Reading Inclusion Backwards: Considering the Apostolic Decree Again in Fresh Context

Proposed Study

Instead, I think there is bigger question that has been missed that the classic explanation does not take into account: Why are the Gentiles required to do any of the law, or held to any stipulations? If the Gentiles were just admitted into the people of God qua Gentiles by Peter's testimony to their proposed freedom from the law (15:7b–11), and Paul's words in Acts 13:38–39, that the law of Moses cannot free anyone, why now does James recommend these things?

I believe that the narrative location of the first reading of the AD implies a richer, deeper, and more contextually cogent meaning to the AD than has yet been offered. In this study, I suggest the Decree is best understood as a Lukan re-reading, or construal, of Leviticus 17–19, “the law of the resident alien.” Briefly, a “construal” is a reading from a specific ordering of a corpus or passage of an authoritative text according to a theme. More specifically, David Kelsey says,

As such, I want to propose that Luke reads Leviticus 17–19 and appropriates this portion of the law as a blueprint of the life of one eschatological and multi-ethnic church made up of two associate peoples. Note: Joshua Jipp offers a ground-breaking monograph demonstrating that hospitality is a central theme to the Lukan hermeneutic, on an aspect of which I will simply be shedding light.

Method of Study

The case for this proposal unfolds in four stages. First, I propose that the best way to understand the Lukan concern for the inclusion of the Gentiles is through a heuristic or hermeneutic of hospitality. In an important study on the world-wide immigration crisis, Ilsup Ahn suggests a new paradigm of hospitality based upon divinely offered forgiveness. I will use the principles of his investigation in this study in order to form a hermeneutic of hospitality to best understand the need for stipulations of the Decree in a multi-ethnic church. At the end of this study, inspired by Ahn's study I will briefly point to the need to apply the AD today,.

Second, I briefly turn my attention to the debate concerning the source of the AD. Though I believe that much progress in actually understanding the importance and meaning of the AD has been stymied by a struggle to find an exact source, I would like to explain why Leviticus 17–18 is the best place to find the text that Luke would have read for the Decree. (I will also include Leviticus 19, since Luke seems to include aspects of this chapter in his reading of “the resident alien.”)

Third, I will investigate the normative source of Leviticus 17–19 with careful attention to the major theological contours found in “law of the resident alien.” If one expects to understand how a later reader understood and utilized a text, in our case Luke with Leviticus 17–19, we must first read the text with similar attention and care. This step will give us greater clarity on the hermeneutic the Pentateuch utilized in order to include those outside Israel.

Finally, I will turn my attention to the text in question, namely the AD (Acts 15:20–21, 29; 21:25). At this point, the narrative context in which the AD first appears in Acts 15 will play a central role as I attempt to apprehend the Lukan reading of Leviticus 17–19, and how his construal of the text is applied in Acts 15 to a newly multi-ethnic church—to the official inclusion of the Gentiles qua Gentiles into the people of God in Acts 15:16–18, and what obligations the Gentiles have to the church given the ecclesiological hospitality shown to them.

Hospitality as Remembered Debt Forgiveness Extended toward “the Indebted Other”

In a paper titled “Economy of ‘Invisible Debt’ and Ethics of ‘Radical Hospitality’: Toward a Paradigm Change of Hospitality from ‘Gift’ to ‘Forgiveness,’” Ilsup Ahn undertakes to rethink hospitality from what he calls a new, more “radical” perspective. Specifically from a more modern perspective, Ahn investigates the concept of “invisible debt”; a concept that fundamentally shapes the economy of hospitality between a host and a guest, by a critical reading of Derrida and Nietzche with comparison to the more ancient patterns found in selected biblical texts.

Hospitality and Invisible Debt

Invisible debt defined briefly is a debt that the guest owes the host in return for his hospitality. In its most familiar and practical forms, it can look like an obligation of the guest to return a favor of a meal or a beverage in return for the host's own benevolent hospitality. In a deeper, yet equally common form it binds the guest into a virtual prison of oppression, discrimination, meaninglessness, human rights violations, segregation, and hatred. These are typically observed in occasions of immigration, integration, and refuge. Ahn suggests that at its severest level, the invisible debt of ill-conceived hospitality can keep the hosted in debt for generations for the sole reason that they owe the host this invisible debt. That is, it plays “the negative role of exclusion” (Ahn: 262). Much like Luke's concern for the influx of an alien nation, the Gentiles, into the people of God, Ahn seeks a better way to understand the immigration crisis that is a world-wide experience. His basic question is: “How can we pay back [the invisible debt] (and thus get ourselves out of debt)—if, indeed, there is any such thing?” (Ahn: 253). In essence, how are we accepted and how can we accept others with no strings attached?

The solution is that hospitality should be viewed through a paradigm of forgiveness, wherein the host pays the invisible debt of the one hosted, since they too were once forgiven this debt. The implication of this thesis, for Ahn, is (contra Derrida) that hospitality according to a forgiveness paradigm is an obligation of the host, rather than an option largely based upon the capricious will, or gift, of the host.

Ahn's theory is drawn from a biblical hermeneutic with specific attention to two texts, Leviticus 19:33–34 and Matthew 25:34–36. Leviticus 19:33–34 says,

Matthew 25:34–36 says, moreover:

For Ahn, the only way to solve the problem of “invisible debt” is to complete “an economic circle of exchange” (Ahn: 258). To do this we have to be honest that “the others” are in fact “indebted.” He calls them “the indebted other. (Ahn: 264). Contrary to Derrida's deconstructed and idealized hospitality that no longer accounted for the debt of the guest, Ahn suggests that the debt is real, and that the “indebted other” actually owes something to the host. The model Ahn puts forth makes forgiveness relevant.

The suggestion, therefore, is that we complete this so-called “circle” through a process of forgiveness that we are obligated to give; a debt we are required to pay. In sum, he says his model of hospitality

We fulfill this type of repayment by remembrance of a divine forgiveness extended to us.

Ahn quotes Luke Bretherton:

By remembering the forgiveness we received, Ahn suggests we pay the creditor the debt of the debtor. He says this is what makes this model of hospitality so radical, since, “although invisible, the debt is paid by the sacrifice of the creditor” (Ahn: 261). In fact, as Ahn admits (261), such a proposal may seem “absurd or even … mad.” He notes that this caused problems for Derrida in that Derrida would have to admit that “each time forgiveness is effectively exercised, it seems to suppose some sovereign power” (Derrida: 59, quoted from Ahn: 261). Indeed, this is Volf's thesis of “embrace” of the other. He says that embrace is “God's reception of hostile humanity into divine communion … [and this is a] model for how human beings should relate to the other” (Volf: 100, quoted from Ahn: 261–62).

Hospitality and Displacement of the Center

In addition, forgiveness as the basis for this model of hospitality causes a radical displacement of the center. What this means is that hospitality becomes an necessary economy of reciprocation. In Derrida, as Ahn points out, “the hôte as host is a guest.” That is, “the one who invites is invited by the one whom he invites” (Ahn: 262). However, the source of this idea is ultimately for Ahn Jesus’ demonstration of center-displacement when, as host, he displaced the center by becoming the one who needed to be fed, clothed, and visited (Ahn: 262).

We also see this in three important instances of hospitality in Acts. In each case representatives of God's people are hosted by those of the nations. In Acts 10, Peter (representing Israel) is hosted by the “indebted other,” Cornelius. In Acts 16, Paul (representing the newly multi-national people of God) is hosted by the “indebted other,” Lydia. And, Paul is hosted by an unknown tribe on Malta in Acts 28. (For how Peter is representative host of Israel, see Jervell 1972: 55, 65 and Jipp: 209–16; and for Paul see Jervell 1984: 61 and Jipp: 270–71).

In sum, the model of hospitality as forgiveness honestly accounts for and pays off the “invisible debt” of the guest. The host pays the debt of the guest in this model because he remembers the divinely initiated forgiveness once given to him when he was the guest. If the invisible debt of the guest is not assessed honestly and paid off, exclusion exists, even from a meal table.

The believers in Acts faced a problem akin to that which Ahn suggests. Up to Acts 8, the church was made up exclusively of Jewish converts. But between Acts 8 and 15, Gentiles began to hear the message of forgiveness in Jesus’ name, as the Jewish-Christians had before them.

Between Acts 8 and 15, the church's consciousness develops concerning what the successful mission to the Gentiles means for the people of God. For those Jewish-Christians in Acts 11 that questioned Peter concerning the conversion of Cornelius’ household, it was the divine initiation via the Holy Spirit that convinced them. For the Jewish people in Antioch who objected to Gentiles becoming Christians who were not associated with the synagogue and not subjected to the law of Moses, it was the prophecy of Habakuk. 1:5 and Isaiah 49:6 that proved that it was God who offered them forgiveness, just as he had the Jews earlier in Antioch. Now, in Acts 15, Luke has proven through the exegesis of James that the Gentiles are included into the people of God without circumcision, and it is his task to reinforce this judgment with a decree that will communicate that the Gentiles are full members of the people of God, according to the normative model given in the Law (for which I will give a brief case immediately below). What this means in light of Ahn's theory of forgiveness is that there are two receptors of hospitality, and therefore two obligations to be fulfilled. First, by virtue of Israel's reception of salvation, and therefore hospitality in God's people, they are obligated to forgive the debt of “the other”—the Gentiles. Second, by virtue of their debt being forgiven by the Jewish-Christians, the Gentiles are now obligated to keep the stipulations of the Decree that will preserve the cleanliness of God's sanctuary and land. Realizing these two steps of hospitality and obligation will bring into focus a hermeneutic of the radical displacement of the center that is necessary for the church to move forward as one people of God under the lordship of Jesus.

Why Leviticus 17–18 is the Source of the AD

The source of the AD has been hotly debated. Most often, according to Schnabel (1016–18) one of five major views of interpreting the AD is appealed to: (1) that it requires the abandonment of former pagan gods and religions by the new Gentile believers; (2) that it requires the verbal acceptance of the Noahic commandments, with special help from the Western Text of Acts that leaves out what is strangled; (3) that it is set against the background of the anti-idol polemic found in the Old Testament; (4) that it represents the minimal requirements of the law; or (5) that it is the law of the foreign resident, or “resident alien law” found in Leviticus 17–18. (These views are outlined with greater detail in Schnabel: 1016–17.)

Each of these views has its virtues, and each connects the AD to a context that in part gives it greater meaning. However, with the majority of scholars, I believe that the best source for the AD is Leviticus 17–18. (See Haenchen: 449, 468–72; Conzelmann 1987: 118–19; Callan: 284–97; Bauckham 1996: 172–75; Jervell 1996: 59–60; Fitzmyer: 557; Schnabel: 1017)

Further, I agree with Bauckham who says,

In other words, the law is not an ad hoc arrangement for Gentiles, and to read the Lukan use of it in this light would be to misunderstand the weight of the law and its intended meaning and use.

The law given to Israel by the Lord in Leviticus 17–18 anticipated a time such as was inaugurated officially in Acts 15, as James lays out in 15:16–18 (especially 15:17c–18, ‭λéγει κύριος ποιῶν ταῦτα γνωστὰ ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος‬). Appealing to the principles of “the law of the resident alien,” the AD points to that place in the law that gives direction for how this associated people might live, just as that part of the law and the rest of the law directed Israel. More than a strict verbal link that ties the Vorlage to the stipulations found in AD, it is a redemptive-historical blueprint that Luke appeals to for the new multi-ethnic age of the nascent church that makes up the people of God and governs them.

Though more can and maybe should be said on the source of the AD, for the purposes of this study it is best to move forward with Leviticus 17–19 as the Vorlage for the AD (I am extending the boundaries slightly to include Leviticus 19, since it is in 19:33–34 that we understand the motivation for a law that is made for non-Israelites entering the land of Israel).

The Context and Meaning of Leviticus 17–19

Before exploring the context of the AD in Acts 15, I will first investigate this pericope from Leviticus. This step enables us to grasp the hermeneutic expressed in Leviticus for how God expected his people to view the alien entering their land. I want to know, more than verbally, why Leviticus 17–19 is a suitable normative expression for the AD. Further, I should note that the role of this section is simply to examine the identity of the gēr as it concerns their need for hospitality and Israel's necessary role as host vis-à-vis the importance of “the law of the resident alien.” (For a broader analysis on “the law of the resident alien” and the gēr, see Milgrom 1990: 398–402; Sarna: 137–38; Milgrom 2000: 1418–20, 1493–1501; Kelly.)

The Host Differentiated from the Other

The law of the resident alien, as Luke's normative source for the AD, is verbally from the broader pericope of Leviticus 17–18 (cf. 17:8–9,10,12–13; 18:26). But for the reason why the non-Israelite “alien” has a place amidst Israel, one must look to Leviticus 19:33–34, which is part a larger discussion of justice in view of God's holiness. Our task in looking to Leviticus 17–19 is to ask who the alien is, why he needs hospitality, how hospitality is provided by Israel, and why Israel ultimately provides hospitality to an outsider entering their land. Our discussion will not primarily deal with the meaning of each specific stipulation of the “law of the resident alien,” but will seek to uncover briefly the role of these laws for the resident alien in the Law of Moses and their overall importance in how the law views those entering God's people by those who are not his people.

It is, first, important to point out what may seem obvious from the text. For Leviticus 17–19, there is a clear host and a clear “other.” This is demarked in this two chapter pericope with a handful of descriptors. First, Israel is the clear host (cf. also Num 9:14; 15:29—Kelly: 157–58). This is seen initially by the Lord consistently addressing his law to Israel through Moses (cf. Lev 17:1; 18:1; 19:1; cf. also 17:8, 10, 13). When Israel and “the alien” are addressed, Israel is named first and is the primary recipient of the law. Finally, it is Israel's land that the stranger is said to enter (cf. 19:33). But the importance of the Lord's address to the Israelites is that they are actively hosting. That is, Israel is called, not simply to allow the strangers onto their land, but also to defend their dignity and seek their justice (19:33–34; cf. also, 19:9–18).

Second, there are those entering Israel; the non-Israelite “other.” For Leviticus 17–19, the “other” is always vaguely referred to as “the alien,” or “the stranger” in some English translations. There are five alternative ways the Hebrew word gēr has been translated according to various contexts in Greek Old Testament literature. For these see Muraoka, A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Two-way Index to the Septuagint. The discussion of ‭προσήλυτος‬ cannot happen here, but the term proselyte is a loaded one, especially with regards to later Jewish and Christian reception. And the choice of the translator of Leviticus is peculiar since this rendering of gēr is potentially a neologism (Lust, Eynikel, & Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, revised ed, but see a challenge on this point by Aitken: 315–29), which seems to imply special uniquenes for ecclesiological or religious affinity, discussed further below.

The Gēr and Their Situation

But, who is the “alien”? Why are they entering Israel's land? And, why does the law say they need hospitality? That is, why do they seek refuge in Israel for a period?

The gēr is fundamentally a category of people that have been uprooted from their homeland and have taken residence of a permanent nature in the land of Israel. They are a people that has been severed from a previous life. Basically defined, the gēr is one who is a “free person with the same civil rights as the Israelite,” yet the gēr have chosen, and are welcomed by the law of Moses, to be incorporated into the Israelite society. As such, “they retained their ethnic label and were not reckoned as Israel” (cf. Deut 23:2–9; Ruth 2:1, 10—Milgrom 2000:1416–17) As an implication of this, unlike the Israelite, the law says that the gēr cannot own land (Deut 24:14–15; cf. Philo, Cherubim. 108), which means they cannot be part of the agricultural economy that described ancient Israel (Milgrom 2000:1416–17).

There is an intentional and important distinction between Israel and the alien that remains once the alien is incorporated. Similarly, I read the Greek of gēr, ‭προσήλυτος‬, to point to a definite difference between Israel and the one they host, the gēr. The rarity of the Greek in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible is problematic in defining the word clearly, but I think it helps us in two ways potentially. First, in this context, I take ‭προσήλυτος‬ to indicate a person who has been fully hosted, or incorporated into Israel, yet expressly not Israel. Second, the choice of the translator to use ‭προσήλυτος‬ potentially points to the reality of the type of incorporation being not simply economical in nature, but also religious. Becoming a proselyte is a ecclesiological reality since the hosting of Israel stems from the divine, His hosting of them, His law, and Israel's reciprocal hospitality.

Of course, by the time of the New Testament the meaning is potentially different, as I observe below regarding Acts 13. But I think Bauckham (177) goes too far with too little evidence when he defines the term in Leviticus 17–18 as one would in a New Testament or early Jewish text. The lexicography does not support such an assertion, and more work should be done in this area that cannot further concern this paper. Instead, observing the Greek translation helps to grasp the point previously made by Milgrom of the necessary distinction between host and “other,” and their distinctive roles and reality.

Additionally, by severing ties with their family and country, the gēr were typically poor. Milgrom says this is evidenced by the fact that they were listed with “the Levite, the fatherless, and the widow among other wards of society” (cf. Lev. 9:10; 23:22; 25:6; cf. Philo, Somn. 2.273), and were among those who were most often exposed to oppression and exploitation (Milgrom 2000:1417; also see Sarna: 137–38 and Kelly: 164–65).

In application of this point, it is typically believed that only Leviticus 19:33–34 applies to the gēr, with the rest of Leviticus 19 and its material provisions applying to Israel. Leviticus 19:33–34 says,

When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the lord your God [ESV].

Instead, I believe that 19:33–34, much akin to the “Golden Rule,” is the principle upon which the commands Leviticus 19 stands and shows that Leviticus 19 (especially 19:1–18; cf. Lev 23:22) has application to both Israel and the gēr, because all have basic needs to be fulfilled, such as food (see the practice of gleaning in Leviticus 19) and aspects of personal dignity (Kelly). Leviticus 19:33–34 lays the foundation upon which a law of an alien people in need of basic necessities should be hosted by Israel for their survival with their dignity defended.

Requirements of Hosting the Other

Why does the law require that Israel is required to host the gēr? In relation to the former section covering Ahn's study, the answer is found in Israel's remembrance of their own essential “gēr-ness.” The law mandates that the gēr be treated as an equal under the law (cf. Exod 12:49; Lev 24:22; Num 9:14; 15:15–16, 29), because Israel was once strange to God when they were in Egypt (Milgrom 2000:1418).

Earlier in the Pentateuch, the words of Exodus 23:9 pre-curse those of Leviticus 19:33, 34, saying, “You shall not oppress a stranger. You know the heart of a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (cf. Deut 24:21–22). Milgrom highlights that gēr is in fact a truncated form of gēr-tôšāb, which is generally understood to mean “resident alien” (cf. e.g., Lev 25:6, 23, 35, 45, 47; Num 35:15; 1 Chron 29:15—Milgrom 2000:1416). He goes on to say that this may lead one to believe that the gēr, therefore, always implies the non-Israelite. However, this term is often used in analogy to Israel's “stranger” status in God's sight. Abraham (Gen 23:4) and Moses (Exod 2:22; see Gen 15:13) are called gēr. Later, Israel (Lev 19:33; 25:23) and the Psalmist (Ps. 119:19) both are referred to as gēr, and indeed all humanity (Gen 2:15). Therefore, Israel's obligation to extend hospitality is an integral aspect of their identity as a people, and of their humanity. Or in the words of Jewish philosopher, Hermann Cohen (quoted in Kelly: 166), “The alien was to be protected, not because he was a member of one's family, clan, religious community, or people; but because he was a human. In the alien, therefore, man discovered the idea of humanity.” My belief is that the very purpose of the “law of the resident alien” in Leviticus 17–19 was to teach this point.

In light of this, Milgrom asks,

For Milgrom, the translation of the Hebrew verb ‘āhab in theses contexts translated by Milgrom as “love” or “befriend” is instructive for Israel's remembrance of their gēr-ness, and their divine mandate to host the gēr as one of their own. He says, of the two possible renderings for ‘āhabm, that the rendering “to befriend” is more “felicitous” than the other possible rendering, “to love” (Milgrom 2000:1418). What is important is Milgrom's observation for what this means for the responsibility of the host and the “other”:

Israel is obligated to show hospitality because the Lord has first shown them such an un-abstracted love of hospitality in the past (cf. Exod 22:20 [English versions, Ex. 22:21]; Exod 23:9; Deut 10:19; also, Philo, Cher. 108, 119).

Requirements of the Guest

Finally, what does the law require of the gēr when living on Israel's land? Of specific importance concerning their distinction, yet incorporation into Israelite society is their obligation to obey the civil and religious law. Milgrom notes,

In brief, the reciprocations expected of the gēr are the prohibitions and commandments that preserve the unity, order, and cleanliness of the land of Israel before the holiness of the Lord. Milgrom says, it “makes no difference whether the polluter is an Israelite or a gēr: anyone in residence in YHWH's land is capable of polluting it or the sanctuary” (Milgrom 2000: 1417). Hence, the specific negative commandments and prohibitions for which the gēr is included in Leviticus 17–18.

Leviticus 17–19 and the Notion of Unconditional Hospitality

Leviticus 17–19 is foundational to how the Lord expects his people to engage with the gēr who enter their midst. Three conclusions about the hermeneutic observed in Leviticus 17–19 can be stated: (1) The view of the gēr in Leviticus 17–19 gives a normative hermeneutic for the treatment, as host, for an influx of a non-Israelite people, as guest, into God's people who have been severed from a past life and its provision; (2) Leviticus 17–19 sets up a hermeneutic that sees hospitality as a possibility only by remembering one's own ‘gēr-ness’ in God's world and his forgiveness and mercy towards that one; (3) Leviticus 17–19 says the gēr is part of Israel and as evidence of this and as a result it requires reciprocation from the gēr in the form of a prohibitive and negative set of laws distinct from Israel that serve to preserve the purity of Israel's land and the place of worship.

We shall now undertake to understand the Lukan appropriation of this Leviticus pericope as a suitable blueprint for the newly multi-ethnic church. And we shall read with Luke the “law of the resident alien” through a hermeneutic of hospitality which aims to include the Gentiles as full citizens in the newly multi-national people of God, as Scripture has promised would be so.

The “Indebted Other”: The Problem of the Gentile Inclusion

The “other” for Luke is, of course, the Gentiles. This study could move on from here saying little more than that, and the amount of scholarship that backs that point could carry this assumption. However, to make our present case clear, it will help to make a couple of observations about how Luke demonstrates that the Gentile is the “indebted other,” and how the Lord has planned to incorporate him into his people from the beginning. This will be only a brief survey, since much has already been said on this subject.

Foreshadowing of the Gentile Inclusion

Luke first foreshadows the Gentile inclusion in the Nunc Dimittis (Luke 2:29–32). The foreshadowing of this poetic piece of Luke 2 begins to find further fulfillment in Cornelius’ household (Acts 10), and then in Antioch (Acts 13). It finally fully flowers n the sanction of the Gentile Mission by the church in Acts 15.

In Acts 2, the Lukan Simeon says some very important things. Alluding to Isaiah 52:10, he refers to “all people” (‭πὰντων τῶν λαῶν‬) to whom the salvation is given (which is Jesus in this context). Nolland demonstrates that ‭λᾱός‬ in the plural is used in only one other context by Luke for corporate Israel (cf. Acts 4:25–27). But, in light of the context of Luke 2:31, ‭τῶν λαῶν‬ is an instance that embraces both Gentiles and Israel (Nolland 1989: 120).

Secondly, the Nunc Dimittis clearly points to the Gentiles as being those outside and being brought in. That is, Luke 2:32 says that “[the salvation (Jesus) is] a light for revelation to the Gentiles.” Again, Nolland is instructive in observing the redemptive-historical move this text makes. He says that his text “recognizes that the Gentiles come to the light from pagan darkness while Israel is already God's People and by God's gracious commitment destined for glory” (Nolland 1989: 120). In other words, God's gracious forgiveness in Jesus turns a new page in God's redemptive-history by establishing the foundation for the inclusion of the pagan Gentiles; namely, the other. (Chance: 55–56).

Further, Luke foreshadows the Gentile inclusion in Acts 2:39. The Lukan Peter says, “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” It is reasonable to assume that The Lukan Peter was not aware of the scope of the mission Luke was aware of when he was writing Acts, evidenced clearly by his reaction to the dream God gives him in Acts 10 (cf. 10:9–16: ‭μηδαμῶς, κύριε…τοῦτο δὲ ἐγὲνετο ἐτὶ τρίς‬), and by his further reaction to being hosted in Cornelius’ home (cf. 10:28). However, the phrase ‭πᾶσιν τοῖς εἰςμακράν‬ (“all who are far off”) in 2:39 is an idiom for Gentiles observed elsewhere (cf. Isa 57:19; Acts 13:33; Eph 2:13, 17). Additionally, the phrase “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” in 2:39 closely resembles the phrase James uses in Acts 15 to introduce his judgment concerning the Gentile inclusion (cf. 15:14; ‭πρῶτον ὁ θεὸς ἐπεσκέψατολαβεῖν ἐξ ἐθνῶν λαὸν τῴ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ‬), and a phrase in LXX Amos 9:12, which James uses to prop up his judgment (cf. 15:17; ‭πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ᾽ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μον ἐπ᾽ αὐτους‬). These two places in Luke's Gospel and in Acts reveals the plan that God had to incorporate in a legitimate way those from outside Israel. However, they become more clearly the “other” by further problems highlighted in Acts.

The Problem of the Law of Moses and the Gentile

The Lukan James’ prefacing commentary to the first iteration of the AD is that his judgment according to his scriptural exegesis “is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,” but some laws should be observed (i.e., those of the AD). His judgment, in the context of Acts 15, is in large part from the Lukan Peter's testimony. Peter, “after there had been much debate” (15:7) gives the a testimony that is nearly as long as the Lukan James’ judgment. He says in 15:7–11 (ESV):

His testimony is a version of the events from Acts 10. The retelling of this episode is the third time the divine initiative to welcome Gentiles into the church as Gentiles is given, since it was also retold to skeptical Jewish-Christians in Acts 11.

For our purposes, two things can be highlighted that are salient about Peter's words. First, there is a clear “us” and a clear “them.” Secondly, the “us” in his statement are called to remembrance of their own forgiveness.

First, Peter points out a clear “us” and a clear “them.” Peter makes it clear to his listeners that the “them” is the Gentiles, which we have discussed more fully above. We shall now look at the “us” in Peter's equation, and what identifies them as such and why that is important.

The “us” is the Jewish-Christian group that are marked out as a people by the law of Moses. Peter makes this clear in 15:10. In fact, it is their association with this institution that precipitates the debate held at the council and what calls Paul and Barnabas from the mission field. Jervell aptly articulates the question Acts 15 addresses, observing, “The problem with which Luke struggles is to what extent this ecclesiastical practice [of receiving the Gentiles qua Gentiles] is a breach of the Law of Moses with the result that the church as the restored Israel cannot lay claim to the promises of salvation” (Jervell 1972: 188–89). The law marks out Israel as a people, but to what extent should it apply to the Gentiles, and what does this mean for the early church?

Peter refers to the institution of the law as a “yoke.” For Peter, this “yoke” is a commonality between him and his Jewish contemporaries. But the term ‭τό ζῠγόν‬, typically translated in 15:10 as “yoke,” more than a reminder of one's identity still seems to have more oppressive undertones. However, John Nolland has gone a long way in turning back the tide of scholarship that would read Peter's words in Acts 15:10 as a negative saying on the law, essentially viewing the law “as a mass of commandments and prohibitions which no man can fulfill,” (Haenchen: 106) or “an oppressive burden laid on men to no good end.” (Nolland 1981: 106)

Nolland suggests instead that “yoke” in 15:10 should be read (1) as a mark of identity that was gladly taken on by an Israelite, yet one that Israel has failed to carry; and (2) as a “yoke” that Old Testament history suggests that Israel did not have the strength to carry. Luke's Jewish contemporaries affirm this as a continuous biblical pattern. For Nolland, Peter's statement is more about the failure of Israel to fulfill the law's demands, than it is about an notion of the law being oppressive (Nolland 1981:108, 111, 114).

Nolland's insights help us to observe that, for Peter, the law defines Israel as a people, and by inference not the Gentiles. It was Israel that took on this “yoke,” not the Gentiles. The Jews in Acts often misunderstand this principle. This is most starkly seen in Acts 13 when the Jews react negatively (cf. 13:44–52), not to the gospel proclamation in 13:16–41, but to the reception of salvation by those Gentiles who are not associated with the law institution via the synagogue (cf. ‭ῷ δὲἐρχομένῳ σαββάτῳ σχεδὸν πᾶσα ἡ πόλις συνήχθη ἀκοῦσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου‬ 13:44). (I gave the Acts 13 episode and an argument for the above assertion greater attention in the third section of the third chapter of my PhD dissertation; so further comment here is superfluous [White 2017]) This is, of course, the issue being addressed in Acts 15. And for Luke, the appeal to the law in Leviticus 17–19 by the AD is the explicit claim that God never required this of those who were incorporated into Israel.

Instead, the law as what marks out Israel is still in place exclusively for Israel. Luke makes a point of the place of the law for marking out Israel by the continued need for circumcision that is apparently required for Jewish-Christians, according to the actions Paul takes in 16:3 and 21:23–26. The mere fact that Israel has not been able to keep the law does not mean that it means it must be dispensed with. Peter and James still seem to affirm the mark. Jewish-Christians, as that part of a heritage that first received the law as an institution and, as Paul said earlier in Acts 13:46, first heard the gospel proclamation, still hold an important place in God's plan. By virtue of this distinction, the people of Israel are “hosts” of those who come in as incorporated “others” in God's people.

However, the second aspect of Peter's testimony makes the Jewish-Christian's role as “host” most pronounced. According to Peter's testimony the Jewish-Christians at the council should receive Gentiles as Gentiles into the people of God because they first received forgiveness. They are to receive them according to remembrance.

The yoke Peter describes was one that “neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear.” As Nolland said, Israel failed to carry the yoke. In light of this, Peter concludes that God needed to cleanse Israel's heart (15:9), and they were saved according to the “grace of the Lord Jesus” (15:11). Peter's conclusions are drawn from his experience in Acts 10. Three times God said to Peter: “What God has called clean, do not call common” (10:15–16). The full measure of God's word to Peter is revealed when, as Peter says in 15:8–9, God gave the Gentiles “the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them” (cf. 10:44–48; 11:15–16). Peter concludes that this must mean that the cleansing of the Gentiles is based upon the “forgiveness of sins through [Jesus'] name” (10:43; cf. 11:16). Cleansing is an analogy of the forgiveness of sins. The term for “cleansing,” ‭κᾰθαρίζω‬, is used only in reference to this event in Acts (cf. 10:15; 11:9; 15:9). For the student it is helpful to see that in Acts Peter's realization of forgiveness by cleansing is set in a context of explicit hospitality by the Household of Cornelius—even a type of hospitality that “displaces the center,” since it is the “guest” that hosts Peter as the representative of the “host.” So similarly, Paul says in 13:38–39 that what frees one from sin is not the institution of the law, but forgiveness through Jesus (cf. 15:12).

Based upon forgiveness, Peter reveals the central principle of remembrance that undergirds a hermeneutic of hospitality from Leviticus 19:33–34. Peter's point is essentially this: the Gentiles should be received by Israel without circumcision, that is, with out any more debt to be paid to an institution that is exclusive to Israel as host, because it is not the institution that defines inclusion, but it is that God has given them the Holy Spirit without distinction, cleansed them by faith, and saved them by the same grace in Jesus Christ (cf. Chance; Temple: 55). Contrary to categorozing Gentiles as “god-fearers” or proselytes, required to pay a debt that is not their own (the mistake of the Jews in Acts 13), and in complete fulfillment of the blueprint of the normative expression of the law, the Lukan Peter says that the Gentile-Christians should be received by Israel by virtue of their debt paid by the remembrance of Israel's own debt paid for them by God.

Eschatological Tent and the Requirement All God's People Must Obey

According to our stated model of hospitality and according to the normative expression of hospitality from Leviticus 17–19, the guests are not passive. Forgiveness-hospitality, based upon remembrance of one's own forgiveness, is reciprocal. This is the role of the AD.

Two conclusions from our exploration of the law of the resident alien in Leviticus 17–19 will help us to define the meaning of the AD inasfar as it is the explicit expression of the reciprocal action necessitated by the guest. Recall that, as Milgrom observes, the source of the AD, Leviticus 17–19, is comprised of negative commandments and prohibitions in order to preserve the unity, order, and cleanliness of Israel before the holiness of the Lord. With specific focus, the preservation of cleanliness is toward the land of Israel (the LORD's land) and the place of worship. In the context of Acts the land of Israel and the site of worship are central. We will cover the latter first.

The central scriptural proof for Gentiles being admitted into the people of God, qua Gentiles, is LXX Amos 9:11–12. At the heart of this prophecy is the return of God to rebuild the eschatological tent of David so that a multi-ethnic people whom he has called may seek the tent and call upon his name. God's people come from all nations and the mission is universal in scope. This means that unlike the stationary Temple (Chance: 40), the tent of David has a universal scope that places it in the immediate vicinity of all of God's people. Additionally, it is important to note that the place from which the tent of David is proclaimed as rebuilt also affirms its universality. Jerusalem, redemptive-historically speaking, presumes eschatological universality. (More on the Temple vis-à-vis the mission to the Gentiles is found in Chance: 101–07.) Hengel (59) says “Anyone who wanted to address all Israel did so in Jerusalem.” The tent of David is to represent the mobility of God with his people for a mission to all of the world (Chance: 41).

If the tent is mobile and universally reaching, then Milgrom's statement cited earlier takes on new significance (Milgrom 2000: 1417). The sanctuary is now in the vicinity of each Christian, which also means that these believers do not need to be in Jerusalem to pollute the Temple. Both Jewish-Christian and Gentile-Christian, alike, can pollute the eschatological tent from anywhere. According to the negative commands and prohibitions of the AD, it is now the Gentile-Christian's responsibility to preserve the cleanliness of the worship place of God, as it was for the gēr under the law.

In the same milieu, it is relevant to note that similar expectations of a temple-city exists in eschatological interpretations of the Temple in the halakhah of the Temple Scroll that would require a corresponding state of purity and cleanliness. According to this interpretation, eschatological Jerusalem is considered the same as the Temple. (Dimant 1981: 177–83; Yadin 1983: 215–63; Dimant 1984: 520)

Secondly, according to Acts the LORD's land takes on a whole new character. The Lukan Jesus commissions the disciples in Acts 1:8 “to the end of the earth” (‭ἔως ἐσχάτουτῆς γῆς‬). The land of God is now the entire earth, according to Luke. The scope of the proclamation of Jesus’ lordship demonstrates that in concentric circles, per se, the land of God moves throughout the world from Jerusalem, where all the nations “under heaven” are represented at Pentecost (Acts 2:5–11). And the Lukan Peter foreshadows a universally proclaimed gospel (2:39), to the point where in Acts 22:1 Paul can say with confidence that God has sent him “far away to the Gentiles.”

The importance of the growing claim that God has on the world is what it means for those who live on that land. The land of the Lord is no longer simply Jerusalem, or that land for which the law is observed, but it is all of the world. The negative commands and prohibitions given to the Gen-tile-Christians are given in care for them. They are now accountable for not polluting the land of God, as the gēr was under the law, and Jesus is Lord over all the land of the world, as He is over all of its people.

Summary and Conclusion

We can conclude here. More than showing the Gentiles as having a “clean” table fellowship with Jewish-Christians, this study indicates a new perspective on and trajectory for the AD. This is the first statement of the multi-ethnic church and how “the other” would associate with “the host” and assimilate into a greater ecclesiological whole. In sum, the church has sanctioned the hosting of Gentiles as a legitimate part of the people of God, and the Decree has to make sense in light of that major moment in Acts and the people of God. For Luke, Leviticus 17–19 is the theological, practical, and ecclesiological blueprint for this new and anticipated (15:18) reality for the people of God. How might this affect how we host the other in today's 21st century context?

A reading of the Decree through a hermeneutic of hospitality based on the host paying the debt of the guest according to forgiving-remembrance makes the best sense of the weight of the eschatological moment found in the text of Acts, and its context.

For Luke, the host, the Jewish-Christian, extends forgiveness of the debt of the Gentile by remembering the forgiveness which he has received from the divine host (15:10). In response, the Gentile-Christian, according to the Lukan re-reading of Leviticus 17–19, is obligated to express reciprocal hospitality by fulfilling four stipulations. The law, still in effect to mark out Israel as host, still also has a place to preserve the unity, purity and cleanliness of God's sanctuary and land, and also still marks out the Gentile as guest.

Reading the AD with this fresh hermeneutic clarifies the flow of the Lukan narrative and does justice to the importance of this point of the narrative. It highlights the gravity of the moment of debate at the council, and it shows that Luke looked to a normative source for a hermeneutic to explain the emergence of a multi-ethnic church. It also perceives Luke as a free reader of Scripture and law-affirming author. (Pace, Conzelmann 1961: 145, 212; Haenchen: 100, 115, 223; instead see Jervell 1972: 133–47, who looks to it as an authoritative text to set the blueprint for the needs of the eschatological church.)

However, the question remains concerning the way in which the Gentile-Christian fulfills these four stipulations. Of course, the proposal of Conzelmann is that they would obey these four literal laws for the sake of table fellowship with the Jewish-Christian. But this application breaks down clearly in that the church no longer requires these stipulations, thus making them seem rather time-trapped. I am of the opinion that these obligations are truly required of the Gentile-Christian (Milgrom 1971: 149–56, critiqued by Rendtdorff: 23–28). Yet the Gentile's incapacity for perfect obedience is forgiven in Jesus (like the Jewish-Christians—15:10). That is, the Decree is a “yoke” gladly taken on (cf. 15:31: “when [the Gentile-Christians] had read [the AD], they rejoiced”), but one that does not ultimately define one's standing in the people of God.

Therefore, the Jewish-Christian is to welcome the Gentile-Christian as one whose debts are forgiven by the Lord Jesus and divinely called into and hosted by God's people (Acts 15:14), and as one who has submitted his will to the universality of the rule of Jesus and faithful worship in his newly multi-national church. Difference of ethnicity, and opposition throughout history great or small are forgotten and forgiven because of the lordship of Jesus. What was once mapped out as a blueprint in Leviticus 17–19 is now fully fulfilled in the inaugurated kingdom of the Lord Jesus; a kingdom that is characteristically universal and multi-ethnic. Understanding the AD in this way brings the AD into the greatest continuity with the narrative context, specifically 15:10 and 15:19, and sheds the greatest light on how the earliest words of Luke's gospel relates to the advent of Jesus, the messiah and Lord.

Finally, reading the AD with this trajectory furnishes Christians today with a blueprint for how they too might interact with the “other,” whoever that might be. In the end, if the Jewish-Christian could host the Gentile-Christian (an epochal moment not simply in Acts, church history, or theology), anyone (governments included, encouraged by the advocacy of Christians) can offer a hand of generous hospitality to whoever their “other” is in any particular situation.