the historical accuracy of Acts for example, although plausible reasons exist for assuming that Luke provides a faithful account (Hengel, 1979; Hemer, 1989). We must allow for differences between the New Testament and contemporary worlds, and we must avoid jumping from the New Testament to now as if the church has done no reflection in between.
Discerning in the light of the whole biblical story which actions within the narrative might serve as examples for today is a delicate task. We must also keep in mind that Paul was not the only apostle to found new churches – we just know more about him. Finally, it would be a mistake to plunge straight into Saint Paul’s missionary journeys. If we wind back a little, we shall find lessons from an earlier period.
So, we shall look at the shift in emphasis from a ‘come’ to a ‘go’ approach to mission, explore lessons for the ‘mixed economy’ (old and new churches living alongside each other in a denomination), discuss Paul’s pioneering teams, speculate a little on some of the processes involved in bringing Paul’s churches to birth, consider how far Paul’s new congregations were culture specific and examine his transition of leadership.
From mission as ‘come’ to mission as ‘go’
It is often said that there is a shift from the Old Testament’s centripetal – ‘you come to us’ – approach to mission to the New Testament’s centrifugal one: ‘we’ll go to you’. Ancient Israel saw its missional task as being to attract the nations, whereas the first Christians went in mission to the nations.
Centripetal mission in Israel
This distinction has been challenged by Walter Kaiser, who has argued that ancient Israel had a duty to go out in centrifugal witness.
There could be no mistaking where Paul got his marching orders: they came from the Old Testament. The case for evangelizing the Gentiles had not been a recently devised switch in the plan of God, but had always been the long-term commitment of the Living God who is a missionary God. (Kaiser, 2000, p. 82)
If Jewish proselytizers among the Gentiles existed in the first century ce, as scholars used to suggest (De Ridder, 1975, pp. 58–127), this would lend support to Kaiser. It would suggest that there were at least some Jews who recognized a call to mission beyond Israel’s borders. Yet Martin Goodman and others have shown that Judaism did not contain a proselytizing tendency before Christian mission began. The later emergence in Judaism of Christian-type proselytizing owed less to impulses within Judaism than to what the Christians were doing (Goodman, 1994, pp. 60–91; Riesner, 2000, pp. 211–50; Bird, 2010, p. 11).1
Christopher Wright points out that the Old Testament contains no explicit command that Israelites should go to the nations in mission. If this had been the expectation, it is surprising that the prophets did not condemn Israel for its failure to do so. The Old Testament emphasis is on God summoning the nations to himself ‘in the great pilgrimage to Zion’ at the end times (Wright, 2006, pp. 502–3). Zechariah 8.20–3, for instance, pictures people ‘from all languages’ streaming to Jerusalem. According to Isaiah 61.5–6, when Israel is what it is meant to be Gentiles will join the people of God.
Only in Isaiah 66 is there explicit word of God sending messengers to the nations, and that is as a future expectation contingent on the ingathering of Israel first. (Wright, 2006, p. 503)
Within this broad sweep are hints of a more centrifugal approach. Jonah leaps to mind of course. Nahum and Amos 1 and 2.1–5 are addressed to the nations, suggesting that Israel should be outward looking. But they are a sub-plot. From a New Testament perspective, they point to what would be fulfilled later in Christian mission.
The emergence of centrifugal mission
The very first Christians in Jerusalem had been instructed by Jesus, assuming the words were from his lips, to be his witnesses ‘to the ends of the earth’ (Acts 1.8; cf Matt. 28.18–20). Understanding that the end times had arrived, it would have been natural for them to interpret Jesus’ command as a fulfilment of Isaiah 66.18–21: as the nations came to Jerusalem, some of the gathered were go to the Gentiles and proclaim the risen Lord.
So why did the apostles at first stay in Jerusalem? Richard Bauckham has suggested that it may have been a deliberate strategy to take the gospel to Jews living outside Israel. Jews from far and wide came to Jerusalem not just for Pentecost, but for all the major Jewish festivals. The best way for the apostles to reach the diaspora Jews was by proclaiming the gospel in Jerusalem and encouraging converts to take the message to their synagogues back home. Gentiles would be reached through the God-fearers, who associated with the synagogues without becoming fully Jews. This helps to explain how the gospel reached Egypt, Rome and elsewhere comparatively early. It was an enactment of Isaiah 66 (Bauckham, 2011, pp. 198–9; cf Gehring, 2004, p. 90).
The strategy was undermined by the persecution that scattered the Jerusalem believers across Judaea and Samaria, making Jerusalem a less secure base for mission (Acts 8.1). At the same time, the Holy Spirit provided a series of unexpected experiences that encouraged the church to become more centrifugal in outlook. Some of the Samaritans were converted (Acts 8.4–25). An Ethiopian eunuch became a believer outside Jerusalem (Acts 8.26–39). Philip continued preaching in the towns to Caesarea (Acts 8.40). At Caesarea, Peter witnessed the outpouring of the Spirit on the household of the Gentile Cornelius, an event that had a profound impact on the Apostles’ thinking (Acts 10.9—11.18). Clearly mission did not require staying in Jerusalem!
To cap it all, in an astonishing break with the past, Jewish converts from Cyprus and Cyrene took the gospel to Gentiles in Antioch. They described Jesus not as ‘messiah’ but as ‘Lord’, a term that pagans used for their cult divinities including, notably, Caesar himself. ‘From now on the word about Christ, and the faith of Christ, began to work through the vast complex of Greek and Roman thought’ (Walls, 1996, pp. 52–3).
Paul developed this process of going out to different cultures and immersing the gospel in them. Schnabel has argued that Paul was not a cross-cultural missionary. He was bi-cultural, a Jew who was also at home in Graeco-Roman culture (Schnabel, 2008, pp. 329–31). But this ignores how Paul crossed social boundaries. Ronald Hock has described Paul’s leather-working, which provided financial support during his missionary journeys. It was the work of artisans, whom the elite viewed with hostility and contempt. Hock stresses how difficult this must have been for Paul who by birth came from the elite (Hock, 2007, p. 35). Moreover, as Paul taught from house to house in cosmopolitan centres like Ephesus (Acts 20.20), he would have entered households from a variety of social backgrounds – Roman cities were melting-pots of cultures, classes and ethnic groups.
Paul identified with the contexts he sought to reach. He became all things to all people (1 Cor. 9.22), and allowed the needs (and so cultures) of Jews and Gentiles to inform his behaviour by becoming the slave of his listeners (1 Cor. 9.19). He entered the habits of thought of his audiences and showed what the
