CHAPTER II. THE CHURCH AT ANTIOCH THE GENTILE MOTHER-CHURCH, AND ITS RELATION TO THE JEWISH MOTHER-CHURCH. In the mean time, as we have already remarked, Christianity of this event excited great interest among the Christians at Jerusalem. It is true, the information was not received in exactly the same manner as it would have been, if the account of the operation of Christianity among the Gentiles in the conversion of Cornelius had not materially contributed to allay their prejudices. But still a measure of mistrust was prevalent against the Gentile believers who were nonobservant of the Mosaic law, a feeling which, after many repeated exhibitions of the divine power of the gospel among Gentile Christians, lingered for a long time in the majority of Jewish believers. On this account, Barnabas, a teacher who stood high in the general confidence, and who as a Hellenist was better fitted to deal with Christians of the same class, was commissioned to visit the new Gentile converts. On his arrival he rejoiced in witnessing the genuine effects of the gospel, and used his utmost endeavours to advance the work. The extensive prospect which opened here for the advancement of the kingdom of God, occasioned his inviting Paul, who had been active among the Gentiles in Cilicia, to become his fellow-labourer. One evidence of the power with which Christianity in an independent manner spread itself among the Gentiles, was the new name of Christians which was here given to believers. Among themselves they were called, the Disciples of the Lord, the Disciples of Jesus, the Brethren, the Believers. By the Jews names were imposed upon them which implied undervaluation or contempt, such as the Galileans, the Nazarenes, the Paupers; and Jews would of course not give them a name meaning the adherents of the Messiah. The Gentiles had hitherto, on account of their observance of the ceremonial law, not known how to distinguish them from Jews. But now, when Christianity was spread among the Gentiles apart from the observance of the ceremonial law, its professors appeared as an entirely new religious sect (a genus tertium, as they were sometimes termed, being neither Jews nor Gentiles); and as the term Christ was held to be a proper name, the adherents of the new religious teacher were distinguished by a word formed from it, as the adherents of any school of philosophy were wont to be named after its founder. Antioch from this time occupied a most important place in the propagation of Christianity, for which there were now two central points; what Jerusalem had hitherto been for this purpose among the Jews, that Antioch now became among the Gentiles. Here first the two representations of Christianity, distinguished from one another by the predominance of the Jewish or Gentile element, came into collision. As at Alexandria, at a later period, the development of Christianity had to experience the effect of various mixtures of the ancient oriental modes of thinking with the mental cultivation of the Grecian schools, so in this Roman metropolis of Eastern Asia, it met with various mixtures of the oriental forms of religious belief. From Antioch, at the beginning of the second century, proceeded the system of an oriental-anti-Jewish Gnosis, which opposed Christianity to Judaism. As there was considerable intercourse between the two churches at Jerusalem and Antioch, Christian teachers frequently came from the former to the latter; among these was a prophet named Agabus, who prophesied of an approaching famine, which would be felt severely by a great number of poor Christians in Jerusalem, and he called upon the believers in Antioch to assist their poorer brethren. This famine actually occurred in Palestine about A.D. 44.1 The faculty of foretelling a future event, did not necessarily enter into the New Testament idea of a prophet, if we assume 1 We cannot fix the exact time when this famine began. It is mentioned by Josephus in his Antiq. book xx. ch. 2, § 5. It was so great that numbers died in it from want. Queen Helena of Adiabene in Syria, a convert to Judaism, sent a vessel laden with corn, which she had purchased at Alexandria, and with figs procured in the island of Cyprus, to Jerusalem, and caused these provisions to be distributed among the poor. Luke, indeed, speaks of a famine that spread itself over the whole olkovμévη, which was not the case with this. To understand by oikovμévn in this passage, Palestine only, is not justified by the that Luke wrote from his own standing-point. An address fitted to produce a powerful effect on an audience, one by which Christians would be excited to deeds of beneficence, would agree with the marks of a prophetic address in the New Testament sense; but as in the Acts it is expressly added that the famine foretold by the prophet actually came to pass; we must doubtless admit, in this instance, that there was a prediction of an impending famine, although it is possible that the prophecy was founded on the observation of natural prognostics. The Christians at Antioch felt themselves bound to assist, in its temporal distress, that church from which they had received the highest spiritual benefits, and probably sent their contributions before the beginning of the famine, by the hands of Paul and Barnabas, to the presiding elders of the church at Jerusalem. This church, after enjoying about eight years' peace, since the persecution that ensued on Stephen's martyrdom, was once more assailed by a violent but transient tempest. King Herod Agrippa, to whom the Emperor Claudius had granted the government of Judea, affected great zeal for the strict observance of the ancient ritual,' although on many occasions he acted contrary to it, on purpose to ingratiate himself with the Gentiles, just as by his zeal for Judaism he tried to attach the Jewish people to himself. Actuated by such motives, he thought it expedient to manifest hostility to the teachers of the new doctrine, of whom he had received unfavourable reports. He caused James the son of Zebedee, and a brother of the apostle John, who probably, by some particular act or discourse, had excited the anger of the Jewish zealots, to be put to death; and during the Passover in the year 44,' he cast Peter into New Testament phraseology; but it is possible that the famine extended to other parts, and we must then suppose the word to be used somewhat rhetorically, and not with literal exactness, especially if we consider it as spoken by a prophet come from Jerusalem. 1 Josephus, Antiq. book xix. ch. 6 and 7. 2 For it was the last year of Herod Agrippa's reign, who held for at least three whole years the sovereignty of Judea, (Joseph. xix. 8, 2;) and, therefore, certainly reigned from the end of January 41, to the beginning of the reign of Claudius, the end of January 44; so that only the Passover of this last year could be intended, that which took place after Herod had reigned three whole years. prison, intending that he should meet with the same fate after the feast. But by the special providence of God, Peter was delivered from prison, and the death of the king, which shortly followed, once more gave peace to the church. If Paul and Barnabas arrived at Jerusalem during this disturbed state of things, their stay was necessarily shortened by it, and they could accomplish nothing of consequence.' But if we compare the account in the Acts, with the narrative of the apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians, and if we assume that the journey to Jerusalem, which he there mentions as the second, was really the second, this journey would acquire great importance. We must then assume, 1 As the words kat' èkeîvov tùv кαιрdv, in Acts xii. 1, cannot serve for fixing the exact date, the coincidence of this journey of Paul's with the events at Jerusalem, and the whole chronology founded upon it of the apostle's history, is not absolutely certain. Yet there is no valid argument against this arrangement. 2 Irenæus adv. Hæres. lib. iii. c. 13, seems to consider it as settled that this was Paul's third journey. But what Tertullian says (contra Marcion, i. 20), goes on the supposition that it was his second journey. He alleges the same reason for thinking so, as Keil, in his essay on the subject lately published in his Opuscula; that Paul, in the first glow of his conversion, was more violent against Judaism, but latterly his feelings towards it were mollified. Thus he explains the dispute with Peter at Antioch. "Paulus adhuc in gratia rudis, ferventer ut adhuc neophytus adversus Judaismum." (It is contradictory to this supposition that he allows Paul to have given way to the Judaizers at Jerusalem, in reference to the circumcision of Titus, cont. Marcion, v. 3;) and it would entirely correspond with the character of Paul and the mode of his conversion, that, at first, he should engage in fiercer opposition to the observance of the law, than that his mind should gradually be developed in that freer direction. Yet this supposition, as we shall afterwards show, is by no means supported by historical evidence, What is advanced by Wurm, in his essay already quoted, in the Tubingen Zeitschrift für Theologie, against my application of the first passage from Tertullian, is not correct. I have here remarked on the contradiction between the two passages, and in a writer of Tertullian's cast of mind-highly as we esteem the depth, fire, and vigour of his genius-such a contradiction is not very surprising.-But from Tertull. c. Marcion, lib. v. 2, 3, it is by no means clear, that he considered the second journey mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians, as the same with that which was followed by the resolutions of the apostolic assembly at Jerusalem. Tertullian only says, that the Acts of the Apostles-whose credibility was not acknowledged by Marcion-represented the principles on which Paul acted, not differently from what Paul states them to be in an Epistle admitted as genuine by Marcion; consequently, the account of Luke, in this respect, must be credible. that although the conveyance of the collection to Jerusalem was the avowed object and motive of this journey, yet Paul himself had another and more important end in view, which probably induced him to be the bearer of the contributions. As the strictly Pharisaical Jews held it absolutely necessary for the Gentiles to submit to the whole ceremonial law, and particularly to circumcision,' in order to enjoy the blessings of theocracy; as the mistrust of the Jewish Christians had already, as we have before remarked, manifested itself against the Gentile converts; and as the consequences of this state of feeling might have already appeared in the church at Antioch, which stood in so close a connexion with the parent church at Jerusalem; it is not at all improbable, that Paul and Barnabas felt it to be their imperative duty, in order to guard against a dangerous disagreement, to come to an understanding with the apostles at Jerusalem on this subject, and to unite with them in establishing fixed principles respecting it. Yet in itself it is more probable, that such a mutual explanation took place earlier, than that it occurred at so late a period. Such a conference of Paul and Barnabas with the three most eminent of the apostles, could not well be held at that time, since one of them was cast into prison; but too great an uncertainty is attached to the dates of these events, to render this objection of much weight. And it agrees with So then, Tertullian, i. 9, by rudis fides means the same as in the passage first quoted. The rudis fides in that passage, is a faith still young and not fully tried, which hence could not possess so independent an authority; "hoc enim (the temporary concession in reference to the circumcision of Titus) rudi fidei et adhuc de legis observatione suspensa (in reference to which it was still disputed whether they were not bound to the observance of the law) competebat," namely, until Paul had succeeded in having his independent call to the apostleship and its peculiar grounds, acknowledged by the other apostles. 1 A Jewish merchant, named Ananias, who had converted King Izates of Adiabene, the son of Queen Helena, to Judaism, assured him that he might worship Jehovah without being circumcised, and even sought to dissuade him from it, that it might not cause an insurrection of his people. But when another stricter Jew, Eleazar, came thither, he declared to the king that since he acknowledged the divine authority of the Mosaic law, he would sin by neglecting any of its commands, and therefore no consideration ought to prevent his compliance. Joseph. Archæol. lib. xx. c. 2, § 4. And such was the opinion of the converts to Christianity from among the Jews, who, to use the words of Josephus, were ἀκριβεῖς περὶ τὰ πάτρια. 2 As Dr. Paulus remarks in his Exegetical Manual, i. 1, p. 238. |