Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 62:3 (Sep 2019)
Article: Infanticide In The Apostolic Decree Of Acts 15 Revisited
Author: Charles H. Savelle, Jr.

JETS 62:3 (September 2019) p. 533

Infanticide In The Apostolic Decree
Of Acts 15 Revisited

Charles H. Savelle Jr.*

* Charles H. Savelle Jr. is Adjunct Professor of Bible Exposition at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001 W. Seminary Drive, Fort Worth, TX 76115. He may be contacted at [email protected].

Abstract: In a 2009 JETS article, David Instone-Brewer argued that πνικτός in the prohibitions of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) is better understood as “smother” rather than “strangle” and relates to the practice of infanticide, specifically the “smothering” of an infant, a practice observed by Gentiles but abhorrent to Jews. Instone-Brewer’s proposal has received little interaction since its proposal. Therefore, this article seeks to outline Instone-Brewer’s argument, indicate why it might be helpful, and then provide a critical examination of it. While Instone-Brewer’s view would solve difficult problems related to the identification and purpose of the prohibitions, it faces significant textual, text-critical, and logical challenges that ultimately call its viability into question.

Key words: Acts, Apostolic Decree, apostolic prohibitions, infanticide, Jerusalem Council

Significant disagreement and debate continue over the origin, purpose, and significance of the prohibitions in the apostolic decree of Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25).1 In 2009, David Instone-Brewer2 made a new and potentially significant contribution to this issue in arguing that πνικτός in the prohibitions of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) would be better understood as “smother” rather than “strangle” and relate not to the killing of animals but rather to the practice of infanticide, namely the “smothering” of an infant, a practice observed by Gentiles but abhorrent to Jews. Unfortunately, Instone-Brewer’s proposal has received little interaction in recent works. Many recent commentaries do not even mention the proposal.3 Even Craig Keener’s massive four-volume treatment of Acts does not really interact with it.You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe