New Page 1

Acts 14:21-28. Paul and Barnabas return to Syrian Antioch.
Paul's missionary policy: a) Apostolic instruction; b) Pastoral oversight;
c) Divine faithfulness.
Acts.15:1-16:5 The Council of Jerusalem
Acts 15:1-4. 1) The point at issue

All Luke tells us about the mission in Derbe is that the missionaries *preached the good news* there and *won a large number of disciples*. Perhaps the converts included `Gaius from Derbe' (20:4). Then they retraced their steps, revisiting (in
spite of the danger) the same three Galatian cities which they had evangelized on their outward journey - Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch (21). It was a ministry of *strengthening (episterizontes)* and *encouraging (parakalountes)*. Both verbs
were almost technical terms for establishing and fortifying new converts and churches (e.g. Acts 9:31; 15:32, 41; 18:23). But encouragement did not exclude warning, for we have to pass through *many hardships*, the missionaries said, if we are to *enter the kingdom of God* (22). It was Paul's own sufferings `in Antioch,
Iconium and Lystra' which led him later to assert that `everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted' (2 Tim. 3:11-12).

In addition to encouraging the converts *to remain true to the faith (22), Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them* (23a), who would continue to teach them the faith. Then, just as the missionaries had been sent forth from Antioch with prayer and fasting, so *with prayer and fasting* the elders of the Galatian churches were *committed...to the Lord* (23b). After their return to the Galatian cities in with they had planted churches, the missionaries now headed home. They crossed the pass over the Taurus mountains and climbed down to the coastal swamps of Pamphylia (24). This time they did not bypass Perga, but *preached the word* there, and then went on to Attalia (25), the port from which *they sailed back to Antioch*, having completed the work for which they had been committed to God's grace (26). On arrival they gathered the church and reported what *God had done through them*, literally `with them', `in conjunction with them, as his instruments, his agents, his co-workers'. In particular they reported the great innovation, how God *had opened
the door of faith to the Gentiles* (27). If by any chance the Western text of 11:28 is correct, reading `when we were gathered together' and indicating Luke's presence on that occasion, then Luke will probably have been present on this occasion too and
heard the missionaries exciting report. They will have been away for the best part of two years. So *they stayed there* in Syrian Antioch *a long time with the disciples* (28).

7) Paul's missionary policy

`The first and most striking difference between his (sc. Paul's) action and ours is that he founded "churches" whilst we found :missions".' `Nothing can alter or disguise the fact that St. Paul did leave behind him at his first visit complete churches.' Indeed, `in a little more than ten years St. Paul established the church in four provinces of the Empire, Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia and Asia. Before AD 47 there were no churches in these provinces; in AD 57 St. Paul could speak as if his work
there was done.' These three quotations are from the eloquent pen of Ronald Allen, the High Church Anglican missionary in North China from 1895 to 1903, whose two main books *Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Ours?* (1912) and *The spontaneous
expansion of the Church and the Causes that Hinder it* (1927) continue to be read and debated today, and whose principles have been remarkably vindicated in recent years in the very China he loved and served.

Roland Allen's main assertion is indisputable, namely that on his missionary journeys Paul left churches behind him. This was so from the beginning. After he and Barnabas had retraced their steps through Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch,
`strengthening' and `encouraging' the converts, they did not set up a mission organization; they left them and went home. On what foundations, then did Paul's indigenization policy rest? there are three.

a). Apostolic instruction
Paul exhorted the church members *to remain true to the faith* (22), which they had received from him. A number of similar expressions are used in different parts of the New Testament to indicate that there was a reasonable body of doctrine, a cluster of central beliefs, which the apostle taught. Here it is called `the faith', elsewhere `the tradition', `the deposit', `the teaching', or `the truth'. Doubtless the two missionaries on their return journey will have reminded the Galatians of it. To
some extent we can reconstruct it from the apostle's letters. It will have included the doctrines of the living God, the Creator of all things, of Jesus Christ his Son, who died for our sins and was raised according to the Scriptures, now reigns and will return, of
the Holy Spirit who indwells the believer and animates the church, of the salvation of God, of the new community of Jesus and the high standards of holiness and love he expects from his people, of the sufferings which are the path to glory, and of the strong hope that is laid up for us in heaven. These truths, perhaps already in some simple structure which later became the Apostles Creed, Paul left behind him, and then elaborated in his letters. Each church would begin to collect apostolic letters (cf. Col. 4:16; 1 Thes. 5:27), alongside the Old Testament Scriptures they had already had, and in their public worship on the Lord's Day extracts from both would be read aloud.

b) Pastoral oversight
Paul and Barnabas also *appointed elders for them in each church* (23). This arrangement was made from the first missionary journey onwards, and became universal. Although no fixed ministerial order is laid down in the New Testament, some form of pastoral oversight (*episkope*), doubtless adapted to local needs, is regarded as indispensable to the welfare of the church. We notice that it was both local and plural - local in that elders were chosen from within the congregation, not imposed from without, and plural in that the familiar modern pattern of `one pastor one church' was simply unknown. Instead, there was a pastoral team, which is likely to have included (depending on the size of the church) full-time and part-time ministers, paid and voluntary workers, presbyters, deacons and deaconesses. Their
qualifications Paul laid down in writing later (1 Tim. 3 and Tit. 1). These were mostly matters of moral integrity, but loyalty to the apostles' teaching and a gift for teaching it were also essential (Tit. 1:9; 1 Tim.3:2). Thus the shepherds would tend
Christ's sheep by feeding them, in other words care for them by teaching them.

Such was Paul's double - and only - human provision for these young churches: on the one hand a standard of doctrinal and ethical instruction, safeguarded by the Old Testament and the apostles' letters, and on the other pastors to teach the people
out of these written resources and to care for them in the name of the Lord. Just the Scriptures and the pastorate; that was all. Yet there was a third - and divine - provision.

Paul's missionary Policy. c). Divine faithfulness.

Indigenous principles rest ultimately on the conviction that the church belongs to God and that he can be trusted to look after his own people. So before leaving the Galatian churches, Paul and Barnabas *committed them* (members as well as leaders) *to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust* (25b), just as previously
they had urged the Antiochene converts `to continue in the grace of God' (13:43).

These are the reasons why Paul believed that the churches could confidently be left to manage their own affairs. They had the apostles to teach them (through `the faith' and their letters), pastors to shepherd them, and the Holy Spirit to guide,
protect and bless them. With this threefold provision (apostolic instruction, pastoral oversight and divine faithfulness) they would be safe.

Although Roland Allen did not specifically expound this passage in Acts, or appeal to it, it is surely significant that he developed the same three arguments. First, `St. Paul seems to have left his newly-founded churches with a simple system of gospel
teaching, two sacraments, a tradition of the main facts of the death and resurrection, and the Old Testament'. Secondly, he ordained elders by a combination of election and appointment. And thirdly, he trusted the Holy Spirit and so `did not shrink from risks' He believed in the Holy Ghost... as a Person indwelling his converts. He believed therefore in his converts. He could trust them. He did not trust them because he believed in their natural virtue or effectual sufficiency. But he believed in the Holy Ghost in them. He believed that Christ was able and willing to keep that which he had committed to him.' He must therefore `retire from his converts to give place for Christ'.

Roland Allen lived and worked in the heyday of colonialism, when missionaries tended to be paternalistic. `Everywhere', Allen wrote in 1912, `Christianity is still an exotic (sc. plant)... Everywhere our missions are dependent...Everywhere we see the
same types...We desire to see Christianity established in foreign climes putting on a foreign dress and developing new forms of glory and of beauty'. Bishop Lesslie Newbigin agrees with him. Missionaries have to distinguish, he writes between the *traditum* (what we have in fact received) and the *tradendum* (the essentials which *must* be passed on). Roland Allen `waged war against everything that has been confused with these essentials, everything that makes missions look like a piece of western imperialism - the whole apparatus of a professional ministry, institutions, church buildings, church organisations, diocesan offices - everything from harmoniums to archdeacon'.

Of course Roland Allen was not the first to raise these questions.. In the middle of the last century those transatlantic friends, Henry Venn of London and Rufus Anderson of Boston, both cherished the vision of indigenous churches. In an 1851 memorandum Venn wrote of `the settlement of a Native Church under Native
Pastors upon a self-supporting, self-governing and self-extending system'. He specified four stages in this development until at last `the Mission will have attained its euthanasia'. Anderson used the same three `self' adjectives but in the opposite order, and saw the establishment of the churches as the beginning not the goal.

The Venn-Anderson-Allen theme is not immune to criticism, however. First it is not radical enough in relation to the church's identity. Their three principles were `self-supporting, self-governing , self-expanding', but the authentic selfhood of a
church goes beyond finance, administration and evangelism to the totality of its cultural self-expression, including its theology, worship and life-style. Indigenization (local autonomy) should lead to contexturalization (culture identity). Secondly, it is not imaginative enough in relation to missionaries. Henry Venn thought that, once the national church was established, missionaries should leave, But no. The call for a moratorium, issued in 1974 by John Gatu, the Presbyterian leader in Kenya, was not intended to mean that missionaries were redundant, but rather that *some*
missionaries hinder the national church's growth into self-reliance. Once the church has established its own selfhood, however, then foreign missionaries will be welcome as guests, to work under national leadership, to offer specialist skills and to demonstrate the international nature of the church. Thirdly, Roland Allen's vision is not flexible enough in relation to its expectations, The selfhood of churches is attainable at different rates in different circumstances. Probably Allen did not
sufficiently recognize the unique position of Paul's Jewish and God-fearing converts, who already had a strong Old Testament background in doctrine and ethics. Joachim Jeremias wrote of Judaism as `the first great missionary region to make its
appearance in the Mediterranean world' and of the `unparalleled period of missionary activity' which followed. In consequence, the Christian missionaries found proselytes and God-fearers everywhere. `The overwhelming success of the mission of the
apostle Paul, who in the space of ten years had established centres of the Christian faith throughout almost the whole of the contemporary world, depended partly on the fact that everywhere he was able to build on ground prepared by the Jewish
mission. It is doubtful if after only a few months Paul could have appointed elders in a congregation composed entirely of ex-pagans and ex-idolaters. In such cases there would almost certainly have been a period of transition from mission to church, while elders were being taught and trained.

In conclusion, and reverting to the first missionary journey, its most notable feature was the missionaries' sense of divine direction. It was the Holy Spirit of God himself who told the church of Antioch to set Barnabas and Saul apart, who sent them out, who led them from place to place, and who gave power to their preaching, so that converts were made and churches planted. The sending church had committed them to the grace of God for their work (14:26), and on their return they reported `all
that God had done through them and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles' (14:27). True he had done the work `with them' (literally), in co-operation or partnership with them, but he had done it, and they gave him the credit. The grace had come from him; the glory must go to him.

Acts.15:1-16:5 The Council of Jerusalem

For several years now Gentiles has been brought to faith in Christ and welcomed into the church by baptism. It began with that God-fearing centurion in Caesarea, Cornelius. Not only - in quite extraordinary circumstances - did he come to hear the good news, believe, receive the Spirit and be baptized, but the Jerusalem leaders, once the full facts were presented to them, instead of raising objections, `praised God' (11:18). Next came the remarkable movement in Syrian Antioch when unnamed missionaries `began to speak to Greeks also' (11:20), a great number of whom
believed. The Jerusalem church heard about this too and sent Barnabas to investigate, who `saw the evidence of the grace of God' and rejoiced (11:23). The third development which Luke chronicles was the first missionary journey, during which the first complete outsider believed (Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus) and later Paul and Barnabas responded to Jewish unbelief with the bold declaration `we now turn to the Gentiles' (13:46). Thereafter, wherever they went, both Jews and Gentiles believed (e.g. 14:1), and on their return to Syrian Antioch, the missionaries were able to report that `God...had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles' (14:27).

All that was fairly straightforward. After the conversion of Cornelius and the Antiochene Greeks the Jerusalem leaders had been able to reassure themselves that God was in it. How would they now react to the even more audacious policy of Paul? The Gentile mission was gathering momentum. The trickle of Gentile conversions
was fast becoming a torrent. The Jewish leaders had no difficulty with the general concept of believing Gentiles, for many Old Testament passages predicted their inclusion, But now a particular question was forming in their minds: what means of incorporation into the believing community did God intend for the Gentiles? So
far it had been assumed that they would be absorbed into Israel by circumcision, and that by observing the law they would be acknowledged as *bona fide* members of the covenant people of God. Something quite different was now happening, however, something which disturbed and even alarmed many. Gentile converts were being
welcomed into the fellowship by baptism without circumcision. They were becoming Christians without also becoming Jews. They were retaining their own identity and integrity as members of other nations. It was one thing for the Jerusalem leaders to give their approval to the conversion of Gentiles: but could they approve of conversion-without-circumcision, of faith in Jesus without the works of the law, and of commitment to the Messiah without inclusion in Judaism? Was their vision big enough to see the gospel of Christ not as a reform movement within Judaism but as
good news for the whole world, and the church of Christ not as a Jewish sect but as the international family of God? These were the revolutionary questions which some were daring to ask. No wonder Haenchen can write: `Chapter 15 is the turning
point, "centrepiece" and "watershed" of the book, the episode which rounds off and justifies the past developments, and makes those to come intrinsically possible' This is not an exaggeration. Luke draws attention to it by silent shifts in emphasis. In this
chapter Jerusalem is still the focus of interest, and Peter makes his final appearance in the story. But from now on Peter disappears, to be replaced by Paul and Jerusalem recedes into the background as Paul pushes on beyond Asia into Europe, and Rome
appears on the horizon. Indeed we ourselves, from our later perspective of church history, can see the crucial importance of this first ecumenical Council held in Jerusalem. Its unanimous decision liberated the gospel from the Jewish swaddling clothes into being God's message for all humankind, and gave the Jewish-Gentile church a self conscience identity as the reconciled people of God, the one body of Christ. And although the whole Council affirmed it, Paul claimed that it was a new understanding granted specially to him, the `mystery' previously hidden but now
revealed, namely that through faith in Christ alone Gentiles stand on equal terms with Jews as `heirs together, members together, sharers together' in his one new community (Eph. 3:2-6; cf. Col.1:26-27; Rom. 16:25-27).

Acts 15:1-4. 1) The point at issue

The tranquillity of the fellowship at Syrian Antioch was shattered by the arrival of a group Paul later dubs `trouble makers' (Gal. 1:7 and 5:10, RSV). *Some men came down from Judea to Antioch (1). Before going on to consider who they were and what they were teaching, I need to share with my readers that I hold the so-called `South Galatian' view, namely that Paul's Letter to the Galatians was written to the South Galatian churches of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, which he and Barnabas had just visited on their first missionary journey; that he dictated it during the height of this theological crisis before the Council settled it (for he does not refer in his letter to the `apostolic decree'); that he was writing it probably on his way up
to Jerusalem for the Council, which would be his third visit to the city, although he does not mention it in *Galatians* because it has not yet taken place; and that therefore the situation Luke describes at the beginning of Acts 15 is the same as that to which Paul refers in Galatians 2:11-16.

If that is correct, then the statement that *some men came down from Judea to Antioch* (1) corresponds to `certain men came from James' to Antioch (Gal. 2:11-12). Not that James had actually sent them, for he later disclaims this (24), but that was their boast. They were trying to set two apostles against each other,
claiming James as their champion and framing Paul as their opponent. They were `Pharisees' (5), and `zealous for the law' (21:20). And this is what they *were teaching the brothers: `Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved'* (1). Nor was the circumcision of Gentile converts their only demand; they went further. Gentile converts, they insisted, were also *required to obey the law of Moses* (5). Because they could not accept conversion without circumcision as adequate, they had organized themselves into a pressure group, whom we often term `Judaizers' or `the circumcision party'. They were not opposed to the Gentile mission, but were determined that it must come under the umbrella of the Jewish church, and that Gentile believers must submit not only to
baptism in the name of Jesus , but, like Jewish proselytes, to both circumcision and law-observance as well. It is hardly surprising that *this* teaching *brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them* (2a).

We need to be clear what they were saying, and what the point at issue was. They were insisting, in Luke's tell-tale summary, that without circumcision converts could *not be saved*. Of course circumcision was the God-given sign of the covenant, and
doubtless the Judaizers were stressing this; but they were going further and making it a condition of salvation. They were telling Gentile converts that faith in Jesus was not enough, not sufficient for salvation: They must add to faith circumcision, and
to circumcision observance of the law. In other words, they must let Moses complete what Jesus had begun, and let the law supplement the gospel. The issue was immense. The way of salvation was at stake. The gospel was in dispute. The very
foundations of the Christian faith were being undermined.

Next: Acts 15:1-4 The point at issue (continued).