It would be unrealistic to attempt to fully trace the path from the beginnings of a small early Jewish group of believers in Christ to the new, independent religion of Christianity in a one-hour lecture. For this path was not linear and was not intended from the outset or without alternative. Rather, there were forks in the road that demanded a decision on the direction to take, without everyone subsequently taking the chosen course. What's more, the source material is far from good for all stages of this path.
Thanks to Paul's letters and the Acts of the Apostles, we are on relatively safe ground for the first stage between around 30-60 AD. The autobiographical review in Gal 1:13-2:14a is particularly informative. Here Paul reviews events that were to prove to point the way for the believers in Christ out of early Judaism and into religious independence. However, insofar as he himself was involved in these events, he looks back on them from his subjective perspective. But even Acts does not report objectively on the beginnings of the movement of believers in Christ towards the end of the 1st century. Rather, its author utilises the literary scope of ancient historiography and describes the events according to his theological concept.
Paul's letters and Acts therefore each have their own special features that need to be taken into account when evaluating the information they contain. If this is done, they make it possible to construct a historically plausible picture of the beginning of the path that led the early Jewish movement of believers in Christ to religious independence. The focus here is on this first stage of the journey. For it is at this stage that the decisive course is set for further developments.
Jerusalem as the first post-Easter centre of believers in Christ
Under the impression of the traumatic events of the arrest, condemnation and execution of Jesus of Nazareth, his followers dispersed. The twelve, the closest circle around Jesus, also saw their hopes destroyed and fled. Shortly afterwards, however, they came together again due to completely unexpected encounters with the Crucified One. They experienced him as alive and testified that he had been raised from the dead by God's power and exalted to a heavenly messianic position of power at the right hand of God. Historically, Acts is probably trustworthy in that it identifies Jerusalem as the first post-Easter centre of believers in Christ. Here - in the city of the temple as the place of the divine presence and at the same time the place of the hoped-for end-time reign of God (cf. Is 52:7-10; Mic 4:6f; Zeph 3:14-17) - they gathered around Peter as a leading figure.
Peter had already been given a leadership role in the pre-Easter circle of twelve, which he initially failed to fulfil during the Passion events. Nevertheless, he was vindicated when the Risen One appeared to him as the first of the Twelve. This is vouched for by an old confessional formula that Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15:3b-5. As a result of this visionary encounter, Peter brought the members of the circle of twelve (with the exception of Judas Iscariot) together again, to whom another appearance was then granted (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:5: "... and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve").
This appearance is likely to have prompted the Twelve to resume Jesus' pre-Easter proclamation to Israel. For nothing symbolised Jesus' intention to gather Israel as a twelve-tribe nation for the end-time reign of God as much as the circle of twelve. This intention was apparently confirmed after Easter by the appearance of the Risen One to the Twelve. However, the resumption of the proclamation to Israel was under a new sign: God had confirmed him and his message through his resurrecting action on the crucified Jesus. This meant that Jesus himself was included in the post-Easter proclamation to Israel.
The downside of the renewed focus on Israel under the impression of the Easter events is that the Jerusalem early church did not initially reflect on the question of the salvation of the Gentile nations. It is true that as little as Jesus categorically excluded the Gentiles from salvation in his Israel-centred proclamation (cf. Mt 10:5) (cf. for example Mk 7:25-30; Lk 7:1-10 par. Mt 8:5-10.13), this does not happen after Easter. However, in the first phase there is still no turning to the world of nations. It is true that the motif of God's end-time reign is linked to the expectation that God will prove himself to be king not only over Israel, but over all nations (cf. e.g. Zech 14:6-9; Mic 4:1-5, 6f; Zeph 3:9, 14f; Dan 7:13f). However, this universal aspect does not play a role in the early proclamation of the Jerusalem early church, which initially consisted mainly of pre-Easter Galilean followers of Jesus.
The differentiation of the Jerusalem early church into "Hebrews" and "Hellenists"
The preaching of the Jerusalem believers in Christ soon began to bear fruit. The early church grew (Acts 2:47; 6:1, 7), although probably much more moderately than Luke indicates (Acts 2:41). At the same time, two church groups emerged whose members differed in origin and language as well as in the theological consequences that they derived from their faith in Christ. Luke directly introduces these two groups in Acts 6:1, which he refers to as "Hellenists" and "Hebrews". It is undisputed that Luke uses the term "Hebrews" here to refer to the Aramaic-speaking believers in Christ around Peter and the circle of twelve, while "Hellenists" refers to Greek-speaking believers in Christ who had joined the early church from the Jerusalem diaspora synagogues.
Contrary to his otherwise idealising portrayal of the early period (Acts 2:42-47; 4:32-37), Luke links the differentiation of the early church into Hebrews and Hellenists with a social conflict that arose from the Hellenistic widows being neglected for material support by the group of Hebrews (Acts 6:1). However, this conflict is quickly resolved by the group of twelve (Acts 6:2). Initially, the twelve declare that they are not responsible because they see their genuine task in prayer and preaching (Acts 6:2.4). They therefore recommended that the church assembly elect a group of seven to take care of social tasks in the church (Acts 6:3). Those elected on the basis of this recommendation, with Stephen as the first named, all have Greek names, which indicates that they belong to the group of Hellenists (Acts 6:5). After the twelve have been appointed to their task (Acts 6:6), peace is restored and the church can continue to grow (Acts 6:7).
Apart from Luke's penchant for social issues, the account in Acts 6:1-7 is characterised by the fact that the group of twelve claims a monopoly on preaching. However, Luke does not mention that the group of seven also dedicate themselves to their social task. Instead, he tells us immediately afterwards (Acts 6:8-10) that Stephen is "poaching" in the field of activity of the group of twelve. This is because Stephen preaches in the diaspora synagogues (Acts 6:9f) and thus disregards the circle of twelve's exclusive claim to the "ministry of the word", which they had claimed for themselves shortly before.
This suggests that the group of seven was by no means a subordinate committee for social tasks ("service at the tables") in the early church. Rather, this group probably formed the leadership body of the Greek-speaking believers in Christ in Jerusalem, with Stephen at the head - analogous to Peter's role in the circle of twelve. However, it was not the coexistence of Hebrews and Hellenists that proved problematic for the further development of the early church. Rather, a line of conflict formed within the diaspora synagogues in the temple city, which ran between their members who believed in Christ and their non-believers and eventually escalated.
The death of Stephen and the expulsion of the Hellenists from Jerusalem
The Jerusalem diaspora Jews were pious, Torah-observant people who had deliberately moved to the temple city of Jerusalem as the religious centre of their faith. As they were native Greek speakers, unlike the local population, they organised themselves into their own synagogue congregations, often differentiated according to their region of origin. Acts 6:9-14 now tells of the outbreak of conflict between members of these diaspora synagogues and Stephen as the spokesman for the believers in Christ among them.
The main accusation against Stephen is (Acts 6:13b-14): "This man does not cease to speak against this holy place and the law. For we have heard him say: This Jesus, the Nazorean, will destroy this place and change the customs that Moses handed down to us." Luke labels this accusation against Stephen as false testimony. However, the accusation probably accurately captures the essence of the controversy within the Jerusalem diaspora synagogues. Its members associated the temple with the decisive function of mediating salvation, as it was regarded as the place of God's presence (Ps 68:25-30; 76:3; Wis 9:8) and also as the dwelling place of pre-existent divine wisdom (Sir 24:8-12; Wis 9:9), which was identified with the Torah (Bar 4:1; Sir 24:23).
When people from their ranks came to believe in Christ, they reflected on Christ's death precisely with regard to its power to impart salvation. As a result, two concepts of the mediation of salvation (through the temple and the Torah or through the death of Christ) came into competition. Accordingly, the Hellenists around Stephen developed a position that was critical of the temple and the Torah. This led to a fierce conflict between the Diaspora Jews of Jerusalem who believed in Christ and those who did not, which escalated into the stoning of Stephen (Acts 6:8-8:1a) and the expulsion of the Hellenistic believers in Christ from the city (Acts 8:1b-3; 11:19). This was the first time that the message of Christ reached beyond the borders of the Jewish motherland into the diaspora, in the temple- and Torah-critical interpretation typical of the Hellenistic believers in Christ.
The church in Antioch on the Orontes as the first hotspot of preaching among the Gentiles
The temple- and Torah-critical interpretation of the faith in Christ harboured the potential to extend the proclamation universally beyond Israel. The proclamation to non-Jewish people first took on a programmatic character in Syrian Antioch. According to Acts 11:19f, some of the Hellenistic believers in Christ who had been expelled from Jerusalem and who came from Cyprus and Cyrene also began to preach the gospel to Gentiles there. Interestingly, Acts 13:1 contains a list of names of prophets and teachers that is considered to be historically reliable and which are probably members of the church leadership team in Antioch. First on the list is the name Barnabas, who according to Acts 4:36 was a Jerusalem Dispora Jew from Cyprus and probably joined the Jerusalem church early on.
Theologically, Barnabas was presumably close to the Stephanus circle and was therefore probably also affected by the expulsion of the Diaspora Jews who believed in Christ from Jerusalem (Acts 8:1b). A Lucius of Cyrene is also mentioned in the list in Acts 13:1. If we combine the information from Acts 11:20 and 13:1, then Barnabas and Lucius are likely to be founding members of the Christian community in Antioch and protagonists of the Gentile mission carried out there, who were subsequently responsible for leading the community together with other people.
However, Acts 11:22-24 contradicts this. According to this, Barnabas would only have been sent to Antioch some time after the founding of the Antiochian church by the Aramaic-speaking church group around Peter that remained in Jerusalem. However, this passage unmistakably reflects Luke's intention to ensure that the Antioch church and the Gentile missionary project it was pursuing were linked back to Jerusalem and Peter. It is fitting that Luke, directly before the note about the beginnings of the Antiochian church in Acts 10:1-11:18, presents Peter in detail as the protagonist and theological proponent of the unconditional Gentile mission. The following can probably be taken as historically credible from Luke's account: 1. among the Aramaic-speaking believers in Christ who remained in Jerusalem and who, on the common basis of an acceptance of the Torah, held some stricter and some less strict positions, Peter took a rather liberal stance. 2 Barnabas already had good contacts with the circle of believers in Christ around Peter in Jerusalem, but also later during his time in Antioch, which may have passed through the house of Mary and her son John Mark, who were related to Barnabas (cf. Acts 12:12-17; 13:5; 15:36-39).
The list of members of the Antiochian church leadership team (Acts 13:1) includes the name of one of the most prominent people in early Christianity at the end: Saul/Paul. Paul himself offers a remarkable clue as to how he came to Antioch in his autobiographical review Gal 1:13-2:14a. After he had withdrawn to the Nabataean cities of Arabia for a good two years immediately after his revelatory experience, probably to process the event and reflect on its theological consequences, he does not immediately begin his preaching in Syria and Cilicia when he returns to Damascus (Gal 1:15-17, 21).
Instead, Paul travelled to Jerusalem beforehand with the declared aim of getting to know Peter (Gal 1:18). Whether his interest in Peter arises from his pre-Easter and/or post-Easter role seems questionable in view of his lack of esteem for human authorities among believers in Christ (Gal 2:6; cf. 1 Cor 3:21-23). However, the interest can be plausibly explained if Paul had heard of Peter's liberal attitude towards the law and hoped for his support in realising his divine commission to "proclaim the Son of God as the gospel among the Gentiles" (Gal 1:16a). Peter could have given him this support by drawing the attention of Barnabas, who was also running the Gentile mission project in Antioch, to Paul. One indication of this is the abrupt statement in Acts 11:25f that Paul came to Antioch on the initiative of Barnabas and that they worked together there.
This collaboration was attractive to Paul because the Gentile mission carried out in Antioch corresponded to his understanding of his own calling. During his Antiochian years (approx. 35-48 AD), Paul was influenced by the theological traditions of the church on the one hand and, on the other, helped to shape its theological development as a member of the church leadership team (Acts 13:1). At the same time, the consistent opening of the church to Gentile people, while renouncing their conversion to the Jewish faith, already led the Antiochian believers in Christ beyond the boundaries of the Jewish community. In this respect, it is historically credible when Luke notes in Acts 11:26 that the believers in Christ were recognised as an independent religious group for the first time in Antioch.
The fundamental decision of the Jerusalem Apostle Meeting
Antioch's missionary course soon met with resistance from the strictly Torah-observant believers in Christ in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1f., cf. Gal 2:4). They were probably not protesting against the Gentile mission per se, but against integrating believers in Christ of Gentile origin into the religious community of the Jewish people without the obligation of circumcision and Torah obedience. They were able to put forward weighty arguments in favour of this: If people of Gentile origin come to believe in Jesus as the Messiah/Christ of Israel and thus embrace a Jewish hope of salvation, then they must also become members of the Jewish community of people and faith in order to attain this salvation. This was exacerbated by the fact that Israel had been confirmed as the addressee of Jesus' message after Easter through the appearance of the Risen One to the twelve.
The church of Antioch chose the path of offensive defence and sent a delegation to Jerusalem, which included Barnabas, Paul and Titus as an uncircumcised Antiochian believer in Christ (Gal 2:1, 3; Acts 15:2). There, as a member of this delegation, Paul presented the gospel proclaimed to the Gentiles in Antioch. On the argumentative basis of the theological work that had meanwhile been carried out in their community, the Antiochians thus attempted to reach a consensus with Jerusalem on the issue of the conditions of the Gentile mission. This was because the agreement of the Jerusalem early church as the starting point and centre (not the centre!) of the post-Easter faith in Christ was important for the Antiochian church in order not to weaken its own proclamation.
It is interesting to see to whom the theological arguments in favour of the unconditional mission to the Gentiles are presented. According to Gal 2:2, first "to them" - whereby Paul probably has the general assembly of the Jerusalem church in mind here (revEÜ translates accordingly as "church") - and then to the "respected ones", i.e. the three-member leadership team consisting of James, Peter and John (cf. Gal 2:9). Paul thus makes it clear: The general assembly of the Jerusalem church did not adopt the theological reasoning in favour of the unconditional mission to the Gentiles.
The hoped-for agreement was only reached at the leadership level (vv. 6-10). It consisted 1. in a fundamental acceptance of the Antiochian Gentile mission, combined 2. with a division of areas of responsibility. Peter/Jerusalem was to be responsible for preaching to Jewish people, while Paul/Antiochia was to be responsible for preaching to Gentile people. Finally, 3. material support for the Jerusalem early church by the Antiochian church was agreed as an expression of mutual solidarity (Gal 2:10; cf. 2 Cor 9:12-14; Rom 15:25-27).
If we compare Paul's account of the meeting of the apostles in Jerusalem as a participant (Gal 2:1-10)
with Luke's later historiographical account (Acts 15:1-29), both versions agree on the fundamental decision in favour of the unconditional Gentile mission. Luke, however, ignores the division of areas of responsibility, but clarifies the fundamental decision by obliging believers in Christ of Gentile origin to observe minimum Jewish ritual standards (James clauses) (Acts 15:19f. 28f.). On this point, there is an insoluble contradiction between Luke's version and Paul's version. For Paul emphasises that the Jerusalem decision in principle was not linked to any restrictions (Gal 2:6). His version
than that of a participant in the meeting is historically to be favoured.
The Jerusalem decision in favour of an unconditional Gentile mission was the next landmark step towards the religious independence of the believers in Christ. For with this decision, the Antiochians were given responsibility for the Gentile mission, which they carried out from then on with commitment and success, significantly expanding their geographical radius of action.
Paul's first and second missionary journeys
The Antiochian church thus commissioned Barnabas and Paul to go on their first major missionary journey, which took them to Cyprus and southern Galatia (Acts 13f.). According to Acts, however, this first missionary journey took place before the Jerusalem apostles' meeting (Acts 15). However, Luke's chronology contradicts Paul's own testimony. According to Galatians, his missionary activity between his two visits to Jerusalem (1:18; 2:1) is limited to Syria and Cilicia (1:21). Historically, the sequence Jerusalem apostle meeting - 1st missionary journey is very plausible. For on the basis of the Jerusalem decision, the Antiochian church was able to refer to its special responsibility for the Gentile mission and press ahead with it.
Paul already undertook the 2nd missionary journey (49-51 AD) without Barnabas, after a disagreement had arisen between them beforehand about taking John Mark with them again (Acts 15:36-40). Associated with this journey (Acts 15:40-18:22) are church plantings in the metropolises of Philippi, Thessalonica and Corinth, among others.
When Paul returned to Antioch in the winter of 51/52 AD (Acts 18:22), his relationship with the church and Barnabas had not yet broken down. The rupture probably only occurred during this winter sojourn, caused by the Antioch incident. This conflictual event decisively advanced the development of the early Jewish movement of believers in Christ into a new, independent religion.
The conflict in Antioch
The conflict in Antioch, which flared up over the issue of table fellowship between believers in Christ of Jewish and Gentile origin, was based on two weaknesses in the Jerusalem agreement: 1. the unconditional Gentile mission had only been decided in favour of in principle, while questions about the communal coexistence of both groups were ignored. 2. the Jerusalem leadership team failed to involve the church base, where there were obviously massive reservations about this form of Gentile mission, in the decision-making process.
When the delegation from Antioch returned to their congregation with the results of the Jerusalem meeting, they saw their own theological position confirmed by the agreement. However, if Gentile people were allowed to be baptised and accepted into the church without conditions, it was only logical that they should also live together in the church on an equal footing with the Jews who believed in Christ. This kind of coexistence materialised in particular through table fellowship at the celebration of the Lord's Supper. However, the Jews who believed in Christ had to disregard the religious law hurdles that at least considerably restricted eating together with non-Jewish people. In Antioch, this was apparently covered by the Jerusalem Agreement.
Peter agreed with this view. For when he came to Antioch some time after the Jerusalem meeting, he also ate together with the members of the church of Gentile origin (Gal 2:12a). But then some people from James' circle arrived in Antioch from Jerusalem. As a result, Peter gives up the inclusive table fellowship he had previously practised (Gal 2:12b). The Jews of Antioch who believed in Christ, including Barnabas, followed his example (Gal 2:13). They all distanced themselves from their previous interpretation of the Jerusalem agreement and swung towards the apparently narrower interpretation of the people of James. According to this, the renunciation of circumcision of believers in Christ of Gentile origin required this group to be separated from the Jews who believed in Christ within the congregation on the basis of Jewish religious law.
With this more restrictive interpretation of the agreement, James and his circle may have wanted to prevent the situation in Jerusalem from escalating both within the congregation and externally towards the Jews who did not believe in Christ. This could explain Paul's comment that Peter's withdrawal from the table fellowship was due to his fear of "those of the circumcision" (Gal 2:12b). For Paul, however, Peter and all the others are thus moving away from the "truth of the gospel" (Gal 2:14a).
In order to do justice to this truth, for Paul the renunciation of circumcision of believers in Christ of Gentile origin includes their complete, unconditional integration into the church, which is to be guaranteed by the Jewish-Christian members. While this aspect of church practice is indispensable for Paul, it is evidently considered to be of secondary importance by the Jameses, Cephas and the Antiochian Jewish Christians around Barnabas.
Nevertheless, in view of Paul's protest, they were probably looking for a solution to the conflict. And this is where the James clauses (Acts 15:19f. 28f.; cf. 21:25) come into play, which are likely to have been part of the historical context of the Antioch incident. These clauses formulate minimum religious law requirements for believers in Christ of Gentile origin in order to enable Jewish-Christian members of the congregation to share the table with them.
Based on Lev 17f., the catalogue of these minimum requirements includes the renunciation of idolatry/meat sacrificed to idols, the renunciation of fornication (= commitment to the strict sexual ethical provisions of the Torah) and the renunciation of blood and asphyxiated meat (= meat not slaughtered in a kosher manner). This compromise proposal left the basic Jerusalem decision (renunciation of circumcision and observance of the entire Torah) untouched. Although it imposed restrictions on believers in Christ of pagan origin, it was intended to guarantee the integrative church practice in the long term. However, Paul did not agree to this compromise and accepted the break with the Antiochian church for his intransigence.
Conclusion
With the exclusive Christological concept of salvation of the Jerusalem Hellenists, the decision in favour of the Gentile mission in Antioch and the Jerusalem Agreement, there had already been pioneering developments and decisions. However, Paul's uncompromising stance in the conflict in Antioch irreversibly set the course for the development of the faith in Christ into a new, independent religion, even though there are traces in the New Testament that the Antioch clauses were still used for decades in in-group debates and disputes between believers in Christ (cf. for example, the Corinthian Cephas group and the topics discussed in 1 Cor 5-10, the fornication clause Mt 5:32; 19:9 or the accusations made in the epistles to Pergamum and Thyatira Rev 2:12-17.18-29).
