CHURCH HISTORY: AD 100 thru AD 300

NB: For readers who missed it, I suggest going back to review my setup to this section on church history to know about my disclaimers. For the graphics used in this post, the timelines are not to scale, and the dates represented are not intended to be exact. They are meant to be visual aids for understanding the larger conversation.

We left off with that repeated question: What happened? Many students ask me this question, not just in reference to the history of Christendom, but in reference to our Judaic roots. We come from an incredibly Jewish story, following a Jewish rabbi and his Jewish talmidim. How did we become so separated from our Jewish foundation?

There are many in scholarship who weigh in on these opinions. From a historically respectable perspective, I have found two opinions to be most plausible (based on what we know), and one of those opinions I hold personally.

The first opinion is based on an understanding of a much more defined schism between the Jewish and Gentile Church (read: Paul and James). As we discussed before, I don’t miss the undeniable tension between the Church in Jerusalem and the Church of Asia, but I also hold to the record given to us in the book of Acts and believe the Apostolic leaders were able to come to an agreement and mutual understanding (binding and loosing, if you will, as described in the records of Acts 15 and elsewhere). This option believes that this Christian movement, which began in Jewish rank and order, was much more bent on the proclamation of their subversive “gospel” and this created unwanted (especially in Asia) political tension. The Jewish Exception outlawed (in part) aggressive proselytization, and this new Jesus movement was challenging that status quo and upsetting the empire. This theory proposes the Jewish religion jettisons its Jesus following believers, who are mostly Gentile in nature. 

There are certainly pieces in history to support this theory, but I don’t think this is what we actually see happening, especially in light of recent scholarship. The late David Flusser suggested decades ago that early Christianity was predominantly a Jewish movement that didn’t see such internal tensions until much later. One of the largest criticisms of his theory was the lack of evidence for Jews and Gentiles worshipping together. In the last twenty years, as archaeological efforts have increased in modern Turkey (biblical Asia and Asia Minor), we are finding more and more evidence to suggest Flusser was correct.

So instead, I cling to the theory that the schism happened later, just after the turn of the century. When Trajan and later Hadrian were emperors, they led some of the most aggressive (although maybe not the most brutal) persecutions of the Jews. Historians have long wondered why the target of these persecutions seemed to have such a Jewish focus. The Jews weren’t the largest imperial threat to Roman power — it would seem the Christians were. Many have suggested (rightly so, in my opinion) that the Christians were in fact so Jewish that they were seen as an indistinguishable part of Judaism.

From what little pieces of history we have, and though most of Judaism originally stood behind their Gentile converts and theosabes (except in those rare “Synagogue of Satan” places), these same Gentiles seemed to turn their backs on their Jewish brothers and sisters when Rome came looking to extinguish Judaism. Choosing to fall back on their uncircumcised roots, they left their Jewish counterparts out to dry and created a schism that we never healed. Following the Hadrianic persecution and the Bar Kochba revolt, this helps explain why the writings of the early church are so anti-semitic in their teachings (just one or two generations removed from the apostles).

But this schism will have more than relational implications. Now that the Jews are gone, this Jesus-following body has lost their connection to the Text. They no longer have walking libraries of Torah and Jewish narrative to teach and lead them. The moment this anchor was pulled up, Gentiles were left to lean on the only thing they knew intimately. Unfortunately, the worldview that dominated the Hellenistic culture was Gnosticism (you may want to review our discussion on Colossians).

This conflicting worldview led to all kinds of corrupted teachings and beliefs (even if we assume the presence of New Testament writings and the Didache, the early church’s manual for passing on the Apostle’s teaching to new converts). Almost immediately, there were arguments for the rejections of different writings. A man by the name of Marcion was arguing for the rejection of the Tanakh and most of the gospels, with a full acceptance of the letters from Paul, much of the gospel of Luke, and some other letters. If that sounds familiar, it’s because much of evangelical Christianity continues to approach the New Testament in the same way. Marcion was eventually declared a heretic and his arguments rejected, but he had brought up the need for this Gentile movement to declare which teachings would be authoritative, and the movement went forward.

From this we received the Muratorian Canon, which is what our New Testament is based on. This canon had only 22 of the 27 letters in it, and the larger conversation surrounding it would later lead to the reordering of the Hebrew Scriptures for Christians (with an undeniable anti-semitic bent).

This unfortunate new world probably would have brought other issues to the table had the Gentile Christian movement not been at odds with the empire of Rome. As they continued to deal with the persecution that came and left and came and left, they were forced to bind together and cling to the essentials for the survival of their faith. It is a dark shame that we weren’t able to do this with the company and leadership provided by our Jewish brothers and sisters. We will be left to wonder what could have been. Would the “Age to Come” have arrived and Jesus’s return been realized, just as the writers of the New Testament were claiming? Maybe so.

For now, they run for their lives. They stand and they die. But it’s all about to change.

JAMES: Mitzvoth

So then we come to the book of James. In a lot of ways, we’ve done all the intro work for James back in Galatians. While I’m not going to spend all my time trying to parse the different perspectives and details on exactly who the author is — by that I mean which James wrote the book — I am going to work off of the generally accepted view that the author of James is one of the members of the triumvirate — Peter, James, and John — who followed Jesus around. As we mentioned in the Galatians series, I believe this is also the “brother” of Jesus.

James was the leader of what is sometimes called the “Jewish church” in Jerusalem. As Peter had charge over the entire Christian movement, church history tells us (also corroborated by the Text) James stayed to oversee the church in Jerusalem. This is where the early church had its beginning — and a very Jewish beginning it was. As the church got pushed out, relocated its “headquarters” to Antioch, and as Paul began to spread this movement into the Greco-Asian world of the Greeks (which would eventually be led by John, thus giving us the roles of the “three pillars,” Peter, James, and John), James took up the mantle of leading this very Jewish church centered in Jerusalem.

As we mentioned before, most progressive scholarship is going to say there was massive disagreement (even evident in the New Testament) between James and Paul. In fact, many will say they were enemies and there were two different “churches” — the Jewish church in Jerusalem (led by James) and the Gentile church in Asia and Asia Minor (led by Paul). I disagree with this assessment based on the witness of Luke in the book of Acts (and Paul in Galatians). I do believe James probably leaned a different direction than Paul, but I also believe the early church led them to a union that preserved the church of the New Testament.

So why bother you with all these details? Because this is essential to understanding the context of the letter from James.

People have, for centuries, tried to bring synergy to what appear to be opposing arguments from Paul and James about the role of obedience and faith. While some claim no contradiction exists, it certainly seems like James is trying to “correct” Paul’s arguments about justification by faith.

However, realizing James is playing a role as the leader of the Jewish church in Jerusalem is incredibly helpful. Consider the opening to the letter:

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations:Greetings.

James writes to “the twelve tribes scattered among the nations.” This is clearly a reference to a strictly Jewish audience in the world of Asia and Asia Minor. It appears to me that James is wanting to speak as the Jewish leader of a Jewish church to the Jewish participants in a rapidly changing world. James is not trying to usurp Paul’s authority; James it trying to be who God has called him to be and let Paul do what God has called him to do.

James is writing to Jews about what it means to live in a Gentile culture and follow Jesus.

This matters, because when James talks about “works” or “deeds” (also known as the mitzvoth to Jews), he is not talking about miqsat ma’asay haTorah like Paul was. When Paul talked to a Gentile church about “works of the law,” he was referring to the parts of the law that make you Jewish. But for Jews, this part of the law was never up for debate. In the New Testament, the Jews never argue about whether Jews should follow the Law. This is never a question! What they argue about was whether or not Gentiles would follow the Law.

What this means is when James talks about “works” and “deeds,” James is talking about obedience.

The letter of James is written to plead with a Jewish presence in Asia and Asia Minor not to lose their distinctiveness amidst a bunch of Gentiles who live with a freedom that Jews are not called to — at least not in the same way Gentiles are. Consider how this would affect the way the audience reads the central passage of James:

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? 

Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Considering the difference between Paul and James when it comes to their definition of “works/deeds” is critical to wrestling with James’s message. I also find the reference to Rahab (a Gentile prostitute) at the end of this passage to be interesting. I believe James is insinuating that this truth is true for all of them — Jew and Gentile alike.

While I don’t believe James is usurping Paul’s message of faith and justification, I do believe James is offering his Jewish perspective to the conversation to make sure this early church doesn’t lose its distinctiveness.

As we consider this letter, may we also be moved to remember that words mean very little unless they are incarnated in our actions. May this be true in all of us — Jew and Gentile

GALATIANS: Right Hand of Fellowship

We left off wondering what the result of Paul’s continued ministry would be. After receiving a call from God, a “revelation from Jesus Christ,” and three years of training in Arabia and Damascus, Paul went and spent time with the key leaders of the early church (Peter and James). After receiving their blessing, Paul was sent out by the church with Barnabas to be about the work of spreading this gospel he received from Jesus. So, what could go wrong? It must have been smooth sailing, right?

Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

Apparently, their world has some similarities to ours; not surprisingly, there was still a significant amount of opposition to the work Jesus was asking Paul (along with Barnabas and others) to do. Again, Paul emphasizes that letting their loud voices win the day would be a loss for the gospel; so instead of being defeated or giving in, they persevered in their insistence that the good news of what God is doing in the world through Jesus invites all people to the table.

To be sure this was, in fact, how the apostles felt about the ministry of Jesus, Paul and Barnabas — fourteen years later — brought Titus along with them to Jerusalem as a sort of “test case.” They stood him in front of the church, told his story, and asked if he needed to be circumcised (which, means far more than just circumcision itself; the sign of the covenant means you carry the entirety of the Law). The church said no.

As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

Paul continues to say the leaders of the church didn’t even want to make adjustments to his message. They agreed the gospel he was sharing is in fact the announcement of God’s work and kingdom on earth. They reaffirmed and commissioned Paul to do the work of taking this gospel to the Gentiles in the same way Peter led the charge in taking it to the world of the Jews.

Paul says Peter, James, and John gave him the right hand of fellowship, which is another way of saying they accepted him and his message as a part of their covenantal community; he was one of them. This is important above all else because Peter, James, and John are called “pillars” of the church. This is a clear nod to the Jewish midrash which spoke of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the pillars of the Jewish people. They were the leaders on which the family of God is built on. Paul indicated in the preceding paragraph that their right hand of fellowship was paramount to him, because if he did not receive it, he would have “run his race in vain.” If Paul did not have the blessing of the “Pillars,” he would have stopped his ministry right there.

This triumvirate was functioning as the head of the early church; these three men were the closest to Jesus in his ministry. They walked closer to Jesus than any others, were invited to places nobody else went (e.g., the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus praying in the garden, etc.), and were privy to rabbinical explanations that they were ultimately responsible to teach to the other disciples. In a Jewish world, they were set to lead the charge. Peter, of course, was head over the entire movement as Jesus’s right-hand man. James, as we know from church history and references in the book of Acts, was the leader of the church in Jerusalem (the Judeans from the south), while John would ultimately become the “Pastor to Asia” and be stationed in Asia to minister to the church there.

I find it fascinating to study how the early church functioned in the midst of disagreement. I believe the New Testament gives us ample evidence to suggest there was even a slight disagreement among the “Pillars.” James, as the leader of the church of Jerusalem, appears to have a belief that all people should be carrying the Law. It was at the Jerusalem Council where James leads the charge in figuring out which laws can be required of the Gentiles. And, of course, we are all familiar with the book of James and his pushback against where this gospel openness could lead. While I see absolutely no contradictions in their teachings, I can certainly feel the presence of James and his desire to make sure the church stays the course throughout the New Testament. It will be “men from James” who are sent to check in on the church. And it will be “false brothers” from Judea (the church in the south) who find it impossible to accept this gospel Paul is preaching.

** NOTE: Some will find it hard to accept that James “the brother of Jesus,” who writes the letter of James, is the same character who is a member of the three disciples who followed Jesus. While many assume the disciples James and John of “the three” are brothers, the sons of Zebedee, this is highly unlikely. It is far more likely that Jesus called Peter, James son of Alphaeus (who would be Jesus’s cousin; his “brother” in the original culture), and John son of Zebedee to be a part of the three. Rabbinically, you would expect nothing else in the leadership of the church other than the three disciples who walked closest to Jesus. The Peter, James, and John who followed Jesus have to be the Peter, James, and John who lead the church. While this is debated rigorously, I believe it is the only position that holds to the inspiration of the Text and an honest rendering of church history.

I find this study fascinating in that it illuminates the very human struggle in the midst of this new movement, the hard process of binding and loosing, and the commitment to value the voice and authority of the community as a voice God uses to guide and direct the steps of the individual. Whether it is James who is having to come to grips with the voice of the Jerusalem Council and trying to lead an entire church of Judeans who disagree with the stance, or Paul who would consider his entire ministry a vain, empty race unless he receives the right hand of fellowship, their commitment to each other should stand as an example to all of us.

GALATIANS: Paul's Gospel

Since we have looked at the context of the situation, which helps us understand the temptation for these Galatians to “turn to a different gospel,” we are now prepared to hear Paul shift his concern to explaining his gospel, where he got his gospel, and whether his gospel has the blessing of the apostles.

I say “his gospel” and not “the gospel,” because that is how Paul will talk about his mission and calling to the world of the Gentiles. In the evangelical world, we have come to know and speak of “the gospel” as a package of theological truths expressed in a particular way that articulates the salvation of mankind. We have previously discussed that the biblical world understood “gospel” to be the announcement of a new kingdom on the scene. While the abstract truth of the gospel might be something to articulate comprehensively, there would also be a lot of expressions of this abstract truth. “Gospel” would refer to any announcement of that kingdom and all of its implications. Paul’s case is that God has given him a unique announcement for a unique part of the world — a unique gospel. This gospel is going to need to be accepted by the apostles and the church at large in order for it to have any authority.

So Paul is going to build a case for the source, founding, and authority of his gospel. He is going to tell the story of how he received it, how he checked it, and how the leadership of the early church agreed that Paul’s gospel is in complete agreement with their understanding of what God is doing in His Kingdom through Jesus.

The first thing Paul wants to do is make clear that the gospel he preaches is not a gospel from a human source.

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

And this is very important and somewhat surprising, because as a Jew, Paul has one of the most impressive pedigrees around. As a student of Gamaliel, one of the most heralded sages of the first century, Paul has the most significant source of authority by who his rabbi was. Paul’s very presence in a room makes him one of the most sought out voices. However, this new gospel was not Gamaliel’s; no, Paul has left his former rabbi and has begun following a new one. This means he will need to undergo some serious training in order to be a teacher under a new yoke. Hear how he explains it:

For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

Paul’s point is this: When I had my life-changing experience with God, I did NOT meet with anybody; I went off and was “trained” by Jesus himself in Arabia and Damascus. And not only does Paul have to learn a new yoke from a new rabbi, but it will be three years before he consults any follower of Jesus.

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they praised God because of me.

After three years, Paul finally meets Peter (known as “Cephas” in the Greek) and James, who is the leader of the church in Jerusalem. You may remember the book of Acts and how the church, centered in Jerusalem, is having to wrestle with this new understanding of Peter’s experience and the acceptance of the Gentiles. It is Peter and James who are the leaders of this early church movement (and John, but more on this later). After three years of training, Paul goes to meet with the leadership of this church led by guys who followed Jesus around in the flesh — actual talmidim of Jesus himself. During this time, Paul is relatively unknown by the church, with the exception of a few rumors of his changed life.

The implication (especially when you see this in conjunction with the record of Acts) is that Paul takes his gospel and checks it with the church leadership. When they “praised God because of me [Paul],” the assumption is they heard his gospel and his story and were fine with his ministry.

But what will be the result of Paul’s continued ministry? Does this testimony and the Jerusalem council make everything smooth over that easily?