Does Modern Church Differ from 1st Century Church?

[Charnock]

Other than modern technology how does modern church differ from the church of the 1st century?

[Esaias]

Other than modern technology how does modern church differ from the church of the 1st century?

Define "modern church". Do you mean oneness Pentecostalism? Christianity in general? RCC? Institutional churches? Global pentecostal-charismatic movement?

???

[Scott Pitta]

None of them spoke English. Few of them had Bibles. Few met in building designed as churches.

The Greek churches were culturally different than the Hebrew churches.

There was only one church in town.

[CC1]

I have a feeling they didn't have two Services on Sundays!

[mizpeh]

Persecution was intense.
signs, wonders, and miracle were prevelant
There were heresies, divisions, and strife.
The shared their resources
Love was emphasized
They turned the world upside down, not sure if we are doing that


some things were different but others are the same.

[derAlte]

The first century church lived in a much slower time. I can only imagine the spazzing out that would occur among modern folks if they were thrown back to the Roman world.

[Praxeas]

Churches met in homes
No Sunday School
I doubt it was set up like an auditorium, more informal
They prayed more, sang less

[Praxeas]

None of them spoke English. Few of them had Bibles. Few met in building designed as churches.

The Greek churches were culturally different than the Hebrew churches.

There was only one church in town.

One church? But many congregations

[Esaias]

Churches met in homes
No Sunday School
I doubt it was set up like an auditorium, more informal
They prayed more, sang less

While ancient churches were "house churches", we should not imagine that means they were a small group gathered in a living room sitting on couches around the coffee table.

Ancient houses that were large enough to have lots of "company" over were very different than modern American or western European houses. They were essentially a large room, often set up like a court yard in many cases. Otherwise, the main room was a large, usually rectangular area. At one end was the entrance out on to the street, at the back end would be a raised area for dining. This area would have a raised dais of sorts, with a lower area surrounding it on three sides (open to the main room). No table and chairs, rather people would recline around the dais (laying down). There was a very specific arrangement as to who laid where in reference to the host (owner of the house, or else an important personage).

Most guests would sit on the floor in the main room, or stand, etc. In the event of a meal, the table (dais) would be loaded with the food, the higher social ranks would recline at table, while everyone else would eat where they were.

For a religious gathering, it would be similar to a Symposium. People would gather in the main room, and whoever was speaking would stand and speak. For prayer, early Christians stood, and prostrated (sitting for prayer would usually not happen).

Society was far more stratified in the ancient world, with rigorously upheld social customs regulating interactions and conversation, etc. At least compared to today's world.

Singing would have been mostly from the book of psalms, usually in an antiphonal (call and response) manner. Occasionally someone might present a hymn of original composition. If it was good the assembly would eventually pick it up and sing it together, adding it to their repertoire.

An elder would have presided over the meetings. His job would be to provide teaching as well as to answer questions. Other elders might also be present. Those known to be gifted with the ability to teach, or to exhort (preach), would do so. Women and children would be expected to be quiet except for singing and praying.

The meeting would usually conclude with a meal, including the breaking and distribution of a loaf of bread, as well as the passing of a cup of wine that had been blessed by prayer (aka communion).

Each assembly would also usually have a treasury of some sort, where members would contribute money. This treasury would then be distributed to the poorer members to help meet their needs (especially widows and orphans). The distribution of alms, food, etc was usually handled by the "deacons".

After the meeting, and throughout the week, the elders and deacons would visit the members, inquire about their needs and their condition, teaching and ministering to the Christian community house to house, family to family, etc.

I suspect it would be considered a lot more structured and regimented than most Americans think. It would also probably be more structured than most Americans would tolerate. The idea of "sitting on a pew once a week" and being generally invisible to oversight would have been considered something like apostasy back then.

[Michael The Disciple]

The early Church had no Bibles. They taught from either OT scrolls or manuscripts they may have had. In rare cases they may have had a full collection of the OT.

The New Testament they had would consist of letters or tracts written by the apostles or others on the inside. Perhaps 3 of the gospels were written early on.

There was no printing press so whatever they were using had to be hand copied. Churches may have had a gospel or two. Then maybe Paul wrote them a letter.

An apostle or evangelist or someone familiar with the doctrine of Christ may have visited the assembly and verified whether the info the Church had was accurate.

It would be many years before Churches would have what we consider a full Bible. And even then many if not most saints probably could not read. Thats one reason the saints were so dependent of the leadership. All they could believe in was what they were taught to believe in.

[TyronePalmer]

While ancient churches were "house churches", we should not imagine that means they were a small group gathered in a living room sitting on couches around the coffee table.

Ancient houses that were large enough to have lots of "company" over were very different than modern American or western European houses. They were essentially a large room, often set up like a court yard in many cases. Otherwise, the main room was a large, usually rectangular area. At one end was the entrance out on to the street, at the back end would be a raised area for dining. This area would have a raised dais of sorts, with a lower area surrounding it on three sides (open to the main room). No table and chairs, rather people would recline around the dais (laying down). There was a very specific arrangement as to who laid where in reference to the host (owner of the house, or else an important personage).

Most guests would sit on the floor in the main room, or stand, etc. In the event of a meal, the table (dais) would be loaded with the food, the higher social ranks would recline at table, while everyone else would eat where they were.

For a religious gathering, it would be similar to a Symposium. People would gather in the main room, and whoever was speaking would stand and speak. For prayer, early Christians stood, and prostrated (sitting for prayer would usually not happen).

Society was far more stratified in the ancient world, with rigorously upheld social customs regulating interactions and conversation, etc. At least compared to today's world.

Singing would have been mostly from the book of psalms, usually in an antiphonal (call and response) manner. Occasionally someone might present a hymn of original composition. If it was good the assembly would eventually pick it up and sing it together, adding it to their repertoire.

An elder would have presided over the meetings. His job would be to provide teaching as well as to answer questions. Other elders might also be present. Those known to be gifted with the ability to teach, or to exhort (preach), would do so. Women and children would be expected to be quiet except for singing and praying.

The meeting would usually conclude with a meal, including the breaking and distribution of a loaf of bread, as well as the passing of a cup of wine that had been blessed by prayer (aka communion).

Each assembly would also usually have a treasury of some sort, where members would contribute money. This treasury would then be distributed to the poorer members to help meet their needs (especially widows and orphans). The distribution of alms, food, etc was usually handled by the "deacons".

After the meeting, and throughout the week, the elders and deacons would visit the members, inquire about their needs and their condition, teaching and ministering to the Christian community house to house, family to family, etc.

I suspect it would be considered a lot more structured and regimented than most Americans think. It would also probably be more structured than most Americans would tolerate. The idea of "sitting on a pew once a week" and being generally invisible to oversight would have been considered something like apostasy back then.

We need to get back to the first century then! And I think we're much closer to it than people believe!

[coksiw]

While ancient churches were "house churches", we should not imagine that means they were a small group gathered in a living room sitting on couches around the coffee table.

Ancient houses that were large enough to have lots of "company" over were very different than modern American or western European houses. They were essentially a large room, often set up like a court yard in many cases. Otherwise, the main room was a large, usually rectangular area. At one end was the entrance out on to the street, at the back end would be a raised area for dining. This area would have a raised dais of sorts, with a lower area surrounding it on three sides (open to the main room). No table and chairs, rather people would recline around the dais (laying down). There was a very specific arrangement as to who laid where in reference to the host (owner of the house, or else an important personage).

Most guests would sit on the floor in the main room, or stand, etc. In the event of a meal, the table (dais) would be loaded with the food, the higher social ranks would recline at table, while everyone else would eat where they were.

For a religious gathering, it would be similar to a Symposium. People would gather in the main room, and whoever was speaking would stand and speak. For prayer, early Christians stood, and prostrated (sitting for prayer would usually not happen).

Society was far more stratified in the ancient world, with rigorously upheld social customs regulating interactions and conversation, etc. At least compared to today's world.

Singing would have been mostly from the book of psalms, usually in an antiphonal (call and response) manner. Occasionally someone might present a hymn of original composition. If it was good the assembly would eventually pick it up and sing it together, adding it to their repertoire.

An elder would have presided over the meetings. His job would be to provide teaching as well as to answer questions. Other elders might also be present. Those known to be gifted with the ability to teach, or to exhort (preach), would do so. Women and children would be expected to be quiet except for singing and praying.

The meeting would usually conclude with a meal, including the breaking and distribution of a loaf of bread, as well as the passing of a cup of wine that had been blessed by prayer (aka communion).

Each assembly would also usually have a treasury of some sort, where members would contribute money. This treasury would then be distributed to the poorer members to help meet their needs (especially widows and orphans). The distribution of alms, food, etc was usually handled by the "deacons".

After the meeting, and throughout the week, the elders and deacons would visit the members, inquire about their needs and their condition, teaching and ministering to the Christian community house to house, family to family, etc.

I suspect it would be considered a lot more structured and regimented than most Americans think. It would also probably be more structured than most Americans would tolerate. The idea of "sitting on a pew once a week" and being generally invisible to oversight would have been considered something like apostasy back then.

Brother, where did you get this information?

[Esaias]

Brother, where did you get this information?

While ancient churches were "house churches", we should not imagine that means they were a small group gathered in a living room sitting on couches around the coffee table.

Ancient houses that were large enough to have lots of "company" over were very different than modern American or western European houses. They were essentially a large room, often set up like a court yard in many cases. Otherwise, the main room was a large, usually rectangular area. At one end was the entrance out on to the street, at the back end would be a raised area for dining. This area would have a raised dais of sorts, with a lower area surrounding it on three sides (open to the main room). No table and chairs, rather people would recline around the dais (laying down). There was a very specific arrangement as to who laid where in reference to the host (owner of the house, or else an important personage).

Most guests would sit on the floor in the main room, or stand, etc. In the event of a meal, the table (dais) would be loaded with the food, the higher social ranks would recline at table, while everyone else would eat where they were. This is based on years of study of ancient near eastern and Greco-Rroman residential architecture and gatherings, like the symposia mentioned below. A good starting point is the excavation of the oldest known house-church at Dura-Europos, Syria.

For a religious gathering, it would be similar to a Symposium. People would gather in the main room, and whoever was speaking would stand and speak. For prayer, early Christians stood, and prostrated (sitting for prayer would usually not happen). The Bible demonstrates the postures of prayer are primarily standing, kneeling, and bowing (prostration). Sitting was usually reserved for teaching, listening to a bard, poet, minstrel, or other speaker/teacher. The custom prevailed in both Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (which was derived from Jewish and Christian sources) up to around the Reformation/Renaissance period when pews were invented by Protestants.

Society was far more stratified in the ancient world, with rigorously upheld social customs regulating interactions and conversation, etc. At least compared to today's world.This is based on my lifelong love of ancient and classical history. Stratification is a normal feature of human society and was universal up until the 20th century when everything went to crud due to communist suubversion of western civilisation.

Singing would have been mostly from the book of psalms, usually in an antiphonal (call and response) manner. Occasionally someone might present a hymn of original composition. If it was good the assembly would eventually pick it up and sing it together, adding it to their repertoire.

An elder would have presided over the meetings. His job would be to provide teaching as well as to answer questions. Other elders might also be present. Those known to be gifted with the ability to teach, or to exhort (preach), would do so. Women and children would be expected to be quiet except for singing and praying.

The meeting would usually conclude with a meal, including the breaking and distribution of a loaf of bread, as well as the passing of a cup of wine that had been blessed by prayer (aka communion).

Each assembly would also usually have a treasury of some sort, where members would contribute money. This treasury would then be distributed to the poorer members to help meet their needs (especially widows and orphans). The distribution of alms, food, etc was usually handled by the "deacons".

After the meeting, and throughout the week, the elders and deacons would visit the members, inquire about their needs and their condition, teaching and ministering to the Christian community house to house, family to family, etc. All this is from the Biblical data, primarily. Some data on early Christian practice gleaned from AnteNicene writings (both Christian and heathen) confirms the Biblical information.

I suspect it would be considered a lot more structured and regimented than most Americans think. It would also probably be more structured than most Americans would tolerate. The idea of "sitting on a pew once a week" and being generally invisible to oversight would have been considered something like apostasy back then. This is based on my observations of Americans in general.

:thumbsup

[Esaias]

I have also researched the early development and evolution of Jewish and Christian religious meetings, and the similarities and differences between the two, cross-religious influences, comparisons with Greek symposia, the history of the symposium from Homeric times to the late classical period (beginning of the Christian medieval period), etc.

It's like an obsession of mine that began with researching how to use psalms in worship, years and years ago.

[Esaias]

Brother, where did you get this information?

Look in my signature, you'll see a link to a pdf I wrote called "Biblical Worship". It provides a scriptural overview of early apostolic Christian worship.

:thumbsup

[Evang.Benincasa]

This is good stuff :highfive

[Esaias]

This is good stuff :highfive

:thumbsup

[Esaias]

Much of the basis for a Christian meeting's structure originated out of the Passover service. Not the medieval Jewish Passover seder like many think, but the original Mosaic service.

A sacrifice, a meal, a teaching. See Ex 12:24-27.

By the first century, the Passover service was elaborated upon, with a complete retelling of the Exodus events. During this period, the order was reversed, the teaching became introductory to the meal instead of following it I suspect this was largely pragmatic: who wants to do a lot of Bible teaching AFTER eating a big meal? This basic pattern was continued by early Christians and still exists today: worship/prayer, teaching, Lord's Supper/fellowship meal.

Passover wasn't the only framework from which both Jewish and Christian meetings were built, but it lies at the heart of them.

[Esaias]

Much of the basis for a Christian meeting's structure originated out of the Passover service. Not the medieval Jewish Passover seder like many think, but the original Mosaic service.

A sacrifice, a meal, a teaching. See Ex 12:24-27.

By the first century, the Passover service was elaborated upon, with a complete retelling of the Exodus events. During this period, the order was reversed, the teaching became introductory to the meal instead of following it I suspect this was largely pragmatic: who wants to do a lot of Bible teaching AFTER eating a big meal? This basic pattern was continued by early Christians and still exists today: worship/prayer, teaching, Lord's Supper/fellowship meal.

Passover wasn't the only framework from which both Jewish and Christian meetings were built, but it lies at the heart of them.

A good question is: Do 1 Cor 11-14, and the Last Supper narratives in the Gospels, follow a liturgical pattern (order of service)? If so, does that pattern deviate from, or conform to, the order of the Passover service in 1st century Judean practice? And, why? And, is any such order as found in the NT meant to inform us to how to structure or order contemporary Christian meetings?

[Esaias]

A good question is: Do 1 Cor 11-14, and the Last Supper narratives in the Gospels, follow a liturgical pattern (order of service)? If so, does that pattern deviate from, or conform to, the order of the Passover service in 1st century Judean practice? And, why? And, is any such order as found in the NT meant to inform us to how to structure or order contemporary Christian meetings?

1 Corinthians 1-9 deal primarily with general Christian principles. Chapters 5 and 6 deal with "church discipline", followed by ch 10 which returns to general ethics, but introduces the Lord's Supper to make an ethical point about general Christian behaviour. While chapters 5 and 6 can be placed in a corporate setting, it is likely such church meetings for discipline would be considered extraordinary, only occurring as the need arises.

It is in ch 11 that we meet with a distinctly liturgical setting, that is, a church "service". Ch 11 begins with a discussion of certain proprieties in prayer/prophesying (although prayer is emphasised of the two). It then segues into the Lord's Supper. Chs 12-14 then address the participatory meeting with charismata, teaching, singing, etc. Ch 15 serves as a declaration or restatement of the Gospel followed by a rather comprehensive teaching on the doctrine of resurrection. Ch 16 then addresses the collection for the poor saints, and then certain administrative "announcements" and a salutation/farewell.

So then from chapter 11 to chapter 16a we find the apostle addressing the usual meeting of the church. A pattern is clearly discernible: Prayer, Lord's Supper, the open meeting (ncludes spiritual gifts, prophesying, teaching, singing, etc), a profession of faith and teaching from the elder (the apostle), a collection for the poor. If the rest of ch 16 is included as part of the pattern then it concludes with administrative announcements and a dismissal and prayer/benediction. A summarised format then would be as follows: Prayer, Communion, Open Meeting, Elder-directed teaching, Collection, Announcements, Dismissal.

The question of course would be is Paul following a particular order in his epistle that corresponds to the general order of a first century apostolic meeting? That is, can the order in which he presents teaching material as it pertains to corporate gatherings indicate anything as to the actual order of early Christian corporate gatherings?

[Esaias]

The question of course would be is Paul following a particular order in his epistle that corresponds to the general order of a first century apostolic meeting? That is, can the order in which he presents teaching material as it pertains to corporate gatherings indicate anything as to the actual order of early Christian corporate gatherings?

By itself, the information learned from 1 Corinthians is inconclusive. But what about the Last Supper narratives?

A basic harmony of the Synoptic Gospel accounts with John's account shows the following pattern:

Foot washing followed by the supper with bread and wine.
Hymn singing
Teaching

(It should be pointed out that there was some teaching during the supper, particularly as it pertained to the significance of the supper itself.)


If the foot washing be taken to represent corporate service and Body ministry one-to-another, then the pattern here is:

Ministering
Lord's Supper
Prayer/singing
Teaching

The footwashing however may be more emblematic of each member preparing themselves with a right attitude towards the other brethren - a key theme in Paul's admonition on the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11 - in preparation for the common meal or communion. In that case, the "singing of the hymn" (the Hallel, a collection of psalms traditionally sung at Passover) may correspond to the mutual edification of the 1 Cor 12-14 open meeting. They would sing together, to each other, in prayer and praise to God.

There is sparse information here, and it may be the Last Supper accounts only provide a template for early Christian Communion practice within the larger context of a full meeting. We would need to see if the Gospels contain any other "liturgically informative" data.

[coksiw]

Thank you brother for all of the posts and expanding on the issue. I was actually looking around for a reputable book on the topic you have read, but I see you have done a research from different sources.

[Esaias]

Thank you brother for all of the posts and expanding on the issue. I was actually looking around for a reputable book on the topic you have read, but I see you have done a research from different sources.

I don't know of any one book that puts it all together, sorry.

[coksiw]

The early Church had no Bibles. They taught from either OT scrolls or manuscripts they may have had. In rare cases they may have had a full collection of the OT.

The New Testament they had would consist of letters or tracts written by the apostles or others on the inside. Perhaps 3 of the gospels were written early on.

There was no printing press so whatever they were using had to be hand copied. Churches may have had a gospel or two. Then maybe Paul wrote them a letter.

An apostle or evangelist or someone familiar with the doctrine of Christ may have visited the assembly and verified whether the info the Church had was accurate.

It would be many years before Churches would have what we consider a full Bible. And even then many if not most saints probably could not read. Thats one reason the saints were so dependent of the leadership. All they could believe in was what they were taught to believe in.


Even though it is true that they didn't have Bibles, they had a great oral transmission and memorization abilities.

The books they had back then was mainly to read aloud so people could memorize it. Writings were not affordable for everybody and they would deteriorate. The synagogues were a great place to listen to the scriptures being read aloud. The Gospels began to be transmitted right away by the normal oral tradition before it was written. I think modern society underestimate the oral transmission and memorization abilities of ancient societies. Think about this, the fact that the apostles were able to write directly or through their associates, the Gospels, even with the help of the Spirit, tells you that they had those stories well memorized.

Scriptures relevant to my statement:

[Luk 4:16-17 NKJV] 16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

[Act 13:27 NKJV] 27 "For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled [them] in condemning [Him].

[Act 15:21 NKJV] 21 "For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

[1Ti 4:13 NIV] 13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.

Paul's letter were available almost right away. They were by the time Peter wrote his second letter:

[2Pe 3:15 NKJV] 15 and consider [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,

We are blessed nowadays to own writings and even study them in the comfort of our home. Instead of searching our memory, you can search in the written book (or app). I still try to memory as much as I can, though.

[returnman]

How did they manage without a Los.....something/somewhere after service?

[Evang.Benincasa]

How did they manage without a Los.....something/somewhere after service?

Huh?

[diakonos]

Huh?

also puzzled

[Ehud]

How did they manage without a Los.....something/somewhere after service?

Huh?

also puzzled

I'm guessing it's a reference to eating after church services: Los ________ Mexican Restaurant.

[diakonos]

rasisI'm guessing it's a reference to eating after church services: Los ________ Mexican Restaurant.

[votivesoul]

Other than modern technology how does modern church differ from the church of the 1st century?

The doctrinal issues and potential schisms were much different. The main issues for the 1st century church seem to have been circumcision/Gentile conversion, followed by gnostic heresies.

These do not at all seem to be the major issues of today's church.

[CC1]

Other than modern technology how does modern church differ from the church of the 1st century?

The men's ties were narrower in the 1st century church.

[Esaias]

The men's ties were narrower in the 1st century church.

Nope. They didn't wear ties. That was the later catholics.

[coksiw]

So you guys were serious about the ties.
I can’t even picture that in my head. Catholics wearing ties in the 500ish? How did it use to look like?

[Esaias]

So you guys were serious about the ties.
I can’t even picture that in my head. Catholics wearing ties in the 500ish? How did it use to look like?

[you] thinks CC1 is serious... :slaphappy

[coksiw]

[you] thinks CC1 is serious... :slaphappy

:heeheehee