The Jerusalem-Conference Decree: A Closer Look (Part 5 of 5)

The Significance of the Jerusalem Conference

Significance of Location

The controversy that necessitated the Acts 15 gathering of church leaders was instigated by legalistic judaizers from Jerusalem. The crisis, therefore, needed to be dealt with in Jerusalem and probably could not have been adequately resolved anywhere else.

Jerusalem was the center of Jewish cultural and religious identity. It was regarded as God’s sacred city and the focus of messianic-kingdom prophecies. Isaiah 2:3, for example, had long foretold: “And many people will come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us his ways and we will walk in his paths, for from Zion the law will go forth and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem’.”¹ For devout Jewish fundamentalists, any dictate emanating from Jerusalem would have had greater authoritative force.

Jerusalem is where Christ’s church had its beginning and the centrifugal hub of the gospel’s diffusion to all nations (Acts 1:4–8:4). During the earliest period of Christianity, the principal leaders were Jesus’s apostles, based in Jerusalem for at least the first two decades (Acts 1:1–15:30). Also in Jerusalem were the earliest appointed church elders (Acts 11:30). The Jewish people were well accustomed to respecting and heeding the sage counsel of men recognized as elders (Ex. 19:7; Deut. 17:1; Mark 7:3-5).

Significance of Timing

This historic meeting took place early in the year 50, halfway between the establishment of the church in Jerusalem (AD 30) and Jerusalem’s fall (AD 70),² all of which were major events in the progression of God’s plan. The meeting was also sandwiched between the first and second missionary journeys of Paul and his coworkers, key efforts in the early spread of the gospel among Gentiles.³

Significance of Participants

Paul and Barnabas had for several years been working under the Holy Spirit’s influence (Acts 13:1-4, 9-12, 52; 14:3, 10; 15:12) and presumably could have simply issued a divine injunction to counter the misguided claims of the radical circumcisionists. However, the dispute with these agitators was to no avail (Acts 15:1-2). Apparently, at least in Jewish circles, Paul (of Cilicia) and Barnabas (of Cyprus) did not have the same level of respect and recognition as the group of leaders in Jerusalem. Moreover, Paul’s infamous reputation among Jewish people in general (cf. Acts 21:20-21) would no doubt have exacerbated the problem, so the wisest plan of action was the one taken. The apostles and elders (noted above) needed to be consulted.⁴  

Transmissional Considerations

When Luke composed the book of Acts, he had limited space into which to condense over three decades of historical information. Rather than providing comprehensive details, his reporting was restricted to selective highlights.

Recounting the events of Acts 15—the people involved, the words spoken, the decisions made, the document produced—required abridgment. Even the contents of the letter (embedded in vv. 23-29) would need to be in abbreviated form, omitting details that the authors and recipients already knew or that would be conveyed orally as supplementary and explanatory information.

When the decision was put into writing, Judas-Barsabbas and Silas served as amanuenses: “having written [γράψαντες] by their hand” (Acts 15:22-23).⁵ These two men were further authorized to verbally communicate the contents of the letter (v. 27). Upon its completion, Judas-Barsabbas and Silas delivered the document to the Antioch congregation by publicly reading it, while they (as prophets) also imparted additional instruction (vv. 30-32). Silas then joined Paul’s mission team, delivering the same message the same way farther west (Acts 15:40–16:5).

Understanding how the Jerusalem-conference decree was transmitted in condensed letterform and accompanied by verbal instruction is a reminder that we are not privy to all the details available to the original participants. But taking into account the totaliity of information accessible in the biblical record as a whole enables us to sufficiently grasp the necessary facts without missing out on anything essential (see Part 2).

Contextual Qualifiers

The revelation and implementation of God’s redemptive plan did not occur abruptly but, in God’s own time, gradually unfolded through to the completion of the New Testament. Christianity began in a thoroughly Jewish context (Acts 1–7), spread to the ethnically mixed Samaritans (Acts 8), then to the Gentile world (Acts 9–28). During this developmental and transitional period, as the gospel was impacting lives from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8), two major obstacles were (a) the stubborn resistance of nationalistic Judaism, and (b) the pervasive stronghold of pagan idolatry. Both intersected at the mid-first-century Jerusalem conference. 

At this point in the church’s history, Jew-Gentile tensions were coming to a head. On one end were deeply entrenched Jewish protocols, such as circumcision, religious calendar observance, and dietary restrictions. On the other end were questionable activities associated with immoral and idolatrous improprieties. Ethnically mixed churches, intercongregational relations, joint activities and table fellowship, along with pressures from the outside world, created a volatile atmosphere.

According to God’s seemingly impossible plan, diverse peoples were brought together in Christ as a single body of believers, breaking down ethnic, social, and gender barriers that separated and marginalized certain populations outside the church.⁶ Yet human fallibilities, even among God’s people, created a less-than-smooth transition. Concessions were needed from all parties.

o   Jewish Christians had to refrain from trying to judaize non-Jewish brethren (Acts 15:10-19; Gal. 2:1-14).

o   Gentile Christians had to avoid careless affiliations coupled with arrogant and selfish insensibilities (Acts 15:20-21; Rom. 11:17-21).

o   Both had to renounce petty judging, while conscientiously averting preventable stumbling blocks (Rom. 2:1-4, 22; 14:3-4, 10-13; Gal. 5:7-15).

Freedom in Christ is not freedom to maintain behaviors detrimental to the unity of the church, the spiritual health of oneself and others, and community outreach.

The Jerusalem conference initially convened to address disruptions caused by pharisaic instigators among Christ’s multi-ethnic communities from Judea through to Syria, Cilicia, and beyond. The overarching concern, besides legalistic extremism, was “the pollutions of idols” (Acts 15:20), i.e., ritual defilement associated with idol worship. The resulting fourfold directive would help ensure that non-Christian Jews would be less likely to get the impression that followers of Christ were in any way associated with polytheistic cultism (Acts 15:21).

At least four things were accomplished: (a) pharisaic legalism was countered (Acts 15:5-6, 24); (b) unnecessary burdens affecting Gentile Christians were mitigated (vv. 10, 19, 28a); (c) offending Jewish sensibilities and deterring prospective converts was avoided (v. 21); and (d) Gentile Christians were dissuaded from returning to former pagan ways (vv. 20, 29).

Lessons to Learn:

1. Disruptions in the Lord’s body and challenges to his righteous cause cannot be ignored or tolerated. “Contend earnestly for the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The Bible’s repeated warnings about seditious influences and reminders to be alert and on guard are still relevant today and just as important as in the early church.⁷

2. Contentious debate is not the most effective way of dealing with contentious issues, especially when one or both parties are stubbornly closed minded, quick tempered, and inflexible (cf. Gal. 5:15). Reasoning together is much more effective when governed by mutual respect, cordial exchange, rational thinking, and a genuine concern for the welfare of the Lord’s church.⁸

3. Christlikeness entails a willingness to sacrifice old habits and personal preferences for the benefit of others and for unity and peace among God’s people.⁹

4. The biblical model for church leadership is collaborative. Collective wisdom and mutual support are much more effective than isolated individualism.¹⁰ Even when someone like the apostle Paul had become established in the Lord’s work and regarded as a prominent authority figure in his own right, rarely is he seen in the biblical record working alone.

Conclusion

This study has been divided into five segments:

o   Part 1 introduced and summarized the controversy, the initial fourfold interdiction and stated reason, concluding: “The whole point of the Jerusalem conference was to counter pharisaic legalism in the church .... not implementing a new law but opposing mandated observance of the old law.”

o   Part 2 observed the rewording and rearrangement of the interdiction, examined the first abstention, and compared similar issues addressed in 1 Corinthians, Romans, and Revelation, recognizing “the variety of contexts involving different historical, chronological, geographical, and sociocultural factors.”

o   Part 3 more closely examined and clarified the other three abstentions.

o   Part 4 emphasized the importance of viewing all four abstentions as a collective whole within the original context of mid-first-century polytheism and attendant Jewish sensibilities, considered present-day application, and concluded: “The originally stated reason, emphasizing Christian influence and removing barriers (Acts 15:20-21), is a basic principle with broader applicability.”

o   Part 5 has noted the significance of the Jerusalem conference during the developmental stages of Christianity and how the decision was transmitted, Jew-Gentile tensions, what was accomplished, and lessons to be learned.

May we be just as diligent as our first-century brethren in pursuing the unity, peace, and spiritual well-being of the Lord’s church, showing Christ to the world.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² On the chronology and dating of the Jerusalem conference, see K. L. Moore, “The First Missionary Journey,” Moore Perspective (10 Feb. 2013), <Link>. For additional information on NT chronology and dating, see K. L. Moore, A Critical Introduction to the NT (Henderson, TN: Hester, 2009) 36-48.

     ³ On the widespread dissemination of the gospel through the first century, see K. L. Moore, “The Bible’s Geographical Context: Part 2,” Moore Perspective (5 June 2019), <Link>; also “Around the World in Three Decades,” Moore Perspective (13 April 2013), <Link>.

     ⁴ While these leaders had the consent of “the whole church” (Acts 15:22), a textual variant has led to an interpretive and translational question concerning the referential function of ἀδελφοί (“brothers”) in v. 23. Preceded by καὶ οἱ (“and the”) in the Byzantine Majority Text and Textus Receptus, the NKJV takes this as an allusion to a third group: “The apostles, the elders, and the brethren.” The NA/UBS Greek text, however, omits the conjunction and article, and the NASB links ἀδελφοί with πρεσβύτεροι (“the brethren who are elders”), while the NRSV sees it as descriptive of both ἀπόστολοι and πρεσβύτεροι (“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders”).

     ⁵ The verb γράψαντες is the aorist participial form of γράφω, which means to “write” (ASV, ERV, HCSB, ISV, N/KJV, WEB), although several English translations have curiously rendered it “sent” (ESV, NASB, NET, NIV, N/RSV). Granted, Judas-Barsabas and Silas were the letter carriers (Acts 15:22a, 27), but someone had to do the writing (multiple copies?), and the verb γράφω identifies these two men as the designated scribes. Compare the verb’s usage in Acts 1:20; 7:42; 13:29, 33; 15:15; 18:27; 23:5, 25; 24:14; 25:26.

     ⁶ Acts 10:28-35; 15:9; Rom. 2:11; 3:22; 10:12; 1 Cor. 7:17-28; 12:13; Gal. 2:6; 3:27-28; Eph. 2:11-22; Col. 3:11, 25; Rev. 5:9; 7:9-10.

     ⁷ Luke 11:34-35; Acts 20:28-31; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 16:13; Gal. 6:1; Phil. 2:4; 3:17-19; Col. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:6, 14; 1 Pet. 5:8; Rev. 3:2-6; 16:15.

     ⁸ Rom. 15:2-7; 1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor. 2:4; 11:28; Gal. 5:22-23; 2 Tim. 2:23-25; 1 Pet. 2:17.

     ⁹ Rom. 12:9-21; 15:2; 1 Cor. 9:19-23; 10:24, 32-33; 11:1; 13:1-7; Eph. 4:3-6; Phil. 2:1-5; 1 Thess. 5:12-13.

     ¹⁰ Ex. 18:14-26; Prov. 11:14; 15:22; 27:17; Eccl. 4:9-12; cf. Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2; 20:17.

Related Posts: Jerusalem-Conference Decree: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Related articles: When did Jesus annul the Jewish ceremonial food restrictions? 

 

Image credit: https://christianfamilyreformation.com/studies/acts-15/

Elymas Bar-Jesus vs. Sergius Paulus

     The events recorded in Acts 13 occurred approximately eleven years after Paul’s conversion. Although he felt compelled to share his faith immediately after his baptism (Acts 9:20), he needed to go through a period of training, maturity, and preparation before he was ready to be a full-time missionary. In addition to his formal education, much of his learning came from the proverbial school of experience and hard knocks (Acts 9:16-29; 22:18), with a period of service in his home environment before being thrust out into ministry farther a field (Acts 9:30; 11:25-26; Gal. 1:21).

     Initially Barnabas was the leading figure in their partnership (Acts 9:27; 11:25-26, 30; 12:25; 13:1-2, 7). When Barnabas and Saul were sent out from Syrian Antioch as the first Christian missionaries, they initially traveled westward to the island of Cyprus – Barnabas’ homeland (Acts 4:36; 13:4). In the city of Paphos, on the southwest coast of the island, there were a number of firsts.

·      According to the biblical record, this was the farthest west Saul had ever been. Prior to this, he had spent his entire life east and northeast of the Mediterranean Sea. This would be the first of several more excursions westward, ultimately reaching as far as Rome, with plans to go even farther to Spain (Acts 28:16; Rom. 15:24, 28).

·      This is the first time Saul is called Paul (Acts 13:9), and from this point onward he is referred to as Paul exclusively in the New Testament.

·      Up to this point Barnabas has consistently been named first of the two partners, but hereafter Paul’s name is listed first (Acts 13:13, 46, 50; 14:20; 15:2, 22, 35).¹

·      This is the first recorded miracle of Paul (Acts 13:9-11).

·      This is the first and only miracle in the NT performed by an apostle that produced apparent harm to someone.

·      Not long after these events, John Mark quit the mission team and returned home to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13).

Elymas Bar-Jesus (Acts 13:6-10)

     In Paphos the missionaries encountered a Jewish man described as mágos (v. 6b), translated “a sorcerer” or “a magician.” This is the same Greek word used in plural form in Matt. 2:1, 7, 16 for the “magi” or “wise men” who traveled from the East to see baby Jesus. In a pagan environment like Paphos, perceived wisdom and sorcery were not clearly distinguished. The man is also called “a false prophet” (v. 6c), whom Paul accuses of being “full of all deceit and all craftiness” (v. 10a).² Jesus had warned of devious false prophets (Matt. 7:15), and later John affirms that “many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1b).    

     The man wore the name Bariēsous (“Bar-Jesus”). The prefix bar is the Aramaic term for “son,” and Iēsous is the Greek form of the Hebrew Yeshua (“Joshua”), a common name among the Jews at the time. For Paul, however, the name “Jesus” had special significance, and instead of using it in reference to this deceitful antagonist, the apostle seems to make a play on words by addressing him as “son of the devil” (v. 10b).

     The imposter is also designated “Elymas” (v. 8), the etymology of which is uncertain. If this were a Jewish name, the prefix el means “God.” Irrespective of the name’s full connotation (“God’s power,” “God’s wisdom,” “God rejects”??),³ this man was obviously not God’s true representative. In the words of Jesus, “he who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God” (John 8:47).

     Elymas is further described as an “enemy of all righteousness,” because he was trying to diastréphō [pervert, corrupt, oppose, distort] “the straight ways of the Lord” (v. 10c). The “righteousness of God” is revealed through the gospel (Rom. 1:16-17), so that in Christ “we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). This is the message Elymas opposed. He was therefore acting contrary to the ancient proverb, “Let your eyes look straight ahead, And your eyelids look right before you. Ponder the path of your feet, And let all your ways be established. Do not turn to the right or the left; Remove your foot from evil” (Prov. 4:25-27, NKJV).

Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7-12)

     Elymas Bar-Jesus was “with” (as a guest of or advisor to?) the city’s proconsul Sergius Paulus (v. 7a).⁴ “Sergius” was his given name, and “Paulus” is the Latin form of “Paul,” a surname shared with one of the Christian missionaries. Sergius Paulus is described as an “intelligent” [sunetós] man, descriptive of a person of “understanding,” one who is “wise.” This is evidenced by the fact that he “sought to hear the word of God” (v. 7b). The term for “seek” here is epizētéō, an intensified form of zētéō, meaning to desire, seek, or search earnestly. A wise person will eagerly seek after the word of God.

The Critical Turning Point (Acts 13:11-12)

     Because of his opposition to the gospel, Elymas is struck blind for a time (v. 11). Before we accuse Paul of malice or vindictiveness, remember that all of his recorded miracles after this first one were beneficial to both the recipients and onlookers. About eleven years earlier, the apostle himself had been struck blind, providing opportunity and motivation to reflect on his own stubborn opposition to the straight ways of the Lord. The result was an eager reception of the gospel three days later (Acts 9:8-18). Perhaps this was Paul’s attempt to lead an enemy of righteousness to the truth.

     “Then having seen what had occurred, the proconsul believed …” (v. 12a). Another positive effect of this miracle was to confirm the truthfulness of what Paul and Barnabas were teaching. But it was not the miracle itself that engendered the proconsul’s faith; “being astonished at the teaching of the Lord” (v. 12b). The word rendered “astonished” is ekplēssō, referring to one who is “astonished,” “astounded,” “amazed,” and even “thunderstruck.” The blinding of Elymas did not captivate Sergius Paulus as much as the power of God’s word.

Lessons to Learn

1. Elymas Bar-Jesus wore the name of Jesus while resisting the teachings of Jesus; he is thus called “the son of the devil.” It is not enough to simply wear Christ’s name or address him as Lord (Matt. 7:21). If one professes to be a Christian but is not faithful to the Lord’s teachings, he/she is not legitimately “of Christ” and is by default “of the devil” (cf. Matt. 7:22-23; 12:30; John 8:44).

2. Elymas Bar-Jesus was a Jew and therefore had every opportunity to know the way of God. He should have been “a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness” (Rom. 2:19) but instead was himself blinded, “seeking someone to lead him by the hand” (Acts 13:11). If I have squandered the opportunities the Lord has graciously given me, there is no excuse for my spiritual blindness.

3. Elymas Bar-Jesus, described as mágos, was regarded as a “wise man” in pagan society, yet he foolishly rejected the wisdom of God (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18-29; 2:14). “For now do I seek men’s approval or God’s?” (Gal. 1:10a).

4. Sergius Paulus was indeed the “intelligent” one because he “sought to hear the word of God” (Acts 13:7). A wise person eagerly seeks divine instruction; consequently, finding the truth is assured (Matt. 7:7; John 8:31-32; Acts 17:27).

5. Paul was formerly a violent opponent of the Christian faith whose conversion was prompted by a period of blindness. His first recorded miracle, therefore, may have been an attempt to give Elymas Bar-Jesus the same opportunity. Paul would later write, “… we glory in afflictions, knowing that the affliction produces … hope” (Rom. 5:3-4).

6. Although miraculous signs were necessary in the early stages of the Christian movement to confirm the divine message in the absence of the complete NT (Mark 16:20; Heb. 2:3-4), the power to save has always been afforded by the word of God (Rom. 1:16; Heb. 4:12). It was sufficient for Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:12), and it is sufficient for us today.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Exceptions are Acts 14:14; 15:12, 25; therefore the significant and respected role of Barnabas is not discounted.

     ² Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ³ In Hebrew el means “God,” and the verb ma’as means to “reject” or “despise,” so the name “Elymas” could convey the sense of “God rejects” or “God despises,” or possibly “one who rejects or despises God.” Some have suggested that the name is derived from the Arabic ‘alīm (“learned” or “wise”), used to translate magos, or perhaps an Aramaic term for “powerful.”

    ⁴ Provinces regarded as peaceful and loyal to Rome were classified as senatorial provinces, under the senate’s control and locally overseen by a proconsul. Those whose commitment was weak or questionable were classified as imperial provinces, controlled directly by the emperor and governed by military prefects or procurators.

Related Posts:

Image credit: https://media.vam.ac.uk/media/thira/collection_images/2010EG/2010EG8606.jpg

The Aramaic Patronymic Bar-

     A patronymic is an identifying designation derived from the name of one's father or other male ancestor (e.g. Johnson = son of John). Corresponding to the Hebrew בֵּן (ben), the Aramaic בַּר (bar) is a patronymic prefix meaning “son of” (cf. Ezra 5:1, 2; 6:14; Dan. 3:25; 5:22; 7:13).¹ With reference to one’s paternity or other distinctive features, this prefix helped to differentiate among those who bore the same name in ancient Aramaic-speaking communities. For example, the name “Jesus” is the English transliteration of the Greek Iēsous, which is equivalent to the Hebrew Yehoshuah and its abbreviated form Yeshua (“Joshua”). Seeing that this was a fairly common name among first-century Palestinian Jews,² our Lord would have been known in his home community as bar Yosef or “son of Joseph” (cf. Luke 4:22; John 6:42).

Bar- as a Family Surname

     Bartholomew is listed among the 12 apostles in Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; and Luke 6:14 but is unnamed in John. While Bartholomew is paired with Philip in the Synoptic Gospels, John mentions Philip in association with Nathanael (1:43-49). Even though Nathanael is identified in the company of the apostles (John 21:2) and among the eyewitnesses of the risen Lord (John 21:3-14), he is unnamed in the Synoptics. Since the name Bartholomew is actually an Aramaic patronymic (bar Tôlmai = “son of Tolmai”) and would have normally been added to a given name, it stands to reason that the apostle known as Bartholomew was actually Nathanael bar Tolmai.³

     Two of the Lord’s original apostles shared the personal name Simon (Matt. 10:2, 4). To distinguish between them, Jesus not only gave one the nickname “Cephas” (Aramaic) or “Peter” (Greek) (Mark 3:16; John 1:42), he also used the patronymic bar Iōna (bar Jonah) in Matt. 16:17, meaning “son of Jonah.”⁴ The same designation would have also applied to Simon’s brother Andrew.

     Near the end of his earthly ministry the Lord encountered a blind beggar outside of Jericho called Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46), an appellation meaning “son of Timaeus.” We don’t know what this man’s given name was, as he was apparently more commonly known among the residents of Jericho (and/or Mark’s readers) in relation to his father’s name.

Bar- as an Ironic Play on Words

     Barabbas was the notorious criminal whose death sentence was repealed as the Lord Jesus took his place at Golgatha (Matt. 27:16-26; Mark 15:7-15; Luke 23:18; John 18:40). The name Barabbas is the Graecized form of the Aramaic bar abbâ, which is a combination of bar (“son of”) and abbâ (“father”), meaning “son of [the] father.” The irony is that Jesus was the legitimate Son of the heavenly Father (John 8:16-29), treated and executed as a criminal, whereas the infamous Barabbas was set free though he manifested a very different spiritual paternity (cf. John 8:44).⁵


     Bar-Jesus is the patronymic surname of Elymas, a Jewish false prophet and sorcerer mentioned in Acts 13:6-8. He opposed the preaching of Barnabas and Paul in Paphos on the island of Cyprus. As noted above, the Greek Iēsous (“Jesus”) is equivalent to the Hebrew Yeshua (“Joshua”) and was a common name among the Jews at the time, apparently worn by Elymas’ father. For Paul, however, this name had special significance,⁶ and instead of using it in reference to this deceitful antagonist, the apostle seems to make a play on words by addressing the sorcerer as “son of the devil” (v. 10).

Bar- as a Nickname with Special Meaning

     Barnabas is the nickname given by the apostles to Joseph (or Joses), a Levite-Jewish convert from Cyprus (Acts 4:36) and cousin of John Mark (Col. 4:10). This moniker is a combination of the Aramaic bar (“son of”) and naba (to “prophesy”). Since prophesying involved communicating “edification and exhortation and comfort to men” (1 Cor. 14:3), the Greek rendering of the name signified “son of encouragement” (Acts 4:36).⁷



     The designation Barsabbas is a patronymic description meaning “son of [the] sabbath,” perhaps indicative of the day of birth of the one to whom it was applied. In the Acts narrative two Christians shared this name, viz. Joseph Justus Barsabbas and Judas Barsabbas.

     Joseph Justus Barsabbas was a devoted follower of Jesus throughout the Lord’s entire earthly ministry and was an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:15-23). He was assembled with around 120 fellow-believers in Jerusalem a few days before Pentecost, and he was one of two disciples considered to replace Judas Iscariot as an apostle but not the one chosen.

    Another follower of Jesus who wore this name was Judas Barsabbas. He was a leader in the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:22), a skilled writer (vv. 22-23),⁸ a prophet (v. 32), a teacher (vv. 27, 32), and an encourager (v. 32b). When the apostles and elders met in Jerusalem to discuss the circumcision controversy, reaching a consensus through the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the decision was put into writing, and it was Judas Barsabbas and Silas who penned the document and subsequently delivered it to Gentile Christians in Syria (Acts 15:22-32).

Conclusion

     The name a person wears is important, functioning to describe, distinguish and identify. And there is no greater honor than to be called the children of God (1 John 3:1) by wearing the name that is above all names (Phil. 2:9).⁹ May we live in a manner that is worthy of the precious name of our Lord Jesus Christ!

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ This Aramaic prefix is not part of the Hebrew names Barachel (Job 32:2), Barachiah (Zech. 1:1), Barak (Judg. 4:6), Bariah (1 Chron. 3:22), Barkos (Ezra 2:53), Baruch (Neh. 3:20; 11:5; Jer. 32:12), Barzillai (2 Sam. 17:27; 21:8; Ezra 2:61), Barachias/Berechiah (Matt. 23:35), or Barhumite (2 Sam. 23:31; cf. 1 Chron. 11:33).

     ² Cf. Acts 13:6; Col. 4:11; Heb. 4:8; Josephus, War 6.5.3. This name has been found by Israeli archaeologists no less than 71 times in ancient burial caves (see Ed Pilkington and Rory McCarthy, “Is this really the last resting place of Jesus…?” The Guardian [27-02-2007], <Link>).

     ³ See “Bartholomew,” <Link>.

     ⁴ An alternative reading in John 1:42 and 21:15-17 is [huios] Iōannou (“son of John”) (cf. B. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 172, 220). But remember that in Matt. 16:17 Jesus was originally speaking in Aramaic to fellow-Aramaic speakers, and Matthew was an Aramaic-speaking Jew writing to fellow-Aramaic-speaking Jews (see Matthew's Audience). In contrast, John was writing to Greek-speaking Gentiles (see John's Audience). Seeing that Aramaic expressions have been translated (or transliterated) into Greek by these different authors in different settings for different audiences, which in turn have been copied by hand plethoric times and then translated again into English, the difference in spelling of a couple of letters is hardly significant. See “Simon Peter,” <Link>. Further, there is only a two-letter difference in the Greek spelling of these two names. Matt. 16:17 is a Greek transliteration of a single Aramaic word. John 1:42 is a translation involving the three-word phrase ho huios Iōna OR ho huios Iōannou, while John 21:15-17 translates the repeated genitival Iōna OR Iōannou. Seeing that these expressions would have been passed down orally long before they were put into written form, slight variations of pronunciation would have led to natural variations in phonetic spelling. At the end of the day, the exact pronunciation or precise spelling of the name is not vital to understanding what the respective passages convey.    

     ⁵ See “Barabbas,” <Link>.

     ⁶ See Acts 9:20, 22; 13:23, 33; 15:26; 16:18, 31; 17:3, 7, 18; 18:5; 19:4, 5, 13; 20:21, 24, 35; 21:13; 25:19; 28:23, 31; Rom. 1:1, 3, 6, 8; et al.

     ⁷ See also Acts 9:27; 11:22-30; 12:25; 13:1-2, 7, 43, 46, 50; 14:12-20; 15:2, 12, 22, 25, 35-39; 1 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 2:1, 9, 13; 4:10.

     ⁸ The term graphō in Acts 15:23 literally means to “write.” See “Biblical Authorship 4,” <Link>.

     ⁹ Acts 2:38; 4:2, 10-12, 17-18; 5:28, 40, 41, 42; 8:5, 12, 35; 9:15, 27, 29; 10:43; 11:26; 26:28; 1 Cor. 1:23; 2:2; 3:11; Gal. 3:26-27; Eph. 1:20-21; Phil. 1:18; Col. 3:4; Heb. 1:1-4; Col. 3:11, 17; 1 Pet. 4:16; James 2:7.

Related Posts: Aramaic, The Son of Mary

Image credit: Photo of a 1st-century ossuary inscribed in Aramaic “James, son of Joseph [bar Yosef], brother of Jesus,” <http://hhenry47.home.insightbb.com/JamesOssuary.JPG>.