Church for Every Context. Michael Moynagh

by tracing out the contours of the missionary church under Paul’s leadership based at Antioch. (Anderson, 2007, p. 21)

      Unfortunately, Anderson’s reading of the New Testament privileges new expressions of church over inherited forms and their traditions. Jerusalem, which in Anderson’s reading can be seen as an inherited church, appears to be the big problem. It is ‘controlled by a fortress mentality’ (Anderson, 2007, p. 27). Anderson underlines the conflicts between Antioch and Jerusalem, but downplays their attempt to stay together and ignores the range of views that existed among believers in Jerusalem (and in Antioch, too, presumably).

      Jerusalem can be viewed more sympathetically if we understand the troublesome problem of identity the early believers faced. The key question for the Jerusalem followers of Jesus, as for many in the inherited church now, was how to make space for believers with a very different sense of spiritual identity.

      The dispute over identity

      The Jerusalem church was born as a reform movement among the Jews. The disciples attended the Temple daily (Acts 2.46) and had a strong sense of their Jewish identity. They saw themselves as the nucleus of a new Israel, living in the last days. As we have seen, they were extremely mission-minded. They assumed that Gentiles would come to faith, but they expected them to do so by becoming Jews.

      The conversion of Cornelius challenged that expectation. Peter’s vision of clean and unclean animals together in Acts 10 symbolized, for him, the end of Israel separating itself from the nations. The Spirit falling on Cornelius’ household convinced him that those present could become Christians as Gentiles without converting to Judaism, and his fellow leaders in Jerusalem agreed (Acts 11.18). This was a very significant expansion of the apostles’ sense of spiritual identity: through the Spirit, they were forming a Jewish/Gentile community, not just a Jewish one.

      It was of course Paul, deeply immersed in Gentile mission, who did most to reconceptualize the place of Gentile Christians in God’s purposes. They were not coming into Judaism but into church, a new Israel comprising Jews and Gentiles, whose cornerstone was Jesus. Through him all were made one (Gal. 3.26–9).

      This notion of Christian identity was very different to that of the more conservative believers. Until recently, it has been common to distinguish between a ‘conservative’ Hebrew group of Aramaic-speaking believers, who clung fiercely to their Jewish traditions, and ‘liberal’ Greek-speaking converts from the Jewish Diaspora, the so-called ‘Hellenists’. New Testament scholars now tend to think that conservatives and liberals, if one can use such terms, were drawn from both Hebrew and Hellenistic backgrounds (Witherington III, 1997, pp. 240–7). Indeed, there was probably not a distinct liberal camp in competition with a conservative one: views on such issues as resistance to Rome, temple worship, purity codes, circumcision and eschatological expectations more likely ranged along a spectrum for each issue. These different spectrums may well not have corresponded to each other (Wright, 1992, p. 454).

With that in mind, conservative elements, who treasured their Jewish identity, no doubt saw the baptism of Cornelius without becoming a Jew as an exception rather than the new norm (Dunn, 2009, p. 402). But when the birth of the Antioch church and Paul’s first mission showed that Cornelius was far from an exception, the issue of circumcision – Gentile converts becoming Jews – flared up again. In Acts 15 the Council of Jerusalem confirmed that circumcision was not required, yet added an important rider (‘the apostolic decree’): Gentile believers were to observe some of the Jewish food laws and certain other stipulations (Acts 15.20, 29).2

      Though the traditionalists had lost on circumcision, their desire to protect their Jewish identity had been acknowledged – which made sense from a mission view point. If they strayed too far from their Jewish traditions, mission to their compatriots would have become almost impossible (see Gal. 2.9). A way had been found to combine a single identity – one Lord, faith and baptism – with the preservation of distinctive identities (Jewish and Gentile).

      Maintaining fellowship

      These different trajectories of self-understanding inevitably strained relationships among the early Christians. Yet the believers went to extraordinary lengths to maintain their fellowship. When Gentiles started coming to faith in Antioch, for example, the Jerusalem leaders sent Barnabas to guide and encourage the new church – ‘and no doubt bring it under the supervision of the Jerusalem community’ (Brown and Meier, 1982, p. 33).

      The oversight was done with sensitivity. Barnabas appears to have stayed in Jerusalem after the persecution and was trusted by the Twelve (Brown and Meier, 1982, p. 34). But he was also from Cyprus (Acts 4.36) and so shared an affinity with those who were birthing the new church. His name, ‘Son of Encouragement’, reflected the spirit in which the accountability was exercised – a lesson for inherited churches today. The Antioch church reciprocated with similar generosity. When famine hit Judaea, they sent Barnabas and Paul to Jerusalem with a financial gift (Acts 11.27–30). There was mutual commitment.

      This commitment was tested to near breaking point some time after Paul’s first missionary journey. On a visit to Antioch, Peter ate freely with the Gentile Christians in the city. He then withdrew from this table fellowship under pressure from newly arrived traditionalists from Jerusalem, who were concerned that Peter was not fully observing the Jewish food laws by eating with the Gentiles (Gal. 2.11–3). This withdrawal implied that the Gentile Christians should be treated as a separate group. They were being pressured to become more Jewish (Dunn, 2009, p. 474). For Paul an issue of identity was at stake. Were Gentile believers to be regarded as distinct from the Jews, or were they members of the one body of Christ, belonging on equal terms?

      Two views of the Antioch dispute

      The traditional sequence

       Antioch dispute

       Galatians letter

       Council of Jerusalem

      The sequence as understood by many recent scholars

       Council of Jerusalem

       Antioch dispute

       Galatians letter

      The episode has been reconstructed in different ways. The traditional view is that it (and the letter to the Galatians) happened before the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, which is why Paul does not appeal to the apostolic decree in his letter (Schnabel, 2008, pp. 51–6). Indeed, it may have been this dispute that helped precipitate the Council (Acts 15.1–2). On this view, the place of Gentile converts within the Christian community was settled at Jerusalem, with Paul’s argument prevailing.

      The ‘mixed economy’, if you like, held together through a process of shared discernment in which both sides in the dispute spoke openly and listened to each other (Acts 15.5, 12), stories were told and interpreted in the light of Scripture (vv. 7–18), the Spirit was seen to be involved (v. 28), and a solution was reached that gave something to both parties. Gentiles were not required to be circumcised, but were to observe some of the Jewish eating practices (v. 20).

      The counter view is that the Antioch incident (and the Galatian letter) occurred after the Jerusalem Council. In Galatians 2.1–10 Paul describes a meeting in Jerusalem, which Dunn and others assume refers to the Acts 15 Council, and then describes the dispute in Antioch. This is taken to be the sequence in which the events took place (Dunn, 2009, p. 470). Presumably, the Gentile believers in Antioch