Antioch - Theologically Pregnant

Christianity spread to Antioch with the Hellenists Christians in this manner introducing the Gospel into Gentile cultures and in the midst of the Hellenist Jews in the Diaspora.[1] Acts chapter 11 reflects the continuation of the practices and strategies that brought about the bridging of cultural boundaries. The cross-cultural practices of the Hellenists Christians countered the limitations of the church in Jerusalem (its desire to retain a holistic Judaic cultural context). The narrative reflects the beginning of the Gentile/Greek church in Antioch without great detail. There exists some textual criticism in the manuscripts of Acts as to whether or not the Hellenist Christians went amongst the Hellenist Jews or amongst the Greeks or both. Wood and Marshall argue that it is clear that the Hellenist Christians not only address the Hellenist Jews in the Diaspora, they definitively went into the midst of the Greeks as well, they emphasize,

In Acts 11:20 the ms44s are divided between ‘Hellenists’ (hellēnistas) and ‘Greeks’ (hellēnas), with the weight of evidence favouring the former. Whichever reading be preferred, the context makes it plain that the reference is to Gentile residents of Antioch, to whom Christian visitors, ‘men of Cyprus and Cyrene’, took the initiative in preaching the gospel, whereas their associates on first coming to Antioch had preached it ‘to none except Jews’ (Acts 11:19). If they were not Greeks (hellēnes) by origin, they could have belonged to other ethnic groups in Antioch which had adopted Greek language and culture.[2]

The implication is that certain terms, such as ‘Hellenists’ and ‘Greeks’, indicate the use of a broad definition as in this case. The first multicultural church emerges in Antioch. It appears in the text that the practice of first going to the Jews and then to the Gentiles has its roots in the mission work of the Hellenists before it became Paul’s practice.[3] The Antioch church is the first indication of a community of Christ followers outside of Jerusalem.[4] The practice and strategy of inclusion has continued to progress amid the Hellenist Christians.[5] What appears in Antioch is functioning community; though diverse, it is functioning as a community of Christ followers who are both Jewish and Gentile.[6] Anderson observes,

When Barnabas came to Antioch and discovered that the church had already assimilated uncircumcised Gentile believers into the community on the evidence that they had received the Holy Spirit, he must have thought, I’m over my head! I am a pastoral counselor not a theologian! Indeed, he was given the name Barnabas – which means “son of encouragement” – by the apostles at Jerusalem because he had the gift of empowering and supporting others (Acts 4:36).[7]

Barnabas must have pondered deeply the situation he uncovered in Antioch, what appears to be a flourishing group on non-Jews who had become believers. Certainly he understood the previous events that took place at the Jerusalem council and the implications, but what influences Barnabas’ decision to seek out Saul (Paul) rather than to report back to Jerusalem? There appears to be an underlying tone within the hard line members (Judiazers) of the Jerusalem church who are not in agreement with the assimilation of Gentiles. Anderson stresses,

Barnabas was well aware of the fact that the church at Jerusalem was resistant to this accommodation made to Gentile believers. He also knew their theological hermeneutic of the Word of God – the Law of Moses – made it impossible for them to accept the Gentiles if they were to remain faithful to the scriptures as they knew them. Even Peter’s brief foray into Gentile territory was tolerated but certainly not affirmed.[8]

Jerusalem’s tolerance appears to be reflected by the narrative as being falsehearted. Having firsthand experience with the Jerusalem church must have influenced Barnabas’ approach to nurturing the fledgling church in Antioch. Barnabas chooses a course of action that reflects the Positive Deviance Approach through his practices and strategies by recruiting Saul (Paul) from outside the Jerusalem context to engage and nurture the emerging Gentile church in Antioch. Wright concludes from the text, “Unlike the ‘circumcision party’ noted in Acts 11.2, Barnabas seems to have taken what had happened in Caesarea as a firm sign that there was now an open door for non-Jews to be welcomed into full fellowship alongside Jewish believers.”[9] The implication is that if Barnabas reported back to Jerusalem the outcome would be the mission would have been taken over by the “circumcision party” and sought to produce a clone of the Jerusalem church in Antioch. The practices and strategies employed by Barnabas were to avoid the potential outcome of reproducing the Jerusalem church in Antioch, so he recruited Saul (Paul) to assist him in Antioch.[10]

            The strategy of calling Saul (Paul) to come to Antioch was brilliant. Anderson concludes that Barnabas’ strategy was due to Saul’s reputation at this time, “He remembered that Saul (Paul) was in nearby Tarsus. By that time he had become rather well-known, not only because of his scholarly study of the Scripture under Gamaliel but more recently due to his zeal for the gospel of Christ in that region (Acts 22:3).”[11] Antioch represents a transition from cloning, which is the practice of a dominate culture being superimposed upon another. The resulting in an ecclesial/church offspring reflects the parent. Wright’s assessment of the situation Barnabas finds himself within as “theologically pregnant: he came and saw the grace of God.”[12] Barnabas engages Paul to be part of this transformation.

Barnabas’ practices and strategies imply an intuitive understanding of the situation in Antioch. The Jerusalem church, by seeking to control the spread of the Gospel and contain it within the Judaic cultural form, attempts to produce cultural clones or colonies; the offspring reflects the parent identically. The issue with cloning or colonization is it focuses upon a “one size fits all” mentality of culture. Cloning generates little to no variation and therefore is limited to specific environmental contexts by generating identical replicas.[13] Barnabas helps to shield the fledgling community from the Judaic formulation, by asking Paul, who is familiar with Jewish and Gentile contexts, to come and teach, opening the community to formulate a distinct multicultural church context.

            Saul (Paul) understands the “Word of God Theology”[14] position of the Apostles and the circumcision party in Jerusalem, as well as the Pharisaic context of the Judiazers. The recruitment of Paul indicates that something much deeper is at work in Antioch. What appears with Paul’s presence is a movement toward empowering contextualization within a new cultural context of the Gospel. A new theological practice. Barnabas and Paul become the Positive Deviant architects of the “Christ Cult” that surfaces in Antioch. Barnabas and Paul follow the way of Jesus by empowering contextualization with theological praxis in the multicultural context of Antioch. Johnson explains,

Like Jesus, the primitive Christianity of Palestine was thoroughly Jewish, but it was in the Diaspora (specifically Antioch) that Hellenistic Christians created the ‘Christ Cult’ under the influences of the Mysteries, and this was the Christianity into which Paul was baptized and whose sacramental character he subsequently interpreted theologically.[15]

According to Johnson, Barnabas and Paul engaged an emerging “Christ Cult” and influenced its development by taking a Positive Deviance Approach in relationship to the contextualization of the Gospel amid the Antioch community. By keeping the Jerusalem church at a distance the emerging Gentile ecclesia/church was able to develop unfettered by the Judaic cultural constants. It was not a matter of the acceptance of the authority of the Apostles and the elders in Jerusalem, this is not implicated by the action of Barnabas and Paul, but it was a matter of contextualization in a Gentile cultural setting. The problem that existed was the inflexible position held by the Jerusalem church, which was that each believer must have an initial conversion to Judaism as proselytes followed by baptism and circumcision. Barnabas and Paul act as a shield due to their backgrounds, understanding and relationship with the Jerusalem church, and this allowed the Antioch ecclesia/church the opportunity to develop and establish a multicultural context within Christianity. This is the beginning of the transformation of Christianity into a world changing religion due to its overarching inclusiveness.

---

[1] González, The Story of Christianity.

[2] ms44s is a manuscript designation for reference, Wood and Marshall, New Bible Dictionary, 464.

[3] Acts 11:19-20

[4] Acts 11:21-23

[5] Acts 11:20

[6] Acts 11:23

[7] Anderson, An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches, 117.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Wright, Acts for Everyone, Part One, 178–179.

[10] Acts 11:25-26.

[11] Anderson, An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches, 117–118.

[12] Italics belong to Wright, 178.right, Acts for Everyone, Part One, 178.

[13] Pascale et al., The Power of Positive Deviance, 187.

[14] Anderson shares, “Paul was also familiar with the ‘Word of God theology’ held by the apostles at Jerusalem.  His former teacher, Gamaliel, was a member of the council of the Pharisees (Acts5:34). He was not about to confront his former mentor in the law because, since being his student, Paul had a personal encounter with the risen Messiah and had received direct revelation from him concerning his gospel of grace and freedom from the law.  Christ had revealed to Paul that the law achieved its purpose and was no longer binding on either Jew or Gentile. Even as the written Gospels later recorded Jesus’ claim to be the ‘lord . . . of the Sabbath,’ Paul could say that the risen Christ is the ‘lord of the law’ (Mark 2:28; Romans 10:4),” Anderson, An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches, 118.

[15] The influence of the Mysteries in this quote references the presence of the Mystery cults that were prevalent throughout the Roman Empire during the first century, mystery cults such as the Imperial cult of the Roman era, the Persian Mithraic Mysteries, Thracian/Phrygian Sabazius, Egyptian Isis Mysteries cult, Phrygian Cybele, Eleusinian Mysteries, the Dionysian Mysteries, and the Orphic Mysteries,  Luke Timothy Johnson, Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity (Yale University Press, 2009), 12–13.