Newman Theological College

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

A Narrative-Critical Exegesis
of the Jerusalem Conference and Apostolic Decree
in the Acts of the Apostles 15:1-35

by M. G. Hysell, M.A., M.Th. (Cand.)

BST-822: Luke-Acts
Prof Dr Adrian Leske

28 July 2008
Revised 4 March 2009

1
 Introduction

The fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles1 represents the turning-point of the Church in the

Apostolic Era, one that will feature prominently in the theology of St Paul of Tarsus.2 In fact, it is only

after this turning-point (chapters 16-28) that St Paul emerges as the prominent character, if not the main

character, in the epic. Despite the plural “Apostles” in the inscriptio, it can really be said that the

Evangelist’s second volume is really about Sts Peter and Paul, with the latter taking front stage in the first

fifteen chapters. On the other hand, it might be equally valid to call this document the “Acts of the Holy

Spirit,” since it is the activity of the “promise of the Father” (Acts 1:4b) that guides the history recorded

therein. The role of the Holy Spirit—even more than Peter and Paul—may be better understood as the

main character of the macro-narrative. The Holy Spirit thus becomes the raison d’être for not imposing

the Torah upon Gentile Christians and, more to the point made by the Evangelist, for the Gentile mission.

Effectively, it is the Holy Spirit that succeeds the Torah as the standard of righteousness before God.

In the essay that follows, the fifteenth chapter of Acts, usually identified as the story of the

‘Jerusalem Conference’ or ‘Apostolic Council’3, will be interpreted through the lens of narrative

criticism.4 This exegetical project has been divided into six sections: (1) first approach, with a survey of

the text itself; (2) closure of the text, marking the boundaries of the micro-narrative within the Lukan

corpus; (3) plot, an outline of the story’s quinary scheme; (4) characters, listing each of the players in the

drama; (5) setting, the geographical locations that occupy the narrative; finally, (6) narrative voice, the
1
The inscriptio PRAXEIS APOSTOLWN is not found in any textual witness prior to the third century. According to the
best evidence, the first ‘systematician,’ St Irenaeus of Lyon, gave the title Acts to the Apostles to the sequel of The Gospel
According to Luke. See D. A. CARSON, et. al., An Introduction to the New Testament (Leicester: Apollos, 1999), 181.
2
See, for example, J. D. G. DUNN, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Inc., 1998), 128-
161.
3
My preference is for the title ‘Jerusalem Conference’ rather than ‘Apostolic Council’, since the latter gives an impression
of a kind of ‘Sanhedrin of the Twelve’ or that the office of the Twelve constitutes a quorum. Moreover, the Evangelist makes it
abundantly clear by his formula « [oi`] avpo,stoloi kai. [oi`] presbu,teroi » (in various cases: accusative in v. 2, nominative in
vv. 6 and 23, dative in v. 22) that the Apostles exercised a leadership in conjunction with the ‘presbyters.’ The title ‘Jerusalem
Conference’ seems a more fitting description because it reflects the role of the Mother-Church, the source of the controversy
(albeit obliquely stated), and the participation of the evkklhsi,a at Jerusalem in the controversy.
4
For an analysis of narrative criticism, see R. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Narrative (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1981),
hearafter ALTER, Biblical Narrative; D. MARGUERAT and Y. BOURQUIN, How to Read Bible Stories: An Introduction to Narrative
Criticism (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1999), hereafter MARGUERAT and BOURQUIN, Bible Stories; M. A. POWELL, What is
Narrative Criticism? (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), hereafter POWELL, Narrative Criticism; the classical text on the study
of narrative is none less than Aristotle’s Poetics, for which the standard English text is J. BARNES, The Complete Works of
Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, vol. 2 (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 2316-2340, hereafter ARISTOTLE,
Poetics.

2
‘script’ of the story and whether the author makes himself present. Due to constraints of space, this essay

will not discuss the temporality of the story5; suffice it to say, however, that the vast majority of scholars

place the event of Acts 15 in ca. A.D. 49/506

1. First Approach7

The Acts of the Apostles, composed most likely by St Luke the Evangelist, serves as the sequel to the

Gospel According to Luke. Whereas the first volume narrated the story of Jesus from his nativity until the

Ascension, the second volume narrates the story of the Holy Spirit in the life of the earliest Church. Like

the titulii of the gospels, PRAXEIS APOSTOLWN most likely was not affixed to the autograph(s). D. A.

Carson, J. Douglas, and L. Morris plausibly suggest that it was in fact St Irenaeus of Lyons who gave the

volume its present title, if not at least echo a prevailing custom New Testament nomenclature in the

Church.8 In point of fact, the title is offered in the context which will take up the topic of this paper, i.e.,

the Jerusalem Conference, in his Against Heresies (III. 13. 3). He says regarding the relationship between

Acts 15 and Gal 2, “If, then, any one shall, from the Acts of the Apostles, carefully scrutinize the time

concerning which it is written that he went up to Jerusalem on account of the aforementioned question, he

will find those years mentioned by Paul coinciding with it” (emphasis added).9

The textual tradition of Acts “circulated in the early church in two quite distinct forms, commonly

called the Alexandrian and the Western.”10 For the purposes of this essay, NA27/28, usually echoing the

Alexandrian text-type, will be given primary attention. Significant differences are carried by by the

5
MARGUERAT and BOURQUIN, Bible Stories, 85-101; POWELL, Narrative Criticism, 72-74.
6
MARGUERAT and BOURQUIN, Bible Stories, 87; R. E. BROWN, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York:
Doubleday, 1997), 287, hereafter BROWN, Introduction; T. CORBISHLEY, “The Chronology of New Testament Times,” in R. C.
FULLER, et. al., A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (Camden: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1969), 899, 901.
7
MARGUERAT and BOURQUIN, Bible Stories, 3-17.
8
D. A. CARSON, D. J. MOO, and L. MORRIS, An Introduction to the New Testament (Leicester, UK: Apollos, 1999), 181. See
also F. J. F. JACKSON and K. LAKE, The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 4: English Translation and Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 1979), 1.
9
A. C. COXE, “Irenæus Against Heresies,” in P. SCHAFF, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, Apostolic Fathers with Justin
Martyr and Irenæus (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 437.
10
The best discussion of the ‘Alexandrian’ versus the ‘Western’ Text is to be found in B. M. METZGER, A Textual
Commentary on the Greek New Testament, rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 222-383 [hereafter, B. M.
METZGER, Textual Commentary]. See also R. J. DILLON, “Acts of the Apostles,” in R. E. BROWN, et. al., The New Jerome
Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1990), 725 (hereafter NJBC). M.-E. BOISMARD has provided a volume
comparing the Western Text and the critical text, Le texte occidental des actes des apôtres : reconstruction et rehabilitation
(Paris: Editions Recherece sur les civilsations, 2000).

3
Western text-type, usually by way of Codex Bezae (D) but also thee African Latin versions, and the

Harclean Syriac.11 The difference between the two text-types is such that the Western is approximately

1/10 longer than the Alexandrian! For our purposes, the critical divergences between these two text-types

will be restricted to the discussion of 15:20, 29.

As already noted, Acts is the sequel to Luke, and it covers the period of the Apostolic Church’s

history from the time of the Ascension (late spring of A.D. 29) to the arrival of St Paul in Rome, probably

in the late fifties of the first century. The micro-narrative of our present study is constitutes the turning

point in the Church’s earliest history and a “watershed”12 for the development of the Antiochene Church

(and by extension, Pauline theology). In fact, each of the seven undisputed epistles of Paul touches on the

Jerusalem Conference’s rebuke of the Judaizers who sought to impinge upon the evangelical liberty given

to Gentile Christians. In terms of literature, this turning-point is at the approximate centre of the macro-

narrative (ch. 15), strategically located there by the Evangelist as a powerful narratological tool13 that

justifies the remainder of the story, especially Paul’s ‘Second’ and ‘Third Missionary Journey.’

2. Closure of the Text14

Although situated in the middle of the macro-narrative that is the Acts of the Apostles, it is the micr-

narrative the presents the conflict of ‘whither?’ insofar as the Gentile mission is concerned. Although the

‘Jerusalem Conference’ occupies the first thirty-five verses of the fifteenth chapter, it cannot be

understood in isolation. In other words, there can be no valid reading of this micro-narrative as a macro-

narrative.15

11
The ‘Western Text’ can be found, among other places, in F. J. F. JACKSON and K. LAKE, ed., The Acts of the Apostles, vol.
3, The Text of Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 3-255, right leaves.
12
L. T. JOHNSON, Sacra Pagina: The Acts of the Apostles (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 268, hereafter JOHNSON,
Acts.
13
“It is not by chance that the Apostolic Council occupies the middle of the book. It is the great turning point, the transition
from the primitive church to the ‘contemporary’ church. Form this point on the apostles disappear, even in Jerusalem itself (cf.
21:15-26, etc.). In Jerusalem, continuity is represented by James, in the Gentile Christian church by Paul.” In H. CONZELMANN,
Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 115.
14
MARGUERAT and BOURQUIN, Bible Stories, 30-39.
15
I am aware of a relationship between Acts 15 and Gal 2. The literature covering the relationship between these two texts
is too vast to discuss in this essay. Moreover, most attempts at ‘reconciling’ the two texts utilize the historical-critical method,
and to discuss it would go beyond the purpose of this essay. P. N. Tarazi tries to provide an inter-textual reading of the two texts,
especially by way of an early dating of the Letter to the Galatians (as does F. F. Bruce). M. Hengel has provided a well-
researched argument (which the majority of historical-critics seem to support). See the Select Bibliography below.

4
 At 15:1, the narrative begins at Syrian Antioch where Paul and Barnabas owed their ministerial

accountability (cf. 13:4; 15:2) and where, previously (14:27-28) they announced the glad progress of the

Gentile mission—that they had in fact professed faith in Jesus Christ. The beginning of the narrative

begins with the logical conjunction « Kai, »16, thus introducing the narrative block. The beginning-

closure is marked abruptly with the party which Luke euphemistically calls “from Judea”—but were in

fact an unauthorized commission from the Mother-Church at Jerusalem (cf. 15:24).

At the other end of the closure, which is marked at the paragraph consisting of vv. 30-35, the

Church at Antioch receives the news of the recently-adjourned Jerusalem Conference and begins another

phase in the macro-narrative of Acts, namely the ‘Second Missionary Journey’ of St Paul.

Between this opening and closing, we can divide the micro-narrative into three distinct scenes,

the first (vv. 1-5) taking place between Antioch and Jerusalem, the second (vv. 6-21) the Council proper,

the third (vv. 22-29) the Apostolic Decree and the commission sent to deliver the Decree in Antioch, and

finally (30-35) the reception of the commissioned brethren and the Decree.

As I said, the micro-narrative cannot be isolated from the overall story told in Acts. In fact, there

are specific allusions to “the early days” (ch. 10), the “signs and wonders” done at the hands of Paul and

Barnabas at Iconium (shmei/a kai. te,rata, 15:12; cf. 14:3). James, the brother of the Lord, quotes from

the prophecy of Amos (vv. 16-17; cf. Amos 9:11-12 LXX), reaching back to the period prior to the fall of

Israel (ca. eighth century).17 The address to the Gentile Christians in “Syria” and “Cilicia” (15:23)

anticipate the ‘Second Missionary Journey’ of Paul in 16:40f; cf. esp. v. 41).

3. Plot18

Reading the narrative according to Aristotle’s quinary scheme, we can identify the initial situation began

at 14:27, when Paul and Barnabas declared to the Antiochian Christians that God “had opened a door of

faith to the Gentiles.” The implied reader is expected to recall the second half of the First Missionary

16
For an extensive analysis of the use of conjunctions, see D. B. WALLACE, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 669, 670-674.
17
LAWRENCE BOADT, Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1984), 315-319.
18
MARGUERAT and BOURQUIN, Bible Stories, 40-57; POWELL, Narrative Criticism, 35-44; ARISTOTLE, Poetics, 1455a 22-
b
1455 24.

5
Journey (after the arrival in Pisidian Antioch) outlined in 14:1-18, where the audience of Paul and

Barnabas were both “Jews and Greeks” (14:1). Afterwards they fled to Lystra and Derbe; at Lystra,

(presumably) a Greek who was an invalid listened to the preaching of Paul and became the recipient of a

miracle (14:8-10), leading the townspeople to think that Paul was an incarnation of the Olympian deity

Hermes, and Barnabas was Zeus. We are not told whether this former invalid arrived at faith. The

mission at Derbe appears to be a success: “When they had preached the gospel to that city and made

many disciples…” (14:21) The reader is not told whether these disciples were Jews or Gentiles. This

ambiguity may be intentional on the part of the author—that, in view of the outcome of the Jerusalem

Conference, ethnicity would be irrelevant for the salvation of one who has faith.

Finally, at the end of the First Missionary Journey, the reader is told that Paul and Barnabas

founded Churches in Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch (14:21-23), where they were retracing their

steps on the way back to Syrian Antioch. For the first time, the reader is given the impression that there

are self-sufficient communities. Again, the author leaves to the reader’s imagination whether these

Churches consisted of Jews or Gentiles, an ambiguity that may serve to drive home the main idea—that

circumcision and the Mosaic Law are irrelevant for salvation. But this ambiguity surfaces only after

becoming familiar with the narrative of the Jerusalem Conference.

The complication comes at 15:1 where “some men came down from Judea and were teaching the

brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’” The

Western Text here specifies that the “men from Judea” were in fact Pharisees (cf. v. 5). The complication

is reiterated at 15:5, “But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, ‘It

is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.’”

In point of fact, for the macro-narrative, the complication and the transforming action overlap

partially, at least between vv. 2b and 5. But the transformation continues to v. 21 inclusive, and comes in

three parts: (1) the speech of Peter in vv. 6-11, (2) the testimony of Barnabas and Paul in v 12, and (3) the

speech and subsequent proposal by James, the brother of the Lord, in vv. 13-21. Even though the

transforming action is tripartite, it remains a cohesive unit in virtue of 15:6, “The apostles and the

6
presbyters were gathered together to consider this matter.” Each of the three speeches is analeptic, in that

they recall past events to justify the current practise of Gentile inclusion. Peter speaks of the “early days”

(15:7) in which the first Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit (without mentioning the vision!—c.

10). Barnabas and Paul (15:12) recall the “signs and wonders” performed among the Gentiles (cf. 14:3).

James quotes one of the minor prophets (Amos 9:11-12 LXX). In effect, the transforming action

combines three different sets of witnesses: the gift of the Holy Spirit among the Gentiles, the ‘signs and

wonders” worked among the Gentiles, and the prophecy that Gentiles will one day call upon God’s name.

So it is dual-layered: three great personalities (if we can conflate Barnabas and Paul, at least until 15:39)

and three great witnesses constitute the transforming action.

But there comes a concretizing of the transforming action by way of James’ “judgment” (kri,nw,

15:19) that the Gentiles should not be directed to undergo circumcision and to observe all six hundred-

thirteen mitzvot of the Torah but to obey a select number of laws in order to at least preserve the

consciences of those Jewish Christians who wished to avoid ritual impurity.

The apex of the narrative comes when the “whole Church,” not excepting the “apostles and

presbyters” (15:22), decide to send a delegation, along with Paul and Barnabas, with an official copy of

the decree outlining James’ proposed “judgment” (vv. 23-29). In other words, the Mother-Church at

Jerusalem decide to accept the evidences presented by Peter, Paul and Barnabas, and James, and to

compose a letter patterned after James’ four proscriptions. This apex conjoins the transforming action

and the dénouement, which takes up vv. 22 through 28 inclusive. The Apostolic Decree serves as the

diptych to the complicating action, thus reversing the intrusive works of the Judean Christians who

insisted on Torah-observance among the Gentile Christians in Antioch. The body of the Decree is

provided by Luke, following the order of James’ three judgments but in slightly different order:

v. 23b Greeting from “the brethren”, precisely “apostles and presbyters” “to the brethren”
who are Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia

v. 24 Introducing a conditional clause: antecedent acknowledging those whose words

“unsettled” their minds without any mandate from the Mother-Church

7
 v. 25 Consequent (following v. 24) mentioning the consensus of the apostles and presbyters
to delegate men to accompany Paul and Barnabas,

v. 26 Consequent continued: accompanying Paul and Barnabas because of the great risk to
their lives experienced beforehand,

v. 27 Conclusion to the consequent: thus Judas (Barsabbas) and Silas are with Paul and
Barnabas, to confirm by word of mouth the “same things” (avpagge,llontaj ta. auvta,)
proscribed in the Decree;

v. 28 A ‘command’—though lacking any imperative moods—based upon the consensus

of the apostles and presbyters in accordance with the Holy Spirit to proscribe
only the most “necessary things”:

v. 29 Absention from (i) abstain from food sacrified to idols, (ii) from consuming
blood, (iii) from consuming animals slaughtered by strangling, and (iv)
unchastity/incest.19 Assurance is given that if these proscriptions are obeyed,
then the Gentile Christians “will do well.” The “farewell” abruptly concludes
the Decree.

Vv. 30 through 35 inclusive marks the final situation.

To recap the events in Acts 15: While Paul and Barnabas were in Syrian Antioch at the conclusion of

their First Missionary Journey, a group “from Judea” began to teach that salvation was contingent upon

the circumcision-mitzvah (v. 1). Later, a group of Christians who belong to the Pharisee sect further

insisted that “it is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the Law of Moses” (v. 5).

During the course of the debate, three items of evidence are advanced to justify the Gentile mission: the

vision of Peter and the conversion of Cornelius, the ministry of Paul and Barnabas during the second half

of the ‘First Missionary Journey,’ and the prophecy of Amos recalled by St James the Brother of the

Lord. In the end, the decision is made not to impose the Torah upon Gentile converts but rather to insist

on Levitical codes required of resident aliens living among the children of Israel. The micro-narrative of

the ‘Council of Jerusalem’ may be broken down as follows:

19
F. F. BRUCE points out that « pornei,aj » is not limited to ‘ordinary’ sexual impropriety but fornication with relatives of
varying degrees of consanguinity: The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Book of the Acts, rev. ed.,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 300.

8
Pericope encompassing 15:1-5

v. 1 Judean Christians insist on the circumcision-mitzvah for Gentile Complication; Initial

Christians Situation begun at
v. 2a Strong argument between Paul, Barnabas and the Judean-Christian 14:27; anticipated in ch.
party; 10-11.
v. 2b Paul, Barnabas, “and some of the others” are appointed to confer with
the Jerusalem Church about the issue.
v. 3 Paul, Barnabas sent by the Antiochian Church to Jerusalem on this
question; Paul, Barnabas report to the Phoenician and Samaritan
Christian about the success of the Gentile mission
v. 4 Paul, Barnabas arrive at Jerusalem, are welcomed by the Apostles and
presbyters; “declared all that God had done with them”
v. 5 Christian Pharisees respond to Paul, Barnabas’ testimony: Gentile
Christians bust be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law

Pericope encompassing 15:6-11

v. 6 Apostles, presbyters were « sunh,cqhsa,n » to “consider this matter”
v. 7 After a “debate,” Peter makes an address: Recalls the “early days” of
the events surrounding Cornelius and the belief of the Gentiles in Jesus
v. 8 More to the point, even the Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit “inasmuch”
(kaqw.j) as to the Jewish Christians (“us”)
v. 9 Infusion of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles abolishes the Jew-Gentile
differentiation; faith “cleanses” the heart Transforming Action
v. 10 Challenges the imposition of the Torah that even Jews cannot keep
faithfully
v. 11 Introduction of the doctrine of salvation by grace (dia. th/j ca,ritoj),
precisely the grace of Jesus Christ (tou/ kuri,ou VIhsou/)

Pericope encompassing 15:12-21

v. 12 Transition marked by « VEsi,ghsen de. pa/n to. plh/qoj »; testimony of
Paul and Barnabas of “signs and wonders” accomplished at Iconium
(shmei/a kai. te,rata; cf. 14:3) among the Gentiles
v. 13 Transition to James-the-Brother-of-the-Lord:
v. 14 Recalls the address of “Simeon”, that God made the Gentiles “a people
for his name”
v. 15 Insists that the A.T. prophets concur with Peter’s teaching
vv. 15-18 Amos 9:11-12 LXX
v. 19 James’ “judgment” (or “proposal,” evgw. kri,nw):
v. 20 abstain from (i) idolatry, (ii) unchastity, (iii) meats from strangled
animals, (iv) blood [Western Text adds the Golden Rule here]
v. 21 Ambiguous reference to the authority of Moses

9
 Pericope encompassing 15:22-29
v. 22 Apostles, presbyters, with the consent of the “whole Church”, send
Judas Barsabbas and Silas, “leading men among the brethren”, along
with Peter and Barnabas to deliver the Conference’s decision.
v. 23 Decree is introduced; from “the Apostles and presbyters” and addressed
to the Gentile (Christians) in the city of Antioch and the provinces of
Syria and Cilicia.
v. 24 Acknowledges the ‘Judaizers’ who disrupted the peace of the
Antiochian Church and assert that their disruption was not in
accordance with the Apostles and presbyters at Jerusalem.
v. 25 Introduce the commissioned companions of Peter and Barnabas.
Dénouement
v. 26 Honorable mention of Paul and Barnabas’ life-risking witness to Christ.
v. 27 The companions alluded to in v. 25 are named: Judas and Silas; they
will comply by “word of mouth” what Paul and Barnabas bring back
from the Conference.
v. 28 Both the Holy Spirit and the Apostles and presbyters found it “good” to
stipulate only “these necessary things,” i.e., four proscriptions—
v. 29 (i) consumption of idolatrous sacrificial meats, (ii) consumption of
blood, (iii) consumption of strangled animals, and (iv) « pornei,aj »
are all forbidden. If these four ritual/kosher laws are observed, they
“will do well.” The Decree ends.

Pericope encompassing 15:30-35

v. 30 Paul, Barnabas, Judas Barsabbas, and Silas are « avpoluqe,ntej » by
the Apostles and presbyters; upon arrival in Syrian Antioch,
congregation is gathered for the delivery of the Decree.
v. 31 The Decree is met with rejoicing.
v. 32 Judas and Silas, who were prophets, “exhorted the brethren with many Final Situation
words and strengthened them.”
v. 33-34 Judas and Silas return to Jerusalem; Paul and Barnabas remain,
“teaching and preaching the word of the Lord.

4. The Characters20

Curiously, the main group of characters is conspicuously absent from the narrative: the Council of

Jerusalem is ‘about’ the inclusion of Gentile Christians in the Church, yet not one single Gentile member

of the Church play a role. It is as though there was an ‘overarching’ character that stands as the

‘imminent’ protagonist of the story and only makes third-person appearances (vv. 7-10, 12, 14, 17, 19). It

is not until the end of the pericope that they are directly mentioned as players in the story (15:30-31). I

would suggest that the avoidance of the term “Gentile” (evqnoj) may reflect Peter’s insistence that God

makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles (v. 15a) and Luke is in fact carrying on a powerful theme

20
MARGUERAT and BOURQUIN, Bible Stories, 58-76; POWELL, Narrative Criticism, 51-58; ARISTOTLE, Poetics, 1455b 24-32.

10
in Pauline theology—that there is no distinction between those of the circumcision and those of the

uncircumcision (cf. Rom 2:28-29, 3:30; Gal 5:6, 6:15).21

Luke does not point out who it was that “appointed” Paul and Barnabas (and others, cf. v. 2b). It

is likely to be the “prophets and teachers” who ordained Paul and Barnabas to the apostolic ministry

(13:3), namely Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen. If we speak of ‘flat characters’ that appear

in a story with only one trait, we might even be able to speak of a ‘one-dimensional character’—distinct

from the flat characters but still even more fundamental to the dynamism of the narrative.

It would be too facile to speak of ‘main characters’ in the story, but certainly Paul and Barnabas

act as the protagonists as it was because of their apostolate among the Gentiles during the First

Missionary Journey and because of their testimony regarding the conversion of the Gentiles that the

positive pole of the catalyst for the complication takes place. Paul and Barnabas appear in the

commissioning by the Church of Antioch (where they were ordained, their base for the missionary

journeys, and from where they are sent to Jerusalem) in v. 2b. They appear again in a short address to the

Council in v. 12b, and in the interaction between The ‘supporting cast’ are played by Judas Barsabbas and

Silas, who were chosen by the Apostles and presbyters—with the consent of the Jerusalem Church—to

accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch where the Decree would be delivered.

The impasse created by the antagonists at vv. 1, 5 is broken by the more prominent leaders of the

Jerusalem Church, namely Simon Peter and James ‘the Just,’ brother of the Lord. In fact it is Peter who

gives the first speech at the Conference and James alludes to it in a fashion befitting a Biblical epic in

order to give it an aura of divine authority. The role of James is ‘perpetuated’ in the form of the Decree,

wherein his “judgment” (v. 19) becomes a first instance of canon law, albeit in a slightly modified order.22

Judas Barsabbas and Silas represent more complex characters since they are given only a brief

introduction. It seems more likely that in addition to being players in the story, they serve to personify

21
Whether Luke knew the Pauline corpus seems to me irrelevant (even if highly probable). What seems unlikely is that
such a constantly reiterated theme in the teaching of Paul would not at least be echoed by Luke.
22
Whereas James stipulates that absention from (i) “the pollution of idols,” (ii) unchastity/incest, (iii) the consumption of
strangled animals and (iv) blood (v. 20), the Decree reverses stipulations (ii) and (iv); moreover, perhaps in a conciliatory move
to the Gentiles, the Semitism of “pollutions of idols” is clarified as “what has been sacrificed to idols” (v. 29).

11
the ‘patriarchy’ of the Jerusalem Church since it was they and not Paul and Barnabas who delivered the

Decree.23 Their introduction serves to anticipate a number of future episodes in Acts and, in hindsight, the

near-exclusive apostolate to the Gentiles and the decline of Jerusalem as a major player in the Church’s

development, especially after A.D. 70.

So it is the Gentile Christians, Paul, Barnabas, and “others” who are the protagonists, and at vv.

6-21) the pool of protagonists is expanded to include Peter and James, along with the whole Jerusalem

Church sharing the mind of the Apostles and presbyters. The antagonists, mentioned in vv. 1, 5, and 24,

represent the Judaizing party. Whether they are a unified group, Luke does not say. What is clear is that

the idea of imposing the Mosaic Law upon Gentile Christians is forbidden, thus showing the defeat of

that antagonists.

5. Setting24

The whole narrative of ch. 15 is restricted to the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, more precisely,

the ‘fertile crescent’ encompassing the regions of Cilicia, Syria, and Palestine (but not the region east of

the Nile Delta). Only two specific cities are mentioned: (Syrian) Antioch and Jerusalem; three regions

are specified: Syria, Cilicia, and Judea. Throughout the narrative, however, several other locations are

alluded to. In at least one instance, the author takes care to state where a portion of the narrative does not

take place.

By way of implication (cf. 14:26-28), the narrative begins in Antioch-on-the-Orontes (VAntio,ceia

h` evpi. vOro,ntou, Antiochia ad Orontem, Syrian Antioch or ‘Great Antioch’; modern day Antakya, Turkey),

90 , where the antagonists, who are from Judea, arrive and instigate “no small dissention and debate”

(15:1-2). As a result, the Church at Antioch appointed Paul and Barnabas to “go up to Jerusalem” to
23
P. N. TARAZI plausibly argues that “The council’s [sic] decision to send two of its own people with Paul and Barnabas
reflects an element of ‘control’ Jerusalem tried to keep over Paul’s activity and teaching, and in this sense corresponds to the
content of Galatians 2:11-14. Indeed, Luke mentions no less than three times that the status of Judas and Silas (Acts 15:22, 27,
and 32) as official representatives of Jerusalem. They, not Paul and Barnabas, are the bearers of James’ letter, and it is they who
vouch for its genuineness and—perhaps more importantly—for its interpretation (vv. 27, 32).” He goes on to say that “Silas’
equivocal attitude toward Paul’s gospel becomes evident later when he separates from Paul at the height of the latter’s mission to
the Gentiles, at Corinth (18:5). Thus he and Judas correspond to the ‘men from James’ in Galatians, a conclusion rendered
certain by the fact that upon their introduction in Antioch, the separation occurs between Barnabas and Paul (Acts 15:36-41; Gal
2:13).” See his New Testament Introduction: Luke and Acts (Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1999), 243. I find the
first statement to be convincing; I remain undecided about the second.
24
MARGUERAT and BOURQUIN, Bible Stories, 77-84; POWELL, Narrative Criticism, 69-72.

12
discuss the issue with the Apostles and presbyters there. On the way to Jerusalem, the Evangelist is

careful to note that Paul and Barnabas “passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, reporting the

conversion to the Gentiles…” (v. 3). Phoenicia, which is a region belonging to the province of Syria,

shares a border with Galilee and Samaria almost exactly where the Kishon River leaves Mount Carmel.

This would mean that Paul and Barnabas traveled south from Antioch and, by the time they reached

Ptolemais, stayed within 15-20 kilometres inland from the Mediterranean Sea until they either stepped

into Samaria where the Kishon River separated Phoenicia and Gaililee at the latter’s south-west corner or

after crossing Mount Carmel.

Upon arriving at Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas “were welcomed by the Church and the Apostles

and presbyters” (v. 4). After yet another instigation from the antagonists (v. 5), the Conference began (v.

6). The whole course of the Jerusalem Council proper (vv. 6-21) took place within the city of Jerusalem.

The resolution of the Conference and the publication of the Decree (vv. 22-29) leave to the imagination

whether it took place in the same City.

The final pericope, which implies that it took place in Jerusalem since the pastoral leadership of

the Mother-Church dispatched a delegation “down to Antioch”, thus inferring that they were sent from

where they went “up to”, i.e., Jerusalem. Paul, Barnabas, and two other men commissioned by the

Apostles and presbyters—Judas Barsabbas and Silas—were sent to Syrian Antioch (vv. 22, 30). “And

after they”, meaning Paul, Barnabas, Judas, and Silas, “spent some time, they were sent off in peace by

the brethren to those who had sent them”, i.e., Judas and Silas returned to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas,

on the other hand, “remained in Antioch” (vv. 33, 34).

Curiously, even though the four men sent by the Apostles and presbyters to carry the Decree to

Antioch, the Decree itself is addressed to “the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia…” (v. 23b-c).

The Evangelist makes no mention of the four men going into the surrounding regions; it was only after

the sharp disagreement between Paul and Barnabas on whether John Mark was a suitable co-missionary

that Paul (and Silas) went “through Syria and Cilicia” (15:40, 41). It would be safe to presume that

Antioch, being the base of the Gentile mission (cf. 11:19-26; 13:1-3; esp. 14:24-28, “and from there they

13
sailed to Antioch, where they had been commended [paradedome,noi] to the grace of God for the work

which they had fulfilled”) would be the epicenter from where the Decree would be disseminated. Thus,

by way of implication, the provinces of Syria and Cilicia were under the ‘pastoral jurisdiction’ of the

Antiochene Church because its headquarters would coincide with a major Roman administrative centre,

namely the capital of Syria as a Roman Province, as well as the third or fourth largest city in the Empire.25

It would seem that the author wishes to vindicate in advance the mission to the regions of Syria and

Cilicia during Paul’s ‘Second Missionary Journey’ (16:1f) In point of fact, the Evangelist narrates that

the Decree was shown to the believers in the various towns in Cilicia (16:4-5), and the Decree is even

shown to generate strength and faith. During the ‘Third Missionary Journey’ (18:23f), there is at least a

presumption of pastoral jurisdiction by the Antiochene Church. It may even be the case that the

Evangelist ‘hints’ at the continuing validity of the Decree by mentioning Paul’s visit to the Mother-

Church at Jerusalem (18:22) before the start of this third and last pilgrimage of Paul to collect from the

Gentiles faith in Jesus Christ. The address of the Decree, therefore, serves to anticipate the future

missionary endeavours of St Paul, the ‘Apostle to the Nations.’

6. The Narrative ‘Voice’26

The narrator does not evidence himself to have experienced the events recorded in Acts 15; in fact he is

purely extradiagetic until the ‘We-passages’ beginning at 16:10, in which St Luke the Evangelist is

counted among the missionary group—led by Paul—to Macedonia.

Yet, throughout the events in Acts 15, the ‘voice’ shifts closely between the narrative and the

characters, beginning with the two protagonists (“men…from Judea”, v. 1; “some believers who belong to

the party of the Pharisees”, v. 5) who serve to display the catalyst for the complication. The first group of

protagonists, which Luke places as the first voice in the story, objects: “Unless you are circumcised

according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (15:1b-c).27 Then in v. 5c, another voice,

25
See J. L. MCKENZIE, “Antioch,” in Dictionary of the Bible (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1965), 36-37.
26
MARGUERAT and BOURQUIN, Bible Stories, 102-120; POWELL, Narrative Criticism, 323-26.
27
Again, the Western Text (e.g. D) adds « kai. tw/e| ;qei Mwse,wj peripath/te », see F. J. FOAKES JACKSON and KIRSOPP LAKE,
The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 3: The Text of Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), 139.

14
echoing the first, assert that “[i]t is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the Law of

Moses.”

Luke alludes to a silent ‘voice’ of Paul and Barnabas in their “dissention and debate” with the

Judean Christians (v. 2). During the course of the ‘executive session’ (cf. « Sunh,cqhsa,n te oi` avpo,stoloi

kai. oi` presbu,teroi ivdei/n peri..…»; see all of vv. 6-21), the narrator recounts the testimony of Paul and

Barnabas in one curt sentence, v. 12, without a direct quotation from them; this silence would be

exacerbated by James’ completely passing over their testimony with silence later (vv. 14f).

The two major voices apart from the narrator are those of Simon Peter and James, the brother of

the Lord. Peter’s speech takes up vv. 7b-11, in which he recalls the events recorded in ch. 10 and 11 (“in

the early days”—this giving a ‘classical’ prominence to the story he is recounting28). James’ voice comes

last, as St John Chrysostom says: “This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks

last…”29 James’ voice consists of three parts, the first being a reminder of Peter’s testimony (v. 14),

proof from the testimony of “the Prophets” in which he quotes Amos 9:11-12 (LXX), and his own

proposal. Luke’s careful construction of James’ voice serves to create a ‘sacred atmosphere’ of the

Council. Notice that James employs the Semitic form of ‘Simon,’ (Si,mwn) i.e., Sumew.n30—perhaps

giving the voice of Peter with a ‘prophetic’ authority by way of an Hebraism (as well as to betray his own

Jewish bias). I would propose that here we have an instance of Lukan ‘semantic ambivalence’ in which

the voice of Luke ‘breaks through’ that of James. The quotation of Amos 9:11-12 is taken from the

Septuagint, which is curious within the context of James’ Jewishness. Again, the use of Scripture to settle

a dispute appears to be a rabbinic lawcourt.31 Moreover, the use of [15:6] as well as the verb sunagw in v.

6 lends to the solemn, almost ‘Biblical’ nature of the assembly, a nature that would be reinforced in the

Decree itself which testifies that the decision was a joint work of the Church and the Holy Spirit (v. 28).

28
M. DIBELIUS, “The Apostolic Council”, in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1956.
29
ST JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, Homilies on Acts, 33.
30
I disagree with Joseph Fityzmyer’s hyper-historical-critical interpretation of “Simeon” as not being a reference to ‘Simon
Peter’ but rather to ‘Simeon Niger’ (“Paul”, NJBC, 753). James’ reference to what “Simeon” said about “how God first visited
the Gentiles” (15:14), if in fact referring to someone other than Simon Peter, would thus introduce a narrative disruption and
betray Luke as a clumsy author.
31
C. K. BARRETT, The International Critical Commentary: Acts, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 713.

15
The third and final part of James’ speech consists of the proposal to observe four proscriptions (v. 20).32

Again, James’ voice is saturated with Scripture, since the proscriptions were not innovative but were, as

he reminded his listeners, fundamental to the Mosaic Covenant (v. 21). The proscriptions echo Lev

17:10-18:30, which outline rules for “aliens” living among the children of Israel.

At the pericope beginning at v. 22, a new voice is introduced, namely that of the consensus of the

whole Church. Here, again, the voice is implicit, although it is Luke who narrates: “Then it seemed good

to the apostles and presbyters, with the whole Church…” The implicit voice of the whole Church waxes

explicit in the Decree that issues from the Council. Luke may be emphasizing the consensus of the

Church in re-ordering the list of proscriptions with respect to that proposed by James (contrast vv. 20 and

29). The Decree is expressly said to be from “both the apostles and elders” and makes the point of

distancing itself from the ‘voice’ of those who came from Judea to trouble the Church at Syrian Antioch

(contrast vv. 1 and 24). Luke carefully distinguishes the “whole Church” that consent to the commission

of Paul, Barnabas, Judas Barsabbas, and Silas from the “apostles and elders” that the commission

represent (cf. v. 27); moreover, the Decree is from the apostles and presbyters, not from the “whole

Church.” In any case, Luke displays a close working relationship, almost a symbiosis, between the two

groups.

Conclusion

Narrative criticism’s greatest asset is in the creation of Biblical literacy—a familiarity with the sacred

story told by the author. If Scripture is the “soul of sacred theology,”33 then it follows that each nook and

cranny of the Biblical narrative must be encountered before exporting its embedded theology. Moreover,

being situated at the crossroads of the historical-critical/semiotic-analytical pole, narrative criticism brings

the reader into the world of the text that precludes the fragmentation of the various, and often conflicting,

methods of higher criticism. At the same time, the ‘rhetorical axis of communication’ is given greater

32
The Western Text significantly altered the four proscriptions, converting them into purely ethical injunctions. The
proscription of the consumption of blood is substituted with a converse of the Golden Rule. See C. K. Barrett, The International
Critical Commentary: The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998), 735-736; B. M. METZGER, Textual
Commentary, 379-383.
33
SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum (18 November 1965),
n. 24; Decree on the Training of Priests Optatam totius (28 October 1965), n. 16.

16
attention, since it is the story that warrants the pursuit of historical or semiotic questions. As a result, a

more acute familiarity of the text emerges.

Word count: 5,326

Pages: ≥ 14, minus footnotes

17
 Select Bibliography

Narrative Criticism

ALTER, ROBERT. The Art of Biblical Narrative. San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 1981.

ARISTOTLE. “Poetics.” In J. Barnes, ed. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford
Translation, vol. 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.

MARGUERAT, DANIEL, and YVAN BOURQUIN. How to Read Bible Stories: An Introduction to Narrative
Criticism, trans. John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1999.

POWELL, MARK ALLEN. What is Narrative Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.

SCHNEIDERS, SANDRA M. The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture.
Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1999.

N. T. Greek Apparati

ALAND, KURT and BARBARA, et. al. Greek-English New Testament [NA27/UBS4]. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1981.

GREENLEE, J. HAROLD. A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, 5th rev. ed. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986.

METZGER, BRUCE M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the
United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
1994.

TRENCHARD, WARREN C. A Concise Dictionary of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2003.

WALLACE, DANIEL B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

ZERWICK, MAXIMILLAN and MARY GROSVENOR. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament.
Rome: Edtrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1996.

Commentaries/Introductions—Single Volume

FULLER, REGINALD C., et. al. A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. Camden: Thomas
Nelson and Sons, 1969.

JOHNSON, LUKE TIMOTHY. The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, rev. ed. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1999.

LAYMON, CHARLES M. The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1971.

RAYMOND BROWN. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday, 1997.

18
__________, et. al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1990.

Commentaries—Series

BARCLAY, WILLIAM. The Daily Study Bible: The Acts of the Apostles. Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1955.

BARRETT, C. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols. Edinburgh:
T & T Clark, 1994, 1998.

BRUCE, F. F. The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1990.

__________. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Book of the Acts, rev. ed.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Inc., 1988.

CONZELMANN, HANS. Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible: The Acts of the
Apostles, trans. J. Limburg, A. T. Kraabel, and D. H. Juel. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press,
1987.

JOHNSON, LUKE TIMOTHY. Sacra Pagina, vol. 5: The Acts of the Apostles. Collegeville: The Liturgical
Press, 1992.

MUNCK, JOHANNES. The Anchor Bible, vol. 31: The Acts of the Apostles, rev. W. F. Albright and C.S.
Mann. Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1967.

NAVARRE, FACULTY OF THEOLOGY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF. The Navarre Bible: The Acts of the
Apostles, trans. Michael Adams. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1992.

PELIKAN, JAROSLAV. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible: Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos
Press, 2005.

TARAZI, PAUL NADIM. The New Testament Introduction: Luke and Acts. Crestwood: St Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1999.

Studies in the Acts of the Apostles and the Apostolic Church

BROWN, RAYMOND E. and JOHN P. MEIER. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic
Christianity. New York: Paulist Press, 1983.

CWIEKOWSKI, FREDERICK J. The Beginnings of the Church. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1988.

DIBELIUS, MARTIN. Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. London, UK: SCM Press, Ltd., 1956.

HENGEL, MARTIN. Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, trans. John Bowden. London: SCM
Press, 1979.

JERVELL, JACOB. The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 1996.

19
JACKSON, F. J. FOAKES and KIRSOPP LAKE. The Acts of the Apostles, 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1979.

KURZ, WILLIAM S. Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative. Louisville, KY:

Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.

MARGUERAT, DANIEL. The First Christian Historian: Writing the ‘Acts of the Apostles’, trans. K.
McKinney, G. J. Laugherty, R. Bauckham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

POWELL, MARK ALLAN. What Are They Saying About Acts? New York: Paulist Press, 1991.

20