52nd Maronite Podcast
Maronite History: Part Two
1.2.3 A Distinctive Identity for the Christians in Antioch
The detail that Barnabas, possibly one of the seventy disciples, went to Antioch, is embedded in this significant verse: “… (Barnabas) met with the church (ekklesia) and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples (mathētai) were first called Christians” (Acts 11:26). Here we see Christians referring to themselves as “the church” and as the “disciples”. They were also called “the Way of the Lord” (Acts 18:25), and the “way of God” (Acts 18:26), or more shortly, “the Way” (Acts 9:2; 18:26; 19:9 and 23; 22:4 and 24:14). “The Way of the Lord” must have been a term for the movement as a whole.
One significant matter which emerges from this is that the Way of the Lord is the way of Jesus (for He is called “Lord” or kurios in Acts 1:6, 21; 2:36 and other places), and is identical with the Way of God; hence Jesus is God.
The term “disciples” is straight forward: it means “one who engages in learning through instruction from another, pupil, apprentice … one who is rather constantly associated with someone who has a pedagogical reputation or a particular set of views, disciple, adherent …” In this context, it means the disciples of Jesus.
The word “church” is a little more complex. The Greek word ekklesia relevantly meant “a regularly summoned legislative body, assembly … a casual gathering of people … people with shared belief, community, congregation … congregation or church as the totality of Christians living and meeting in a particular location or larger geographical area, but not necessarily limited to one meeting place …”
The verse (Acts 11:26) indicates that here the Christians were, for the first time, seen by non-Christians, almost certainly by Gentiles, as so distinctive that they needed a special name. Their distinctiveness meant that, in Antioch, at least, they were primarily seen as having begun as Jews, but now were other than Jews. Of the first importance for understanding is this usage, is Paul’s speech at his trial before Felix, when he states:
I know that you have been a judge over this nation for many years … Neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor anywhere in the city did they find me arguing with anyone or instigating a riot among the people. … But this I do admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors and I believe everything that is in accordance with the law and written in the prophets … (Acts 24:10b, 12 and 14)
In Acts 24:14, the Greek has kata tēn hodon hēn legousin hairesin. That is, “according to the way, which they call (say is) a haeresis.” We shall not undertake a study of the word haeresis, but it means here an internal and mistaken group. It is not neutral: it is pejorative; but it still show that the Christians were seen has having been separated out from Judaism. This is why it seems to me that “Christians” is the term applied by Gentiles who wished to refer exclusively to the disciples of church, which they themselves called a “church”. Once more, I think it is Downey who hits the mark when he writes: “Such a designation would be necessary in a place such as Antioch where there were many cults of all kinds.” There is no reason to disbelieve St Paul’s comments as reported by St Luke: this means that within the lifetime of St Paul, even the Jews saw the Christians as not being true adherents of Judaism.
1.2.4 The Church in Antioch’s relations with Jerusalem
Although the church in Antioch was in a predominately Gentile city, it maintained close relations with Jerusalem. These are illustrated when prophets came down from the church in Jerusalem, and one of them, named Agabus, predicted a global famine. This prompted the disciples (mathētai) of Antioch to collect poor relief for the “brothers” (adelphoi) in Judaea, and to send by Barnabas and Saul to the presbyters (tous presbuterous, Acts 11:27-30).
Although the Antiochian church retained these ties with Jerusalem, there were issues, for the church there probably had more Gentiles than the church in Jerusalem (which does seem most likely), and even if it did not have a greater number, it certainly treated them differently. This emerges from the passage in Galatians 2:11-14:
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
I am yet to see a satisfactory interpretation of exactly what happened here, and it may be that we never will. But the point is that the evangelisation of the Gentiles and the related question of whether they should live as Jews or not, was controversial in the early church. The mission to the Gentiles had roots in Jesus’ preaching to the Phoenician woman, but that had been only a one-off, although it was contemplated when he referred to “other sheep,” and in the great commission of Matthew 28 to make disciples of all the nations. Never before had this evangelism been aimed systematically at “the Greeks”. And it was not begun by the official church but by zealous lay-people, who themselves living among Gentiles, found it easier to speak to and mix with them. The Cyrenians and Cypriotes did not have unfavourable pre-set attitudes against the Gentiles. This gave them the freedom to do what was needed.
Then, there is the question of this collection. Joubert states that it was important as establishing reciprocal obligation between Paul and the church in Jerusalem:
Paul organized a large ecumenical collection for the poor in the Jerusalem churches in various Christian communities under his control between 48-57 … The collection had far-reaching implications for all parties involved, since it served as a concrete means to give expression to the unity between Jewish and Gentile Christians. However, Paul’s collection should be primarily understood in terms of the ancient social convention of benefit exchange. Reciprocity was at the heart of all forms of benevolence within the ancient Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds. The bestowal of gifts between people also initiated the establishment of long-term relationships that involved mutual obligations and clear status differentials between the transactors. … Within this relationship the leadership of Jerusalem acted as the initial benefactors by recognizing Paul’s law-free gospel, which, in turn, placed him in their debt.
This shows, then, that the Church in Antioch was seen as somehow subordinate to the Church in Jerusalem or at least indebted to it. We are speaking here of very early Christian history, for Acts 12 opened with the martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee by Herod Agrippa, who ruled Judaea between 41 and 44. This means, given its placement in Acts, that the events set out above had occurred by 44. Then, in or after the death of James, it is mentioned that Barnabas and Saul, having raised money, returned to Jerusalem and brought with them “John Mark” (Acts 12:25). Then begins the story of Paul’s missionary journey for which Antioch was his first base.
1.2.5 Ecclesiastical Hierarchy in Antioch
Our evidence for the earliest church hierarchy in Antioch, a matter which is central to St Ignatius, comes from Acts 13:1-5a:
Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia and from there they sailed to Cyprus. When they reached Salamis, they began to proclaim the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews …
There are several points to note here. First, that the church in Antioch had “prophets and teachers”. They number five: Barnabas’ name is given first, and Saul’s last, perhaps indicating that he was the latest to have joined their rank. It is these five to whom the Holy Spirit spoke, and not to one only. But observe what they were doing: fasting, and “ministering to the Lord”
One important matter to factor into account in considering the origin of the ecclesiastical hierarchy in Antioch is the tradition that Peter the Apostle was its first bishop, a tradition first attested by Origen, not St Jerome, as Downey mistakenly thought. Downey states:
… it is intrinsically likely that the success of the early missionaries in a place as important as Antioch would have led Peter to visit the city in order to see and assist in the work. Peter was certainly in Antioch at the time of the dispute with Paul, which took place probably in A.D. 47, and it seems likely that he was active in the city, and make excursions from it for missionary work, between A.D. 47 and 54.
In speaking of claims possibly made in Antioch to be a superior See to that of Jerusalem, Downey adds some interesting details, including this one:
The local (i.e. Antiochian) interest in Peter is reflected in the tradition – albeit a late one – that Evodius, who was the first person after Peter to serve as “bishop” of Antioch wrote an epistle called Light (phōs), now lost, in which he described how Christ baptised Peter alone and then Peter began the baptism of the other apostles.
Further, there was a tradition, known from a document today called the Clementine Recognitions, that one Theophilus, a wealthy man of Antioch to whom St Luke dedicated his gospel and the Acts, donated his large house for use as a church, and that Peter’s chair was placed in it. Downey is sceptical, and it may not be true. But it is noteworthy that later on a bishop of Antioch also bore the name Theophilus, so perhaps the tradition was ancient.
1.2.6 Summary
Antioch must have been more important in early Christian history than we usually consider it to have been: it is easy to forget that Constantinople was not even founded until after the Council of Nicaea in 325, and that the church in Jerusalem was very poor, badly needing Antioch’s contributions. The most important fact in what Acts tells us about Christianity in Antioch is probably that the followers of Christ were first known as followers of “the Way” but were first called “Christians” at Antioch (see Acts 9:2; 19:9 and 23; 22:4 and 11:26). This is significant: we should not pass by it too quickly. It means that there was a need to distinguish Christians from other people, and to do so in a manner which said something specific about them. That this first happened in Antioch and not some other city such as Jerusalem tells us that Christians must have been a noticeable element in ancient Antioch, and had to be separated out from Jews and pagans as something new.
Downey makes what is, I think the crucial point: “… the conversion of other Gentiles would follow readily in a large cosmopolitan city such as Antioch where traditional barriers of race, nationality and formal religion could easily be crossed.” He notes that many Gentiles were able to read the Jewish scriptures because there was a Greek translation of them, what we now call the “Septuagint” or the “LXX”. Further, while Jewish opposition to Christianity could be quite strong in Jerusalem, as the references to riots in Acts show, the situation in Antioch was different, for the authorities had better control of the less powerful Jewish population. So, the Gentile mission prospered in Antioch, despite the friction with Christians who favoured imposing certain Jewish practices upon them. As we shall see, this continued to be a divisive issue in the time of Ignatius of Antioch and even down to the time of St John Chrysostom.
As history unfolded, Downey is correct to say that: “… the success in Antioch of the effort to preach to Gentiles, and the ultimate acceptance of these Gentiles without insistence upon their observance of the Jewish Law, determined the oecumenical character of Christianity.