Language Studies

Difficult Sayings

The Apostolic Decree - Commandments for Gentiles?
Acts 15:20,29; 21:25, by David Bivin

"Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:19-20, NKJV)

Christians often have distanced themselves so far from their Jewish roots and heritage that they have forgotten that they, too, are obligated by commandments. On the question of whether there was such an obligation, leaders of the nascent church ruled that followers of Jesus of non-Jewish parentage were obligated to keep a few, universal commandments. Unlike the Jewish disciples of Jesus, Gentiles were not obligated to be circumcised (although apparently they were asked to undergo proselyte immersion) or to undertake the obligations of the Sinai Covenant.

How many biblical commandments were Gentile followers of Jesus commanded to keep by the Jerusalem-residing leaders of the community? The obligatory commandments are listed in Acts 15:20, 29 and 21:25, but because of manuscript variants it is not clear whether Gentiles were enjoined to keep two, three, four or five commandments.

In the early forties of the first century A.D., the "apostles and elders" (Acts 15:6) of Jesus' community, who included Shim'on Petros (Simon Peter) and Jesus' brother Ya'akov (James), gathered in Jerusalem to discuss what they should do with the increasing number of non-Jewish followers of Jesus. These leaders were not indecisive. They ruled, contrary to the opinion of "those who were zealous for the Torah," such as James, that Gentiles would be required to observe only a few central commandments.

Agreeing with Peter's recommendation (Acts 15:7-11), the assembly decided to "loose" (that is, absolve) the Gentiles from the obligation of undergoing circumcision and from the observance of the biblical commandments (mitzvoth) prescribed in the Torah of Moses (see Acts 15:1,5). However, in accordance with James' recommendation (Acts 15:13-21), the assembled leaders decided to "bind" (that is, "prohibit"): the Jerusalem council obligated converts to this new sect of Judaism to observe three basic, universal and overriding commandments (Acts 15:29; 21:25) that within Judaism later developed into seven commandments known as the "Commandments of Noah" or the "Noachite/Noachide Commandments." See my "'Binding' and 'Loosing'".

According to Acts 15:19-20, "those of the Gentiles who are turning to God in repentance" were commanded to abstain from (1) "pollutions of idols," (2) "sexual immorality," (3) "things strangled," and (4) "blood." With slight variations the list of prohibitions is repeated in Acts 15:29 and 21:25. Manuscripts of the Books of Acts are split between a list of three prohibitions (omitting either "strangled" or "immorality") and a list of four. This situation seems to indicate that there was uncertainty among ancient editors and copyists about the original reading. For a discussion of the textual variants found in the manuscripts of these three list (Acts 15:20; 29:21-25), and the commentators who have argued for four, three (and even two) original prohibitions, see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1975), pp.429-34.

Metzger suggests that the original prohibitions—ritual, not moral—are the four found in the Alexandrian textual tradition: "against eating food offered to idols, things strangled and blood, and against porneia (however this latter is to be interpreted)." He argues that this fourfold ritual decree, or food law, was later altered in the Western textual tradition into a threefold moral law, "to refrain from idolatry, unchasity and blood-shedding (or murder), to which is added the negative [form] of the Golden Rule" by dropping the reference to "strangled" and by adding the negative Golden Rule (pp.431-32).

However, David Flusser ("The Jewish-Christian Schism, Part I," Immanuel 16 [Summer 1983], p.45), and, before him, Gedalyahu Alon (Studies in the Jewish History of the Second Commonwealth and the Mishnaic-Talmudic Period [Tel Aviv, 1957-58]; 1:278 [Hebrew] ), contended that the Western text represents the original. Later, Flusser and Shmuel Safrai published a substantial article detailing the basis of Alon and Flusser's claim: "Das Aposteldekret und die Noachitischen Gebote, in E. Brocke and H.-J. Borkenings, eds., Wer Tora mehrt, mehrt Leben: Festgabe fur Heinz Kremers (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1986), pp.176-92.

Metzger could be right that the Western text is a correction of the earlier fourfold Alexandrian textual tradition; however, evidence from early Jewish and Christian sources leads to the conclusion that it was the threefold decree that the Jerusalem elders originally communicated to the Gentiles in Antioch. Behind the variant textual traditions (three and four prohibitions) probably stands the famous rabbinic threesome, the earliest form of the Noachite Commandments, which later in history developed into seven commandments. The Hebrew terms for the three are: avodah zarah (idolatry; literally, "foreign worship"); gilui arayot (forbidden marriages [including adultery] and sexual relationships; literally, "uncovering of nakedness"); and shefichut damim (murder; literally, "shedding of bloods"). Each of these prohibitions encompasses a number of biblical commands: avodah zarah includes the prohibitions found in Exodus 20:4-5; 23:13; Leviticus 19:4; and Deuteronomy 16:21-22; gilui arayot includes the sexual relationships enumerated in Leviticus 18:6-18; shefichut damim includes the prohibitions recorded in Exodus 20:13; Leviticus 19:16; Numbers 35:12,28,31,32; Deuteronomy 5:17; 19:2; 21:4.

The term, shefichut damim (shedding of bloods), containing an idiomatic reference to "bloods," could have caused "blood" to enter the list of prohibitions. Later Greek editors and copyists may have wrongly assumed that the text referred to the biblical prohibition against eating meat from which the blood had not been properly drained. In turn, the reference to "blood" may have drawn "things strangled" into the list, essentially, the same prohibition against eating the meat of animals that had not been correctly slaughtered, in this case, an animal that had been put to death by strangulation rather than by the slitting of the throat. Once "blood" and "things strangled" were attached to the list, then "(the pollutions of) idolatry" was misunderstood and replaced by Greek scribes with "[meat] sacrificed to idols." In this fashion, three central moral prohibitions became misunderstood as food laws.

The threesome, "idolatry, immorality, and murder," occurs frequently in rabbinic sources. This triplet also can be found in early Christian sources (e.g., Didache 3:1-6). The three represent the essentials of the biblical commandments, God's most basic demands of humankind. In Jewish thought of Jesus' time not only are idolatry, murder and immorality the classic characteristics of Gentiles (Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 2:1), but Israel's sages sometimes accused the nation of these same central sins. Failure to keep the three, it was said, caused the exile (Mishnah, Avot 5:9).

The universal commandments that the leaders of the nascent church enjoined upon its Gentile converts were the same commandments that the nation as a whole expected righteous Gentiles, or God-fearers, to keep. This explains why James (and the other zealous members of the early church, that is, members with Pharisaic leanings) suggested that these minimal commands be "bound" upon Gentiles who came to faith in Jesus. The Jerusalem council did not innovate, but rather ruled in accordance with usual Jewish expectations of Gentiles.

Apparently, the Apostolic Council's ruling was that non-Jewish converts were required to observe only three commandments: abstinence from idolatry, sexual immorality and murder, in Jewish eyes the absolute minimal observance of the Torah. Since Jews expected righteous Gentiles to observe these prohibitions, it was only natural that the first followers of Jesus, a new Jewish sect, should have prohibited these sins to converts of non-Jewish origin. James and others of the party he represented must have reasoned as did other Jews of the period: obviously, since these converts were born in a grossly sinful, pagan environment, they should not be obligated to keep the numerous commandments of the Written and Oral Torah. Such observance would be more than could be reasonably expected. If only Gentiles would stop worshiping false gods, committing murder and engaging in sexual immorality, that would be sufficient!

Copyright Statement
'Difficult Sayings' Copyright 2024© KJ Went. 'Difficult Sayings' articles may be reproduced in whole under the following provisions: 1) A proper credit must be given to the author at the end of each article, along with a link to https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/difficult-sayings.html  2) 'Difficult Sayings' content may not be arranged or "mirrored" as a competitive online service.