sexual relations.” The Greek term is rather vague and, in this way, parallels the Hebrew term, zenut (זנות), which means “unchastity, fornication.” The biblical prophets often used the Hebrew term, zenut, to describe Israel’s idolatry, illustrating the pairing of these two concepts within the biblical worldview (Numbers 14:33; Jeremiah 3:2, 9; 13:27; Ezekiel 23:27; 43:7, 10; see also 1QS 4:10; CD 4:17, 20). Rabbinic Hebrew used the term (giluy) arayot (גלוי עריות), which literally means “to uncover nakedness.” The term developed within post-biblical Hebrew from its use in Leviticus 18 and 20; it meant intercourse with close relatives, adultery, same sex intercourse, and bestiality. The prohibition of certain types of sexual relationships were considered fundamental and extended to both Jews and non-Jews within ancient Judaism; these were universally banned and included among the “Laws of the sons of Noah” (b. Sanhedrin57b-58a). The rabbinic prohibition against “prohibited sexual unions” meant that even an attempt to ascribe such actions as consensual and motivated by love did not legitimate such acts (see Testament of Simeon 5:3; Testament of Reuben 5:4-9).
The Western text of the Apostolic decree belongs to these moral formulations within Judaism. It provided a moral ethic and summary of the essence of Judaism.
The three sins outlined by the synod of Lod identify the three sins Jews cannot commit under any circumstances. They also formed the three central prohibitions identified as the Noahide commandments; these were prohibitions that Judaism saw as incumbent upon non-Jews if they wanted to obey the God of Israel. In later traditions, the three prohibitions were expanded to as many as seven, but these three, idolatry, sexual immorality, and murder, formed the original three. They provide a commonality for non-Jews, who wanted to participate in the salvation of Israel, in which they were equally obligated to adhere to the avoidance of these three sins. This offered a basis for which Jews and non-Jews could associate in community. Avoidance of idols and idolatry was axiomatic within Judaism, for Jews. At the same time, non-Jews who wanted to be included in Israel’s redemption had to reject idolatry as well: “Whoever professes idolatry denies the Ten Commandments, the commandments of Moses and those of the prophets…Whoever denies idolatry, professes all of the Torah” (Sifre Numbers 111; Sifre Deuteronomy 54).
For the followers of Jesus in Acts 15, rejection of idolatry for non-Jews was obvious. Gentiles could not worship idols or participate in idolatry and have any part in Jesus’ community or hope of redemption. The rejection of idolatry was obvious for the apostles. Acts 15:20 and 29 do not specify idolatry; rather, Acts 15:20 mentions the pollution of idols. Rabbinic Judaism viewed idols as transmitting impurity and pollution, like a woman during her menstrual period. The prohibition of food offered to idols in Acts 15:29, reflects contemporary Jewish questions and debates about Gentile meat, which typically had connection to idol cults. This issue was not as obvious for non-Jews. This issue continued to pose problems for the non-Jewish followers of Jesus, as attested by Paul and John in Revelation addressing it. These prohibitions struck at the cultural heart of the non-Jewish world. They represent a conservative Jewish reality, one supported by Paul. The Apostolic decree was both thoroughly Jewish, as well as confronting the heart of non-Jewish society. It called the non-Jews who sought entry into Jesus’ movement to adhere to a Jewish morality.
The Apostolic decree was both thoroughly Jewish, as well as confronting the heart of non-Jewish society. It called the non-Jews who sought entry into Jesus’ movement to adhere to a Jewish morality.
These stipulations were much stricter than the normal synagogue response to non-Jewish God-fearers. The Jewish community allowed God-fearers to reside on the fringe of the synagogue and participate in the civic and cultic worship of the gods, eating the food sacrificed to the idols. The Acts 15 decree demanded non-Jews forsake these polytheistic behaviors and live Jewishly, without becoming Jews. If non-Jews wanted to have a share in God’s redemption of Israel, to participate within the Jewish community and its redemptive promises, then they had to adhere to these prohibitions.
At the heart of the proclamation of Jesus’ movement was the conviction that God was fulfilling his redemptive promises to Israel’s fathers through Jesus. We will conclude our look at Acts 15 next week addressing the connection between the Apostolic decree and the redemption of Israel.