house churches and the lord's supper
TRANSCRIPT
Leaven Leaven
Volume 3 Issue 3 The Lord's Supper Article 5
1-1-1995
House Churches and the Lord's Supper House Churches and the Lord's Supper
John McRay
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven
Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology
and Philosophy of Religion Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation McRay, John (1995) "House Churches and the Lord's Supper," Leaven: Vol. 3 : Iss. 3 , Article 5. Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol3/iss3/5
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Religion at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Leaven by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected].
The Lord's Supper 13
House Churchesand the Lord's Supper
The establishment and spread of the churchin the first three centuries, before Constantine, wasaccomplished without the construction of churchbuildings. When the word "church" is used in a firstcentury text, it does not refer to a structure on astreet corner with a sign out front, a street address,a telephone number, an insurance policyand a bankaccount. Christianity was tolerated but not officiallyrecognized for the first three hundred years of itsexistence (until the edict of Milan in 313) and couldnot own property.
On the other hand, Judaism was includedamong officially recognized religions and could ownproperty from the beginning of the Roman Empire.Jewish groups were classified for legal purposes ascollegia and protected along with other clubs, guildsand associations. When Julius Caesar ordered allsuch groups disbanded which did not have a longhistory, the synagogues were among those explicitlyexempted.' The emperor Claudius, in the time ofPaul (A.D.41), issued a letter reconfirming the rightsofJews to continue their time-honored religion with-out being bothered, although he denied them Romancitizenship on a community basis like that possessedby the Greeks." Evidence from Sardis, Ephesus andother cities in the diaspora clearly demonstrates the"generally favorable policy ofRome toward the Jew-ish diaspora communities from Caesar until wellafter Constantine."! Ancient inscriptions, literaryevidence and New Testament passages (e.g., Acts18:7) speak of synagogue buildings in the first cen-tury. Archaeological excavations in Israel have pro-
by John McRay
duced evidence of synagogues from the first centuryat Gamla, Capernaum and Magdala, as well as reno-vated structures used as synagogues in Herodiumand Masada.
The first converts to Christianity were Jews.When they accepted Jesus as the Messiah, theycontinued to attend their synagogues (as did Priscillaand Aquila in Ephesus, Acts 18:26,where they heardApollos,who had also accepted Christ). Paul went toDamascus in an attempt to ferret Jewish Christiansout of the synagogues and imprison them: Lukewrote that Paul "asked him (i.e., the High Priest) forletters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if hefound any belonging to "the Way,"men or women, hemight bring them bound to Jerusalem (Acts 9:2,RSV).
Their presence in synagogues is alluded to inJames 2:2 (the word translated "assembly" is theGreek word for synagogue). They had no churchbuildings to take the place of their synagogue build-ings, so they met in homes. People like Titius Justus,a Christian, whose house adjoined the synagoguewhere he had probably attended as a "godfearer"would have welcomed others besides Paul to hishome (Acts 18:7) and Crispus, the ruler of the syna-gogue, probably welcomed others to worship withhim and his household (Acts 18:8). Priscilla andAquila, mentioned above in the synagogues, also hadchurches meeting in their home, both in Ephesus (1Cor 16:19) and later in Rome (Rom 16:5), as didPhilemon in Colossae (Phil 2) and Nympha inLaodicea (Col 4:15). "The structure of the early
1
McRay: House Churches and the Lord's Supper
Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 1995
14 Leaven, vol. 3, #3
Christian groups was thus linked with what wascommonly regarded as the basic unit of the society,"the horne."
The individual home, which housed a smallsection ofthe composite church in a city, became the"basic cell of the Christian movement." The house-
The Lord's Supper wascelebrated by medium-sized groups (30 to 50)
meeting either in the pri-vate home ... or by
small groups (10 to 15) .hold conversions mentioned several times in the NewTestament (e.g., Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16;16:15, etc.) formed the nucleus of these "housechurches." At times the entire church might meet inthe home of a member like Gaius who had a facilitylarge enough to accommodate such meetings (Rom16:23). He hosted Paul "and the whole church." Paulrefers on occasion to the "wholechurch assembling inone place" and worshipping together (1 Cor 14:23).This would be a composite meeting of the housechurches.
The frequency of such composite meetings isnot attested in the New Testament. On the analogyof Jewish synagogue services, it might be assumedthat Christians met to observe the Lord's day everytime it occurred, though this is not explicitly stated.One such meeting occurred on the first day of theweek in Troas (Acts20:7) and is implied in Corinth (1Cor 16:1-2). The individual house groups undoubt-edly met every Sunday, or even more frequently (asmay be implied in Acts 2:42-46; 5:42). It was moredifficult for groups to find public facilities availableand large enough to accommodate large numbers."An occasional meeting outside in a field would not besatisfactory in the winter or as a permanent solutionto their needs.
The problem was compounded by the need tohave facilities that would allow preparation andserving of fellowship or communal meals. A housesetting of some kind provided the culinary appurte-nances necessary for these meals. Communal mealswere a familiar part of ancient Graeco-Roman soci-ety. They were held in pagan temples." Pagan clubsor volunteer associations" participated in them rou-tinely." Synagogues'? also participated in fellowship
meals.'! Major Jewish feasts were celebrated in thehomes, but special occasions like circumcision, be-trothals, weddings and even funerals" were held inthe synagogues." So whether Paul's converts camefrom Judaism or paganism, they were familiar withgroups gathering for communal meals in domesticresidences.
The Lord's Supper was celebrated by me-dium-sized groups (30 to 50) meeting either in theprivate home of some wealthy church member whocould afford to own a private home, or by smallgroups (10 to 15)ofpoor Christians who lived in thecramped quarters of high-rise apartments. Beforecommenting on the nature ofthese fellowship mealsand the Lord's Supper, it will be helpful to describewhat the household facility was actually like inNew Testament times lest it be erroneously as-sumed that a middle class ofsociety existed then, asnow, which owned large private dwellings.
In the Roman Empire at this time, 90 percentofthe free population and more than 90 percent oftheslaves lived in small crowded high-rise apartmentbuildings." In Rome only 3 percent ofthe populationlived in a domus (private house)." I never visitPompeii without being deeply impressed with thefact that less than 10 percent of the residential areawas occupiedby private houses." Ostia, the port cityof Rome, had only twenty-two private villas at thistime."
It is my impression from exploring virtuallyall the excavated domestic architecture in Pompeii,Herculaneum, Ephesus and many other cities in theRoman Empire, that a domus or villa (i.e., a largehouse) would be able to accommodate only about fiftypeople in its large atrium (open court in the center ofthe house) and its triclinium (dining room). Romanhouses were built with solid walls facing the streets,without windowsforsecurity reasons, and with roomsarranged in a circle opening to the interior upon theatrium. Here in the atrium Christians might gatherto worship since it was the only non-private area ofthe house. It was here that Romans and Greeks hadworshipped their gods before becoming Christians."The atrium, with its ancestral images, and theimages of the lares and genius in the lararium, wasas much a center of traditional family worship as itwas a place to receive business and political cli-ents."lS
As noted above, a few Christians in the NewTestament were wealthy and could have villas ofthiskind with a church meeting in that horne." However,for most Christians in urban settings, the lower classof that society, the only option available was the lessspacious facility ofa high-rise apartment which wouldaccommodate only ten to fifteen people.f" These
2
Leaven, Vol. 3 [1995], Iss. 3, Art. 5
https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol3/iss3/5
quarters were crowded and uninviting. The firstfloor was usually occupied with shops. The secondfloor was taken by those who could pay higher rentfor the single flight ofstairs. The upper floors ofthesehigh-rise slum buildings were rented by those whohad the least income. Some buildings had largerapartments on the lower floors for the upper classtenants and smaller ones of about thirty square feetin the upper levels for freedmen or slaves."
These buildings contained no central heat,no running water and no toilets. The public toiletsabundantly provided by the city were used by ten-ants. The only light was furnished by lamps whichemitted fumes. Thus, a group meeting in suchfacilities forworship in the evening after a day's work(Paul preached till midnight, Acts 20:7) found it anuncomfortable experience. Doubtless, it was in suchcircumstances that Eutychus fell out the upper storywindow at night during a Lord's Supper service whenthere were "many lights burning" (Acts 20:8-9) andthe air from these torches would have been stultify-ing. Even though he sat in the window ofthis "upperchamber" he still fell into a deep sleep. Because oftheheat and poor air the windows could not be closed tokeep out the noise ofthe carts on cobblestone streets,since merchants were required by law to transporttheir goods down the narrow streets at night.
Given the housing situation in the empire, itis clear that the term "house church" may not be usedto convey the notion of a situation comparable tomiddle class private homes today. Such did not exist.Only a few wealthy members had private homes inwhich the church met. Almost all the churches inurban settings met in small groups in small privateapartments of tenement buildings. On special occa-sions they would meet together as described in 1Corinthians 14:23:"when the wholechurch assembles(in one place, KJV). "22 In these larger assemblies, nodoubt in rented rooms of various kinds, the publicrules of social conduct would perhaps replace thegreater freedom and responsibility of the women inthe private smaller meetings which occurred in theirown apartments or homes. One ofthe obvious pointsof difference in the two kinds of meetings is that inthe small group meetings at home the women had aprominent if not exclusive role in serving the meal.
Three kinds ofmeals are discernable in thesesituations: 1) The regular meal taken for merephysical sustenance; 2) The agape (love feast, Jude12) meal eaten together to promote spiritual unity;and 3) The Lord's Supper." The Lord's Supper waseaten as a part of the agape meal. This providesimportant contextual background for the only dis-cussion of the church observing the supper in theNew Testament, that which occurs in 1 Corinthians
The Lord's Supper 15
10 and 11.In the tenement buildings, residents were
sometimes fed from a common kitchen," while otherscooked from a charcoal brazier in their small apart-ments. In these contexts the women would haveprepared and served the meals. When the smallgroups met together in larger assemblies the womenprobably continued to serve the meals, including theLord's Supper, which was eaten during the fellow-ship meal. It is a failure to properly distinguish theone from the other, that led Paul to say
When you meet together, it is not theLord's supper that you eat. For in eating,each one goes ahead with his own meal,and one is hungry and another is drunk.What! Do you not have houses to eat anddrink in? Or do you despise the church ofGod and humiliate those who have noth-ing? What shall I say to you? Shall Icommend you in this? No, I will not."
The word "Lord's" and the words "his own"are placed in the emphatic position in Greek. Theproblem was not that in a worship assembly in a largemodern type church edifice the worshippers were not"discerning" the Lord's body by failing to concentrateon the meaning ofthe observance. The word discern(diakrinon) in 11:29 means "distinguish." They "ateand drank condemnation upon themselves" by fail-ing to distinguish the Lord's Supper from their ownsupper which they were eating on the same occasion.The Lord's Supper was being eaten in the context ofanother meal. This is the contextual inference. Theemerging picture is that abuses were occurring whenthe larger group assembled in the home of a wealthymember (a private home) or a rented facility (tene-ment dwelling).
First it is possible that in the private home ofa wealthy member, the elite ofthat society, includingthe wealthy and the influential, were eating in thetriclinium (dining room) while reclining on benchesand enjoying the best food. The members ofthe lowerclass, including slaves and freedmen were meetingout in the atrium and receiving lesser quantity and!or quality offood. Sowhen the poor, who arrived latefor the communal meal, entered the atrium they hadno food. The others had already consumed the food,even to the extent of becoming drunk while the latecomers were hungry (11:21).
Paul thus instructs that "when you cometogether to eat, wait for one another-if anyone ishungry, let him eat at home-lest you come togetherto be condemned" (11:33-34). The purpose of thecommunal agape was not to satisfy hunger but to
3
McRay: House Churches and the Lord's Supper
Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 1995
16 Leaven, vol. 3, #3
share a sense of unity by sitting around a table andeating a meal together. Jesus said his discipleswould "eat and drink at my table in my kingdom"(Luke 22:30). Table fellowship was a sign ofmutualacceptance and honor: "Andmen will comefrom eastand west, and from north and south, and sit at tablein the kingdom of God" (Luke 13:29). Therefore,those who are hungry should go to their own resi-dences and eat, and stop making this communalagape a pagan religious meal characterized by glut-tony and drunkenness. By acting this way they eatand drink judgment on themselves and dishonor thebody and blood of the Lord (11:27-29). They mustexamine themselves and their behavior and properlydistinguish the Lord's Supper.
The second possible context for 1Corinthiansis that the situation described occurred in a tenementsetting. In this case, the Christian host and patronwhoprovided the meal for the believers in the wealthyprivate home, would not be present. Some of themerchant tenement dwellers who lived on the lowerlevels of the insula or apartment house, would havemoney to provide some ofthe food,but the poorwouldhave nothing to contribute. The poor residents ofthese buildings would pool their meager funds forpotluck communal meals to eat together in a rentedfacility. Sometimes they may have eaten and drunkmore than they should, more than they couldhave athome. As a result, the poor who often came late andhad no food to bring were excluded from the meal.Paul was instructing them that in the Lord's bodythose who have share with those who have not.
It has been suggested that in some citiesChristians in tenement buildings might have eatentheir main meal ofthe day together regularly in orderto provide food for hungry brothers and sisters." Ifsome refused to work and share the fruit of theirlabor with those whocould not work, then they wouldbe refused a place at the communal meals. Paulreminded the Thessalonians that he and his col-leagues did not eat anyone's bread without paying (2Thess 3:8) and that "followinghis example ... if anywill not work, neither let him eat" (3:9-10). Thissanction could not be enforced if the members wereonly eating their food as a family in the privacy oftheir own homes. A communal situation is implied,and again, we emphasize that it is quite unlike thecontext of anything with which the churches arefamiliar today.
The Lord's Supper was celebrated in thecontext ofsuch communal meals by a large portion of
Christianity through the fourth century," when theconstruction of large basilican church buildings be-gan, with an emphasis on sacrament and liturgy, anda corresponding diminution in the practice of com-munal dining." Today, the sacramental approach tothe Lord's Supper, even by non-sacramental institu-tions like the Churches of Christ, has replaced anyreal connotation of the supper as a meal with all thefellowship implications it once carried. It is nowoften taken as a virtual sacrament by a few peoplewho, having missed the morning worship, stand andhave it administered to them at the conclusion of theevening worship. The first century connotation ofacceptance, fellowship, participation and unity con-veyed by sitting together at a table is totally lost insuch a setting. Even in the setting of a morningworship where most eat the supper together, theassociation of the observance with a meal is almostentirely lost. Such has been the result of the evolu-tion of the place ofmeeting from a household milieuto that of a lecture hall.
Christians no longer segregate minoritiesfrom the church buildings. But there is no ethicalmerit or cause for spiritual pride over the pseudo-equality this has often created. It was forced by adecision of the United States Supreme Court. Thereal test of acceptance comes not in sitting in abuilding together because the law requires it, but insitting together on equal terms around the dinnertable after church is over. This is precisely thecontext in which the Lord's Supper was observed inthe first century and the one which gave it themeaning our Lord intended when he instituted it."Because there is onebread, wewhoare many are onebody, because we partake of the one bread" (1 Cor10:17).
Otherwise he would have crafted the breadand wine in bronze and placed them on a pedestal forthe church to view like Israel viewed the bronzeserpent in the wilderness. On the contrary, theLord's Supper is a fellowship, a koinonia, whichmeans a "participation in" the process of eating anddrinking (I Cor 10:16). As the context of the housechurch in ancient times emphatically illustrates, thesupper is a memorial of participation not ofobserva-tion. The context of the house church in ancienttimes emphatically illustrated this.
John McRay is Professor ofNewTestamen t andArchaeology and Coordinator of Graduate BiblicalStudies at Wheaton College Graduate School.
4
Leaven, Vol. 3 [1995], Iss. 3, Art. 5
https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol3/iss3/5