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 were observing the apostolic decree, and the Jews from Jerusalem wanted them to go further and obey all the Jewish food requirements.
Rather than Peter backing down and Paul prevailing in his argument as traditionally assumed, probably most New Testament scholars today believe that the Antioch church sided with Peter (Dunn, 2009, p. 491, n. 312). This view rests on Paul’s failure to tell us he prevailed. When he won the day at the earlier meeting in Jerusalem, he says so (Gal. 2.6–10). If he had been equally successful at Antioch, why did he not say that Peter, Barnabas and the others agreed with him? This would have greatly strengthened his argument to the Galatians.3 Instead of Paul persuading the others, it seems that there was a serious breach.
If we take this view, the succeeding story of the ‘mixed economy’ becomes remarkable. In an astonishing act of magnanimity, Paul after a while suggested to Barnabas, who had sided with Peter, that they go together to visit the churches they had founded (Acts 15.36). Paul must have felt let down by Barnabas and perhaps Barnabas thought that Paul had been unreasonable, yet they were still ready to work together. The partnership broke down because Barnabas wanted to take John Mark, but Paul was concerned about his reliability – he had deserted them on their previous missionary journey (Acts 15.37–9).
Nevertheless, Paul continued his missionary work. Assuming Luke’s chronology, after a period he returned to the Antioch church (Acts 18.22–3), even though – due to the outcome of the earlier dispute – he was unable to identify with its Peter-leaning ethos (Murphy-O’Connor, 2002, p. 170). He then established a second base for mission at Ephesus (Acts 19.9–10).
It seems that the two sides in the Antioch dispute permitted some widening of the distance between them. Paul went to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews (Gal. 2.8),4 each following the Spirit within their mission spheres. Yet both sides maintained good relationships. When famine hit Judaea, Paul organized a financial gift from his new congregations to the Jerusalem church (1 Cor. 16.1–4). Then he ‘tore himself away’ from his missionary work (Acts 21.1) to give an account of his activities to the leaders in Jerusalem.5 The brothers there received him warmly, the elders rejoiced in the fruits of his labour and Paul agreed to the elders’ request to demonstrate, as a Jew, his willingness to observe the Jewish laws (Acts 21.17–26). Despite their differences, both sides of the Antioch debate worked hard to maintain fellowship.
For reflection
Just as the admission of Gentiles without circumcision challenged more conservative Jewish believers, some Christians today feel that new contextual churches are challenging their church identities. Yet for all its strains, the Jewish–Gentile ‘mixed economy’ survived by allowing space for two different notions of Christian identity to exist side by side – one with a Jewish and the other with a Gentile flavour. The two sides allowed diversity and gave priority to preserving magnanimous relationships. Ultimately, when identity-charged practices diverged, what held the believers together – through the Spirit – was their determination to relate well at a personal level.
How far does this provide a blueprint for today’s ‘mixed economy’? It certainly illustrates how different traditions within the church can – and should – maintain fellowship. But does this mean that new and existing types of church must develop relationships within the current denominational structures? While maintaining fellowship has to take some structural form, are those who sit light to the denominations right to question whether fellowship must assume today’s institutions?
Paul’s use of teams
The literature on entrepreneurs contains calls for less focus on the ‘heroic’ entrepreneur
