First century house churches

The canonised writings of the apostle Paul take the form of (traditionally) thirteen epistles. Nine were written to churches with which he had various relations. For example, Galatians (the earliest 49-52AD) was written to a church of Pauline converts he visited twice (Marshall, Millard, Packer, & Wiseman, 1996, pp. 392, 885), first and second Corinthians to a church Paul had spent eighteen months ministering with (Acts 18:1-18), and Romans to a church he had yet to visit (Romans 1:10). These churches were not abstract theological entities formed in a ‘social vacuum’ but complex groups of individuals of varying backgrounds meeting in rooms of people’s homes forming the house churches. Recognising the influences on and characteristics of the people within these churches gives a greater understanding of Paul’s letters to them.

During the time of Paul’s mission, as apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13; Stambaugh & Balch, 1986, p. 54), the people of Mediterranean basin were undergoing change. Greco-Roman culture was progressively influential (Meeks, 1983, p. 15) in areas of politics, class status, philosophy, religion, and the household. This change was occurring most prominently within the cities – the focus of Paul’s mission.

A common language and well established trade routes coupled with personal mobility, both physical and social, facilitated the expansion of Christianity during its first 120 years (Meeks, 1983, p. 16). The faith’s landscape shifted from the Jewish rural Palestine to a Gentile urban environment (Tidball, 1993, p. 1). Conservative villages underwent the least change, demonstrated by the persistent use of traditional languages (such as Aramaic used in Galilee) in the face of Koine Greek becoming the dominant language elsewhere (Meeks, 1983, p. 15). After the dispersion of the ‘Hellenists’ until the time of Constantine’s rule the cities became the ‘dominant environment’ of Christianity (Meeks, 1983, p. 11).

By modern standards the cities were small but overcrowded. Cities would contain sizeable ethnic communities (Banks, 1980, p. 8). Rome’s population would have been close to one million (Banks, 1980, p. 7). Antioch held 250,000 people (Tidball, 1993, p. 1) with an incredible 200 per acre (Meeks, 1983, pp. 28-29) (49,400km²) compared with Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs (4,000km² (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004)). The housing density was made tolerable by a large portion (one quarter) dedicated to public facilities. Privacy in such conditions was rare (Meeks, 1983, p. 29). Involvement in early churches would have been noticed by the community.

Households were large inclusive communities consisting of extended family, slaves, friends, tenants, partners and clients involved in common commercial or agricultural enterprise. Housing would be shared by the extended kin often with individual rooms shared by nuclear groups (Stambaugh & Balch, 1986, p. 84). The physical layout reflected it’s function with commercial (workshop and shop frontage) and residential areas (Tidball, 1993, pp. 3,8).

Status within community was shaped by ‘achieved status’/‘acquired honour’ (wealth, education, occupation) and ‘accredited status’/‘ascribed honour’ (race, gender, birth, legal status) (Tidball, 1993, p. 11; Spence, 2009, p. 4). Accredited status stratified society similarly to the way today’s society is segmented into economic class (e.g. lower-middle class) (Tidball, 1993, p. 9). A blurring of social distinctions was gradually taking place (Banks, 1994) with increasing ‘status inconsistencies’ (such as an educated slave or wealthy women) (Tidball, 1993, p. 10).

Roman society was pluralistic and polytheistic (Driscoll, 2009). Rome assumed that conquered people had religions and these were to be incorporated as acceptable beliefs (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 285). Iterant philosophers (Tidball, 1993, p. 3) and foreign settlers would gather and set up shrines to their native gods (Meeks, 1983, p. 18), temples or philosophical schools (Banks, 1980, p. 11). Influence and intermingling of religions led ‘people to think of the gods of other nations as similar or identical to those they already knew’ – a process known as syncretism (Stambaugh & Balch, 1986, p. 44).

The Christian ‘religion’ started with political friction. New religions required political licence (Tidball, 1993, p. 6); Christians referred to themselves as ekklesia (assembly) which was a Greek political term (Stambaugh & Balch, 1986, p. 138). Christians came from various classes and cultures, and were passionately monotheistic both of these characteristics were unusual in their socio-political context.

The house churches were groups of Christians that would gather together in private homes (Acts 2:46; 5:42; 12:12). These meetings were typically small, limited by the physical size of the premise (Stambaugh & Balch, 1986, p. 55). Most often the meeting would be based around a meal and occur in the dining room. This practice followed in the tradition of Jewish practices with archaeological excavation demonstrating first century synagogues which were rooms in private homes (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 549).

Several households are mentioned in scripture: Nympha in Laodicea (Col 4:15), Philemon in Colossae (Philemon 2) and Lydia in Philippi (Acts 16) hosted gatherings of early Christians in their homes (O'Brien, 1993). The owner of the house would function as host and patron (Stambaugh & Balch, 1986, p. 55). It is likely that these patrons were wealthy gentile God-fearers who had previously supported the synagogue (Stambaugh & Balch, 1986, p. 55). Multiple house churches within the same town are implied in scripture (Romans 16:23, 1 Corinthians 14:23) (O'Brien, 1993) and confirmed by archaeological evidence (Tidball, 1993, p. 4).

In many ways these gatherings reflect contemporary Christian ‘services’. They would meet for fellowship (Hebrews 10:25), music (Ephesians 5:19), prayer and public reading of scripture (1 Timothy 4:13), teaching (Colossians 3:16) and conflict resolution (1 Corinthian 5).

The pattern of modern churches being based around a central public building is a clear point of distinction. Designated buildings owned collectively by the church for the purpose of worship were not seen until the middle of the third century (O'Brien, 1993). Emperor Constantine’s embrace of Christianity led to increased legal protection and the start of government sponsored buildings (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 549).

Another distinction is the social dynamic within the church. The church began as a community that ‘held all things in common’ (Acts 2:44). However private property continued to exist (private homes) and unloving class distinctions persisted (1 Corinthian 10). Early churches formed as communitas of anti-hierarchical brotherhoods with loose structure and strong sense of belonging (Tidball, 1993). Within the early decades social status was rejected such that freeman and slaves shared together (Stambaugh & Balch, 1986, p. 55; Banks, 1980, p. 26) – ‘neither Jew nor Greek...slave nor free...male nor female’ (Gal. 3:28). A common faith, rituals (particularly baptism and the Lord’s Supper) and common experience such as external persecution resulted in community identification within group. Contemporary Australian culture is much more individual (at personal and family level) with the tendency to gather at the church building and this disperse.

To accurate read and interpret Paul’s writings we must appreciate that he lived in and preached to a world very different from our own. Failure to recognise differences leads to the ethnocentric tendency to regard our own experiences (Klein, Blomberg, & Hubbard, 2004, p. 12) and world view (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 283) as the standard in which to interpret the texts. Conflict with the circumcision group (Galatians 5), the role of women (1 Corinthians 11:5, 1 Timothy 2:12) and food sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8) are examples of context bound issues that faced the House Churches. Careful study of the author’s contexts and ‘all conditions that surround the recipient’ provide important information about the author’s intended message and how the recipients would have understood that message (Klein, Blomberg, & Hubbard, 2004, pp. 10-11).

Bibliography

Achtemeier, P. J., Green, J. B., & Thompson, M. M. (2001). Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004, Janurary). Sydney Centre Has The Highest Population Density In Australia. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from Australian Bureau of Statistics: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/2032.0Media%20Release82001?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=2032.0&issue=2001&num=&view=

Banks, R. (1980). Going to Church in the First Century: An Eyewitness Account. Jacksonville: SeedSowers.

Banks, R. (1994). Paul's Idea of Community (Revised Editiion ed.). Hendrickson Publishers.

Barton, S. C. (1993). Social-Scientific approaches to Paul. In G. F. Hawhorne, R. P. Martin, & D. G. Reid, Dictionary of Paul and his letters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Driscoll, M. (2009). Happy Birthday Mars Hill: Special 13th Anniversary Acts 17:16-34. Retrieved November 1st, 2009, from MarsHillChurch.org: http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/special/mars-hills-13th-anniversary

Klein, W. W., Blomberg, C. L., & Hubbard, R. L. (2004). Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Marshall, I. H., Millard, A. R., Packer, J. I., & Wiseman, D. J. (Eds.). (1996). The New Bible Dictionary (3rd Edition ed.). Leicester: IVP.

Meeks, W. A. (1983). The First Urban Christians. Binghamton, NY, USA: Vail-Ballou Press.

O'Brien, P. T. (1993). Chuch. In G. F. Hawhorne, R. P. Martin, & D. G. Reid, Dictionary of Paul and his letters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Spence, S. (2009). Lecture 6: The Cultural World of Jesus. Adelaide: Tabor Adelaide.

Stambaugh, J. E., & Balch, D. L. (1986). The New Testament in Its Social Environment. (W. A. Meeks, Ed.) Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Theissen, G. (1978). The First Followers of Jesus: A Sociological Analysis of the Earliest Christianity. London: SCM Press Ltd.

Tidball, D. J. (1993). Social Setting of Mission Churches. In G. F. Hawhorne, R. P. Martin, & D. G. Reid, Dictionry of Paul and his Letters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots

During the centuries either side of Jesus, Judaism formed several distinct factions. The most famous of these are Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots. Similar to modern day denominations, there are distinctions and areas of overlap (Wood et al., 1996, p. 914). Many Jews did not identify with any group (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 35). The distinctions between the groups are seen in four domains: human geography, political involvement, characteristic theology and sphere of influence.

While the Sadducees were found in Jerusalem maintaining the temple cult the Pharisees lived in villages and towns (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 34). The Essenes withdraw into isolated monastic communities (Shelley, 1995, p. 6), in many cities (Bealle, 2000, p. 2), the largest being in Qumran (Wood et al., 1996, p. 340). The Zealots formed late in the first century (Heard & Evans, 2000, p. 9) as a more turbulent group with various leaders, divisions and locations (Wood et al., 1996, p. 1263).

The Pharisees were committed to understanding Israel’s Law (Westerholm, 1992, p. 3) and had a general ambivalence towards Greco-Roman Society (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 34). The centre of the Sadducees’ world was the Temple in a Roman city which, combined with generations of prestige and privilege associated with the priesthood and control of the Sanhedrin, meant that life involved the urban elite and associated politics (Shelley, 1995, p. 5). The Essenes and Zealots took opposite approaches. The Essenes were separatists and avoided the political stage while the Zealots were ‘bent on armed resistance’ (Shelley, 1995, p. 5). The latter opposed the impurity of Roman interference (Heard & Evans, 2000, p. 9; Wood et al., 1996, p. 1263) and fought a class war of Jewish aristocracy (Heard & Evans, 2000, p. 9).

The Pharisees observed and taught strict observance to the Law (Shelley, 1995, p. 5). They taught immortality of the soul, resurrection of the righteous, and particular attention to ritual purity and tithing (Westerholm, 1992, pp. 1,3). They are criticized in the New Testament for holding ancestral traditions as binding (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 34; Westerholm, 1992, p. 1). The Sadducees differed in understanding of purity laws, human freedom over fate, and did not believe in the immorality of the soul (Wood et al., 1996, pp. 1044-1045; Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 33; Porton, 2000, p. 1). The Essenes believed in predestination (Wood et al., 1996, p. 915), apocalyptic eschatology (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 35), separation from Gentiles and Gentile influence (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 35), common property, clothing and food, and celibacy (Bealle, 2000, p. 2).

Despite lacking economic or professional influence (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 34) the Pharisees were popular and powerful (Wood et al., 1996, p. 915), much more so than the Sadducees (Porton, 2000, p. 1) . They were the core of the rabbinic movement, supplanting the Priests (Mason, 2000, p. 1) because they interpreted the Torah (Wood et al., 1996, p. 915). The Sadducees controlled the temple but only had a small support base of the wealthy (Porton, 2000, p. 1). The Zealots’ guerrilla tactics had influence most notable for preventing ‘the nobilities plan to negotiate a settlement with the Romans’ (Heard & Evans, 2000, p. 10).

[removed - comment on modern day pharisees]

Epilogue

[removed subjective Information]

You may or may not believe it, but below is a true story.

In 2003 I attended [removed identifying information]

One evening the Minister spoke on Luke 18 – The Pharisee and The Tax Collector.

‘The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.’ (Luke 18:11)

From memory he was well prepared and spoke well. However, what will always stand out was how he concluded.

‘We thank you God that we are not like this Pharisee.’

Bibliography

Achtemeier, P. J., Green, J. B., & Thompson, M. M. (2001). Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Basser, H. W. (2000). Priests and Priesthood, Jewish. In Dictionary of New Testament Background. Intervarsity Press.

Bealle, T. (2000). Essenes. In Dictionary of New Testament Background. Intervaristy Press.

Heard, W. J., & Evans, C. A. (2000). Revolutionary Movements, Jewish. In Dictionary of New Testament Background. Intervarsity Press.

Mason, S. (2000). Pharisees. In Dictionary of New Testament Background. Intervarsity Press.

Porton, G. G. (2000). Sadducees. In Dictionary of the New Testament Background. Intervarsity Press.

Shelley, B. L. (1995). Churst History in Plain Language. (U. 2nd, Ed.) Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Westerholm, S. (1992). Pharisees. In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Intervarsity Press.

Wood, D. R., Marshall, I. H., Millard, A. R., Packer, J. I., & Wiseman, D. J. (Eds.). (1996). New Bible Dictionary (3rd ed.). Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.

Non-Canonical Gospels and the reasons they were left out

The Infancy Gospel of James tells a story silent in scripture; the life of Mary and the choosing of Joseph. Compared with the canonical gospels there are areas of overlap (Zacharius made dumb, Herod’s massacre) and areas of marked difference (birth in a cave outside Bethlehem (Thompson, Forum, 30/07/09) and the age of Joseph (section 8-9).) Mary’s position is elevated; in quantity (cf: limited stories of Jesus’ childhood), in super-humanness (walking at six months), and theologically and culturally (access to the holy of holies). At points (such as the birth account in section 19) the text is near proto- docetism robbing Mary but more importantly Jesus of his Humanity. In contrast Josephus’s reaction makes him look more human (Tang, Forum, 30/07/09).

The question is raised: was the early church right to exclude this text from scripture? I believe so. The Infancy Gospel of James strikingly lacks the unapologetic christo-centredness of the canonical gospels. It fails point you to Jesus or encourage you to worship the Father (Keane, Forum, 01/08/09.) It thus lacks the ‘self-authenticating character’ (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001) for it to pass the The Rule of Faith. The book uses information from both Luke and Matthew (Kirby P. , 2001-2006) and its emphasis of virginity may reflect a second century rejection of the physical (Spence, Forum, 05/08/09). Authorship is questioned further by the mixed understanding of Jewish customs seen within the text.

The following question: is it beneficial to us today? Personally, yes. However, the reason being it has forced me to look closer at the canonical and historical-cultural issue of the time. Publically, no. Although interesting, it is theologically, historically and culturally confusing.

The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of 114 ‘sayings’ a different form to the theological biographies. The text is laced with biblical language and imagery (‘One who seeks will find’ 94) and biblical phrases and titles (‘The Father’s Kingdom’ 57). Coupled with a verses taken near directly from canonical gospels (20/111 sayings, 9 & Mt. 13, 14 & Mt 15) give this text an aura of authenticity. Closer inspection reveals several problems.

At least 7 sayings are modified scriptural verses (32 & Mt 5, 26 & Mt 6.) There are some sayings which have no biblical parallels but appear in-line with biblical thought (40, 47.) 15/111 are confusing and strange (37, 77, 114). Other passages seem to be contradictory to biblical thought or seem to undermine other teachings in NT or OT. Saying 98 ‘Jesus said, "The Father's kingdom is like a person who wanted to kill someone powerful.”’ (Thompson, Forum, 30/07/2009.) Saying 12 is unusual as it elevation of James to ‘James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being’ which might be fairer to say of Jesus. (Hyland, Forum, 31/07/09.)

The differences between this text and the canon are sufficient for its exclusion. It has value to insight into the Gnostics (Spence, Forum, 05/08/2009) but ‘It does not portray the true Jesus and His True message’ (Tan, Forum, 11/08/2009.) I would discourage young believers from it as it appears more authentic than it is.

The Didache takes a third form as a ‘handbook’ of ‘The Teachings’ of the apostles. It tastes of contemporary Christian books which aim to make scripture more relevant to their audience by linking scriptural instruction with the author’s understanding. Scripture is used in chapter 1 (eg. ‘you shall love God who made you; second, love your neighbour as yourself.’ Cf. Luke 22:37-38) as is extension into the author’s application (‘fast for those who persecute you’.) Chapter 2 has scriptural and extra-scriptural commandments side by side (‘you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty.’) Some seem opposed to Jesus’ teaching (‘let your alms sweat in your hands’ cf. ‘freely you have received, freely give’) (Terek, Forum, 30/07/2009.) The text is also liturgical in its description of practices. Baptism technique (chapter 7) talks of ‘living water’ (perhaps like Catholic ‘Holy Water’) and ‘pour out three times’ (a traditional Anglican practice) Chapter 8 describes the Lord ’s Prayer and 9-10 describe communion.

Awareness of this text would have been beneficial to the church. It summarizes Christian teaching and describes Christian practices. In many ways it serves as a forerunner to the modern Anglican Prayer Book. The danger of the text describing things to ‘do’ is the lost of focus on what Jesus has ‘done’ and the embrace of legalism. In fact there is no mention of Jesus at all (Keane, Forum, 31/07/2009) the importance of which is debated as the neither dose the book of James (Spence, Forum, 05/08/2009).

Bibliography

Achtemeier, P. J., Green, J. B., & Thompson, M. M. (2001). Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Kirby, P. (2001-2006). Infancy Gospel of James. Retrieved 08 29, 2009, from Early Christian Writings: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html

Kirby, P. (2001). The Protoevangelium of James . Retrieved August 29, 2009, from Early Christian Writings: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-roberts.html

NT Apocrypha: The Protoevangelium of James (Infancy Gospel of James). (2009). Retrieved August 29, 2009, from Tabor Online: http://www.taboronline.com.au/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=3158

The Didache. (2001). Retrieved August 29, 2009, from Early Christian Writings: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

The Gospel of Thomas. (1994). Retrieved 08 29, 2009, from THE GNOSTIC SOCIETY LIBRARY: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

The Protoevangelium of James. (2001). Retrieved August 29, 2009, from Early Christian Writings: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-roberts.html