Q. What does Acts 11.26 mean when it says that the disciples were first

A To answer this question we will have to get into some first century
history and what was going on "behind the scenes" if you will. This verse
does not imply that a new religion was being formed that in any way
resembles what is known as Christianity today. Christianity did not exist in
the Book of Acts and neither did the false teachings that it disseminates.
The believers in the first century were Torah observant Jews and Gentiles
who came under the authority of the synagogues. They did not teach that
Sunday was Lord's Day, they did not eat pork or teach that the food laws
were invalid, they did not celebrate pagan festivals. So what exactly was
going on. Torah observance was expressed in many ways through many
traditions and not everyone did the same thing. But they all agreed about
the Sabbath and the keeping of the biblical festivals, what you could eat
and so on. Anyone who said that the Torah was "not for today" and taught
that one was "free from the Law" would be accused of heresy and rightly
judged and this included the writers of the New Testament who had nothing
good to say about those who taught a gospel without the Torah commandments.
In the first century there were various groups like the Pharisees. There was
not one group of Pharisee's but as many as 3 and four main groups but two
groups are predominant and they were called the School of Shammai and the
School of Hillel and were very eschatological (believed in the coming of the
Messiah).Both Shammai and Hillel lived in the first century. They had a high
regard for oral law but disagreed on how it was observed. The Mishnah and
the Talmud contain many arguments on halakah between the two schools.
Shammai was more strict than Hillel. The Sadducees were more of the priestly
class that opposed the Pharisee's and believed very little. The Boethucians
were rich Sadducee's that were non-eschatological and rejected the oral law
and many High Priest's came from this class. The Sicari (cut-throats) were
the most radical and would assassinate people who helped Rome. The Zealot
party was politically opposed to Rome and were Torah observant. There was
the Chasidim who were from the north and were pious but not like the
Pharisee's. The Essenes were a very zealous group and we are not sure
exactly who they were but they were fed up with what they felt was a corrupt
priesthood and withdrew into the wilderness. They were very eschatological.
There was also the Theraputae, or "healers" and they were related to the
Essenes. The Am ha Eretz or "people of the land" were the common folk who
didn't really care to study much and followed the Pharisee's and liked to be
told what to believe. Most of these groups would be called traditionalists.
The Hellenists (influenced by Greek culture) were those who were not so
"traditional" and this goes back to the time of the Maccabee's. The zealous,
traditional Jews were at odds with the Hellenists and a war was fought over
this 160 years before Yeshua. The traditionalist Jews fought the Greeks and
the Hellenized Jews in what was called the Maccabean War. The
traditionalists won the day but they looked with contempt on anyone who was
influenced by Greek culture and the feeling was mutual with the Hellenists.
This animosity and distrust permeated any interaction between the two
groups. Now the Hellenists were divided into several groups. The Judeans
were not eschatological and not very observant. The Asia Minor Hellenists
were very observant but influenced by Greek culture. The Alexandrian Jews of
the Hellenistic sort were Torah observant but influenced by Greek culture.
The last group I want to mention were the Babylonian Jews and they were very
Torah observant and did not have these other sects to deal with. After Rome
destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem, most of the above mentioned groups
disappeared except the Pharisee's. They formed what is called Rabbinic
Judaism and that is what has been handed down today. Rabbinic Judaism does
not resemble or represent what was being done in the first century and it
relies on rabbinic tradition. Yeshua's disciples were made up of people from
these groups with all the diverse beliefs and practices and He taught things
that could be found already in these groups. His overall beliefs were very
similar to the school of Hillel but his views on divorce agreed with the
school of Shammai. His teachings on hand-washing rituals and carrying a
pallet on the Sabbath agreed with the School of Hillel. His teachings about
the spirit of the Torah agreed with Hillel and "doing unto others" is very
similar to this school of thought. That is a whole study in itself but the
point is there was not one "Judaism" in the first century but "Judaisms" and
what Yeshua and the Apostles taught was very mainstream. Each group had
elders and leaders who set the "halakah" of that group, or how to walk
before God in light of the Torah commandments. Messianic believers had a
council or Sanhedrin where religious controversies could be settled (see
Acts 15). Yeshua's followers differed from the other groups in two main
areas. One, they believed He was the Messiah so they were known as the
"mashiachim" or "messianics" by others. The other area was on how to deal
with Gentile converts. All the groups accepted Gentile converts but some
believed that they had to undergo ritual circumcision to have righteousness
with God, or a place in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Pharisaic school of
Shammai was very adamant about this. The Messianic followers of Yeshua
thought that too in the beginning, but by Acts 10 and Cornelius that
doctrine was dropped for the most part. Now, it was into this world of
traditional versus Hellenistic thought that the disciples were sent into,
not to mention plain old paganism. So, when people from these different
groups began to be saved they brought their theology with them, good and
bad. You see the concept of ritual circumcision of Gentiles cropping up in
Acts 15 because traditionalist Pharisee's from the school of Shammai began
to get saved and brought this concept into their interaction with the
others. Paul, being a traditionalist from the school of Hillel would
naturally oppose this view and it came to a head in Acts 15 and the Book of
Galatians. Galatians has nothing to do with keeping the Torah, it has to do
with the traditionalist, Pharisaic concept as to whether a Gentile has to be
ritually circumcised according to the halakah of the school of Shammai or
not. It was the Lord's plan to educate Paul in Pharisaic Torah from the
school of Hillel and then reveal Messiah to him He was then sent out as a
teacher who wrote most of the New Testament Scriptures. The epistles were
Messianic commentaries on how to observe the Torah in light of the fact that
Yeshua is the Messiah. So, with that back-round let's talk about your
question. Gentiles who believed in God would be taught the Torah and were
called "Yiray Shamayim" or G0d-fearers. There were several other Hebraic
terms they were known by. One was called the "ger t'shav" or stranger in the
land. They were believers who lived in the land of Israel like Ruth and
Cornelius. If you lived outside the land you were called a "ger ha Sha'ar"
or stranger at the gate. This was important because where you lived
determined what commandments applied to you. For instance, if you lived
outside the land you did not tithe. In Greek they were called "phoubemenoi"
(God-fearers) and "sebemenoi" (devout ones) and these terms are used in the
book of Acts. So, you must understand that there was tension between the
traditionalists and the Hellenists in the first century and this had been
going on for over 150 years. Paul was a traditionalist from the school of
Hillel and you can see why he made war on messianic believers who were
Hellenistic by influence. That's why he was going to Damascus. There were
plenty of traditional messianic believers in Judea but he went after the
Hellenists. After Yeshua revealed Himself to him he did not give up the
traditional Judaism he learned but now he could interpret it correctly,
holding on to the good and discarding the bad. I think the Lord had a sense
of humor in sending Paul the traditionalist outside the land to reach
Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles. So, with all that back-round let's get to the
question. Antioch is a Hellenistic city (remember the Maccabean
traditionalists fought the Hellenists who sided with Antiochus) named after
the Greek kings. So, the Greek speakers in Antioch called the "mashiachim"
(Hebrew for messianics) "christianos" which is the same thing, only coming
from a Hellenistic angle. This term eventually was used to insult believers
and that is why Peter said not to be ashamed of being called a "Christian"
(christianos) in 1 Pet 4.14-16, or "messianic" coming from a Hebraic
mindset. This was not the start of a new religion and has nothing to do with
what is called "Christian" today. Peter was talking to Torah observant
believers in Messiah who were Jewish and Gentile and they would have never
accepted Christianity as it is today. Christianity is based on replacement
theology so the term messianic and Christian do not mean the same thing
anymore. Messianic carries the meaning of Torah observant which is seen as
applying only to Jews and Christian means non-Torah observant and is seen as
applying only to Gentiles. This couldn't be further from the truth as
expressed in the Scriptures. That is why Jews who believe are often called
"Hebrew Christians" and not Messianic Jews today. So, what is it supposed to
look like? God saves a Jew or a Gentile and both groups are part of one Body
and both groups were to keep the Torah as it applies. We are all a part of
one Bride, one Olive Tree, one congregation and we are to follow one Torah.
We have one Shepherd, one Prince, one King, one Messiah and we all follow
one God. Messianic is just the Hebrew word for "anointed ones" and if you
said it in Greek it would be "christianos" but both words mean the same
thing. That is what it is supposed to look like but that isn't what is out
there today and that is why there is much confusion about this verse. That
is why we should understand the Scriptures in the way they would have been
understood at the time they were written and not according to the
understanding and definitions of whatever denomination that happens to be
teaching you at the time.