What Became of the Churches Paul Wrote To

'Church of Mary' in Ephesus, site of the
Third Ecumenical Council in 431

Paul the apostle wrote his part of the New Testament in the form of letters to Christian groups in several cities or areas. Have you ever wondered what became of the churches on those places? Well, some people must (including me) because I received this question on Quora the other day...


Q: Were the churches Paul wrote letters to foundational to post-Biblical Christianity, for example, after Constantine?



A: Rome.

Rome is the most obvious foundational address Paul wrote to. The church father Irenaeus writing around AD 180 described the influence Rome had on post-biblical Christianity:

“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority,that is, the faithful everywhere,inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

Against Heresies, Book 3, chapters 3-4 Irenaeus

Paul’s other destinations had varying degrees of influence after the apostles were gone. Here is some information I’ve put together on them:

Corinth

The non-biblical (but quite orthodox) letter called 1 Clement was written to Corinth by a Roman church leader (probably before the last New Testament books were finished). This letter shows that the old issues of factionalism and quarreling which Paul had addressed continued among Corinthian Christians; referring to their letters from Paul, Clement rebukes some younger believers who have thrown off the leadership of the elders.

Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible, art. Corinth.

Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth around AD 170 wrote a letter preserved in the Church History of Eusebius to the bishop of Rome, Soter, defending the way churches in Achaea traditionally celebrated the feast later called easter, which then was a matter of debate in the church since Rome figured it differently.

Corinth was the capital of the province of Achaea and the bishop there oversaw the smaller churches in the province making him what Orthodox Christians call a metropolitan bishop. Corinth's bishops were present at many of the early church councils and so helped to formulate statements of what Christians do (and do not) believe that are still used to this day.

Metropolis of Corinth - Wikipedia

Galatia

There are actually two areas in modern day Turkey that were called "Galatia" in Paul's time, a north and a south, and no one is certain which one Paul wrote to. If Galatians was sent to north Galatia they would be in the area of Ankara and Pessinus while south Galatia would include Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe where Acts tells us he and Barnabas established churches.

If we go with the southern Galatia theory and look at what roles the cities mentioned in Acts played later on, we can say that Iconium played no important part in later church history, although the apocryphal but popular "Acts of Paul and Thecla" may have been written there "out of love for Paul." Acts of Paul and Thecla - Wikipedia

The church in Antioch was the capital of the province of Pisidia. Partially due to this the bishop there oversaw the smaller churches in the province. The names of many bishops of Pisidian Antioch are recorded and they attended several of the important church Councils.

Antioch of Pisidia - Wikipedia

Lystra did not play a major role in subsequent Christian history, though the foundation of a Byzantine church has been discovered at the site.

Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible, art. Lystra

Not much is recorded of Derbe's part in post-apostolic Christianity. The church continued there however and its bishops attended three important Councils: Constantinople (AD 381), Ephesus (AD 431), and Chalcedon (AD 451) Derbe (Diocese) - Wikipedia.

Ephesus

Ephesus is the traditional residence, in later life, of John the Apostle (Eusebius HE 3.1), who was thought to have lived into the reign of Trajan (98-117; Irenaeus Adv. haer. 3.3.4). According to tradition, he wrote his Gospel at Ephesus (HE 5.8.4), and was eventually buried there (3.39.5-6; 5.24.3). The Basilica of St. John was erected on the traditional site of his tomb during the reign of Justinian (527-565). Timothy is remembered as the first bishop of Ephesus (HE 3.4.5), a tradition probably based on 1 Tim. 1:3. Ephesus is also the site for Justin’s dialogue with Trypho the Jew (Dial. 2-8; Eusebius HE 4.18.6).

Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible, art. "Ephesus"

The city was destroyed by the Goths in 263, and although rebuilt, the city's importance as a commercial centre declined as the harbour was slowly silted up by the Küçükmenderes River. It was partially destroyed by an earthquake in 614 AD...

The Church of Mary near the harbour of Ephesus was the setting for the Third Ecumenical Council in 431, which resulted in the condemnation of Nestorius. A Second Council of Ephesus was held in 449, but its controversial acts were never approved by the Catholics. It came to be called the Robber Council of Ephesus or Robber Synod of Latrocinium by its opponents.

Wikipedia, art. Ephesus

Philippians

In the second century, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch of Syria, passed through Philippi on his way to Rome to face martyrdom. The Philippian church later sent a letter to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, requesting his assistance in collecting Ignatius's letters. Polycarp responded favorably to their request in his only letter that has survived (see Pol. Phil. 13.2), though Irenaeus claims that he wrote several others (Irenaeus Haer. 5.33.4). Polycarp's letter (c. the mid-second century A.D.) is helpful in understanding the continuing witness of the church in Philippi in the second century, its concern for those in prison because of their faith and its hospitality. Like Paul, Polycarp also addressed the presbyters (bishops) and deacons (Pol. Phil. 5.2-3; 6.1; cf. Paul's Phil 1:1). In the post-Nicene era, the city became an important Christian center and had a metropolitan bishop.

Dictionary of New Testament Background, art. "Philippi"

Colossae

After a major earthquake in the Lycus Valley that destroyed Colossae and Laodicea (c. A.D. 60-64; Tacitus Ann. 14.27), Colossae was never fully rebuilt, and by the eighth century it was abandoned. The site has not yet been excavated.

Dictionary of New Testament Background, art. "Colossae"

Thessalonica

For centuries the city remained one of the chief strongholds of Christianity, and it won for itself the title of "the Orthodox City," not only by the tenacity and vigor of its resistance to the successive attacks of various barbarous races, but also by being largely responsible for their conversion to Christianity... It was also the scene in 390 AD of the famous massacre ordered by Theodosius the Great, for which St. Ambrose excluded that emperor for some months from the cathedral at Milan.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (2002 edition), art. "Thessalonica"

It still stands today. Thessaloniki - Wikipedia

Peter & Paul: Conflicting Gospels?

Peter and Paul
(4th century carving)

(A Quora question I answered yesterday.)

Q: Did Peter and Paul preach conflicting gospels or messages?

A: Not really. Both Peter and Paul preached the same gospel of the Kingdom of God that Jesus preached: That God’s universal kingdom had been inaugurated at the cross with Jesus as its king, that everyone was invited to give him their allegiance and join (at which point their sins would be wiped away).

The disagreement came about when some Jewish members asked, “But… don’t you have to become a Jew first?” The answer, hammered out at the Jerusalem Conference (c. AD 49), was, “No.”

It’s hard to understand just what an earthquake this was to the Jewish believers. They were the chosen people. The Messiah had come from them. Paul gives an entire list of “advantages” that the Jews had in the Letter to the Romans. That pagan gentiles could just waltz into the family of God on exactly the same terms as the Jewish people was extremely difficult for some to wrap their minds around. Some (often called “Judaizers” by scholars) never did, and roamed the Mediterranean world trying to convince members of the Christian movement that they needed to become Jews (via being circumcised, observing the Sabbath, and adopting other rituals) for their conversions to be valid.

Paul stood up to judaizing teachers wherever he encountered them because they were putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of followers of Jesus.

Peter

Peter, to his credit, got this. In fact, the Book of Acts portrays him as being among the first to get it. Paul attests to this himself in his Letter to the Galatians, where he describes how Peter was happy to eat with Gentiles in the city of Antioch, and even,“live[d] like a Gentile and not like a Jew.” “Table fellowship” was much more than just eating food in the ancient near east; it meant you accepted and respected the people you were with.

But, rather in line with his character as the Gospels describe him, Peter got spooked by men from “the circumcision party” who arrived from and withdrew his table fellowship with the gentile members. Paul roundly chewed him out for that.

But there is no evidence of any significant difference in the gospel Paul and Peter proclaimed, other that what is mentioned right before the Antioch incident in Galatians: “I (Paul) had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles).

Why is Jesus Called a Nazarene?

From an old book

Sometimes the questions on Quora aren't that hard. They just need a little research...


Q: Why did Jesus call himself a Nazarene to Paul in Acts 22:8? Who is a Nazarene?


A: Jesus came from Nazareth, a town so small and insignificant that it is never mentioned in the Old Testament and has left scant archaeological remains from the 1st century. John’s gospel indicates that it wasn’t held in high esteem.

While Jesus was still alive “Nazarene” was simply used as an identifier synonymous with the more familiar “…of Nazareth.” For instance, Mark — our earliest gospel — records this bit of conversation while Jesus was on trial: “seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus,” (Mark 14.67, ESV). The name Nazareth doesn't seem to have any connection to the Nazarites of the Old Testament and Jesus didn't follow the rites that identified one under a Nazarite vow, (see Numbers 6.1-21, ESV).

In Acts 22.8 Paul is in the land of Palestine, speaking to his fellow Jews in their native language. The Greek here is Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος — literally, “Jesus, the one from Nazareth.”  First century Jews didn’t use last names, so terms like “of this city” or “son of this man” were used to identify which person you were talking about. “Jesus” was actually a very common name back then, so all throughout the gospels and Acts “Jesus of Nazareth” is used to refer to the Jesus we are all familiar with. Here is a list of all the references to “Jesus of Nazareth” in the New Testament. There are actually more than that where “the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee” or some such is added.

After he died and rose again, the movement Jesus founded was known under various names, such as “Christians” and “the Way.” The Book of Acts indicates that another designation (probably used derisively, as “Christian” originally was) was “the Nazarenes:” “For we have found this man (Paul) a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes,” (Acts 24.5, ESV).

So in his speech in Acts 22 Paul is most likely using “Jesus of Nazareth” just to identify what Jesus he is talking about. However, since he is speaking in the late AD 50s, when “the sect of the Nazarenes” was everywhere, he may have added that detail to connect the Jesus who met him on the road to Damascus with the founder of the despised Nazarene sect.

Independence Day

If you live in the United States, like the bulk of this blog's readers do, you'll probably spend today celebrating Independence Day. This is where we band together and enjoy the fact that, despite it's many, many problems, flaws, and disagreements, we have a pretty good country here. Personally, I'm a big fan of the US and proud to be a citizen of this country.

Most people have probably felt the same way about their homelands down through the ages. Mongols were proud to be mongols, serfs were proud of their lords, and romans thought it was an illustrious thing to be a roman. Even St. Paul would pull out his roman citizenship on occasion:

Paul (loud enough that the police can hear):  Just a minute. This is unjust. We’ve been stripped naked, beaten in public, and thrown into jail, all without a trial of any kind. Now they want to release us secretly as if nothing happened? No way: we’re Roman citizens—we shouldn’t be treated like this! If the city officials want to release us, then they can come and tell us to our faces [that we're free].

(Book of Acts 16.37, Voice)

Where Paul claimed his rights as a Roman

Real Country

Interestingly enough, a few years later Paul wrote a letter to the group of Jesus' followers in Philippi, the city where this happened. In it he makes a point that we 21st century US citizens would do well to keep in mind as we celebrate our country.

To the very people who had witnessed the Apostle forcefully insist on his citizenship in the only superpower of his time, Paul reminds them what country they really belong to.

 We are citizens of heaven, exiles on earth waiting eagerly for a Liberator, our Lord Jesus the Anointed, to come and transform these humble, earthly bodies into the form of His glorious body by the same power that brings all things under His control. 

(Philippians 3.20-21, Voice)

No matter what nation we live in or how much we may love it, members of the Christian Movement have given their allegiance to another country and another ruler.

Paul had just finished writing this:

So God raised Him up to the highest place
     and gave Him the name above all.
So when His name is called,
     every knee will bow,
     in heaven, on earth, and below.
And every tongue will confess
     “Jesus, the Anointed One, is Lord,”
      to the glory of God our Father!

(Philippians 2.9-11, Voice)

I'm particularly fond of N.T. Wright's little quote, "If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar is not." Jesus of Nazareth is our true King now, and eventually "every knee will bow" to him.  Our knees -- the knees of the Christian Movement -- have already had the privilege of bowing to him. We have independence from every 'Caesar' that rules anywhere.

Today amidst our fireworks and barbeque and current geopolitical dominance, remember who you really are and where you really live.

Ascension

Thoughts for a Sunday Morning

Jesus of Nazareth returned bodily to Heaven last Thursday, 40 days after his resurrection. Today is "Ascension Sunday" when many of his followers remember that fact.

I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the all-glorious Father, may confer on you the spiritual gifts of wisdom and vision, with the knowledge of him that they bring. I pray that your inward eyes may be enlightened, so that you may know what is the hope to which he calls you, how rich and glorious is the share he offers you among his people in their inheritance, and how vast are the resources of his power open to us who have faith.

His mighty strength was seen at work when he raised Christ from the dead, and enthroned him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all government and authority, all power and dominion, and any title of sovereignty that commands allegiance, not only in this age but also in the age to come. He put all things in subjection beneath his feet, and gave him as head over all things to the church which is his body, the fullness of him who is filling the universe in all its parts.

Letter to the Ephesians chapter 1 verses 17 - 23, Revised English Bible

A Small Historical Point

Gamaliel

from a 14th century Jewish Haggadah

A bit of advice from the Apostle Paul's old teacher. Two thousand years on it seems that history has rendered its verdict if we go by Rabban Gamaliel's wise guidance.

Just a small point, and of course history does continue to grind on. We could all wake up to a world without the Christians tomorrow, right? Then again, Jesus of Nazareth didn't even consider that a possibility (Gospel of Matthew chapter 16 verse 18).

_____________________

One member of the council, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, stood up. He was a teacher of the law, and all the people respected him. He told the men to make the apostles leave the meeting for a few minutes. Then he said to them, “Men of Israel, be careful of what you are planning to do to these men.

Remember when Theudas appeared? He said he was an important man, and about 400 men joined him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were scattered and ran away. They were not able to do anything. Later, during the time of the census, a man named Judas came from Galilee. Many people joined his group, but he was also killed, and all his followers were scattered.

And so now I tell you, stay away from these men. Leave them alone. If their plan is something they thought up, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them. You might even be fighting against God himself!”

(Book of Acts chapter 5 verses 34 - 39, ERV)

"It's Really Me"

"The Unbelief of Thomas"

The Jewish people in the 1st century were not unfamiliar with the idea of people appearing after they died. In fact the entire Roman world was familiar with it too, and sometimes even today some of us will look up and see a deceased loved one.

That sort of thing is what those who rule out a supernatural explanation frequently use to explain the Christian Movement's belief that Jesus had been resurrected. A current example of this is the scholar Bart Ehrman's new book How Jesus Became God.

Interestingly though, unless you count Jesus, there is no record of anyone seeing that sort of vision and taking it to mean that a resurrection in the 1st century Jewish sense (i.e., bodily coming back to life) had taken place.

The early Christians were quite aware that this kind of explanation would occur to people. But they would have none of it. Here is one of them writing on the subject 30 to 50 years after the event:

While the two men were saying these things to the other followers, Jesus himself came and stood among them. He said to them, “Peace be with you.”

This surprised the followers. They were afraid. They thought they were seeing a ghost. But Jesus said, “Why are you troubled? Why do you doubt what you see? Look at my hands and my feet. It’s really me. Touch me. You can see that I have a living body; a ghost does not have a body like this.”

After Jesus told them this, he showed them his hands and his feet. The followers were amazed and very, very happy to see that Jesus was alive. They still could not believe what they saw. He said to them, “Do you have any food here?” They gave him a piece of cooked fish. While the followers watched, he took the fish and ate it.

(Gospel of Luke chapter 24 verses 36 - 43, ERV)

Premise of History

'Adam Crouching' by
Paul Wayland Bartlett

Back when I first got interested in Jesus of Nazareth I sometimes watched a televangelist who was given to making startling, bombastic statements. Come to think of it, that describes most of the televangelists I saw.  This particular preacher held the belief that, because Jesus once predicted in Matthew's gospel (and nowhere else) that, "the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights," it meant he would be laying in the tomb for precisely 72 hours -- no more, no less. 

Evidence of how ancient Jewish people reckoned time counted for nothing with him. "If Jesus wasn't in the grave for exactly 72 hours," he would proclaim, "you have no Savior!"

J. R. Daniel Kirk, whose blog I read, wrote an article recently trying to answer a question that can sometimes elicit a similar response: Does St. Paul's explanation (found here and here) of how Jesus counteracts Adam's sin fall apart if it turns out an actual Adam never existed? Does the current scientific understanding of human origins, which has precious little room for Adam, Eve, and their garden, shoot holes in Paul's theology?

Such ideas are enough to move some people to exclaim, "If Adam and Eve never existed, then Christianity is nothing more than a fable!"

I have an idea about this. Maybe I'll post something about it at some point. But whatever the ultimate answer to this question is, I believe the key to understanding it probably lies in this section of Kirk's paper:

New Testament scholarship over the past half century has developed the insight that the first data point in Paul’s Christian theologizing was his understanding that the cross and resurrection formed the saving act of God. In the 1960s, Herman Ridderbos argued that this fundamental conviction becomes the great act of God by which all other acts and ideas are understood.5 The significance of this focus on Christ is that it ripples out in all directions: not only does Paul rethink the future in light of Jesus’ death and resurrection, but he also reinterprets what came before. Thus, Ridderbos concludes that “Paul’s whole doctrine of the world and man in sin . . . is only to be perceived in the light of his insight into the all-important redemptive event in Christ.”6 A decade later E. P. Sanders concurred, claiming that Paul reasons “from solution to plight.”7 Because Paul knows that God has provided the solution to the problem of human sin in the crucified and risen Christ, he therefore reassesses the place of the Law, in particular, in God’s saving story.

Both Ridderbos and Sanders have come to the same conclusion: what is a “given” for Paul is the saving event of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The other things he says, especially about sin, the Law, and eschatology, are reinterpretations that grow from the fundamental reality of the Christ event.

Not just for Paul but for all faithful early members of the Christian Movement, the crucifixion and resurrection  of Jesus, when the Kingdom of God began, when the universe's High King was crowned, is the lens through which all of history makes sense. We need to take Paul's perspective and look back through history -- especially scriptural history -- from inside the vortex of Christ's transformational work on the cross and in the tomb. That, I believe, is where the answer to this problem can most clearly be seen.