The Church in 60 A.D.

What was the Church like in 60 A.D.?  We do not know as much as our curiosity might demand, but we do know some things.  In many ways the Church back then was very different and in other ways it was same.  I would like to look particularly at some of the differences for these can serve to emphasize the ways in which the Church has remained what it always was and always will be.

       The first thing we would notice about the Church is how numerically tiny it was--the church in Philippi, for example, probably consisted of only a few dozen people.  Even after it had greatly increased in numbers by the time of the Emperor Constantine in the early fourth century the Church (by some estimates) was only about 10% of the total population of the Roman Empire.  In 60 A.D. the Church was miniscule in size.  The Jews, of course, formed a numerically impressive group within the Empire and had spread throughout its lands.  In the sixth decade of the first century most people considered the Church to be but a sub-group of Judaism—a controversial and contentious sub-group, but a sub-group nonetheless. 

It referred to itself as “the Way” while other Jews referred to them as “the Nazarenes”.  The controversy and contention between Christians and Jews would soon spark a mutually-bitter separation of the two groups based on their disagreement about Jesus:  was He the Messiah and divine Saviour or was He a heretic and false-prophet?  Between those two options there could be no compromise.  But in 60 A.D. the bitter separation between Church and Synagogue, though brewing, had not yet fully taken place.  The apostles still entered synagogues on the Sabbath to press their claims and try to win hearts and converts among their fellow Jews.

We also note how the Christians stood out from the mass of their pagan neighbours.  They seemed not fit into the established category of “Jew”, but they certainly didn’t fit into pagan society either.  Like the Jews they regarded the pagan gods as demons and rejected all truck with them, refusing even to eat meat from the marketplace if it had been sacrificed to a god. Christians were regarded as atheists because they didn’t worship any god or statue and as haters of mankind because they refused to mix in socially with their neighbours.

Moreover, there were beginning to be strange and dark rumours, rumours that the Christians practised cannibalism, eating babies, and that they held sexual orgies with their siblings in their very private meetings.  Talk about “eating the body and the blood of Jesus the παῖς/ pais of God” (i.e. “the child or servant of God”; see Acts 4:30 KJV) and of exchanging “the kiss” between “the brothers and the sisters” were often misunderstood by suspicious minds.  This haze of suspicion would morph into open hatred, especially when a scapegoat was required (such as after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 A.D.).

       The Christians met in private homes for their meetings on Sunday evenings for a shared pot-luck supper (Greek deipnon, a full meal).  At that meeting were the leaders of the group: one man (later called “the bishop”) surrounded by a few other men (the presbyters) and perhaps still other men who functioned as teachers.  Other men assisted them, fulfilling the task of the church’s servants (Greek διάκονοι/ diakonoi, or “deacons”).  Yet others were known for receiving prophetic messages and were identifiable as Christian prophets.  None of these were distinguished by their type of dress; they all wore the same clothing as everyone else, though the presbyters and deacons were regarded as set apart for their special roles by prayer made over them when they first took on those roles.

At the long evening meal prayer would be offered and the Jewish Scriptures read.  There would be singing of psalms and perhaps a prophecy.  Stories of Jesus would be told and retold as local leaders remembered what the apostles had shared with them when they told them stories of what the Master had said and done. 

At the center (and possibly as the conclusion) of the meal the main leader offered prayer over bread and wine which the faithful then received as the Body and Blood of Christ, receiving a piece of the consecrated bread in their palm and drinking the consecrated wine from the cup.  The Christians regarded this as the very sacrifice of Christ in their midst, powerful to bestow forgiveness and immortality as it united them to Christ.  Only those who had been baptized were allowed to partake of this.  It was this partaking that identified one as a Christian, both to the Church and to the hostile pagan State.

Specifically Christian Scriptures did not exist.  The term “the Scriptures” meant the Jewish Scriptures (though the exact number of them or a comprehensive list of them did not yet exist either; for example, controversy swirled around such works as “the Book of Esther” and the “Song of Solomon”).  The apostles and founding fathers of the churches told stories of Jesus, citing His words and His deeds, including some sayings of His which did not find a place in the future four Gospels (see Acts 20:35).

This meant that the “glue” connecting the local congregations to the historical Jesus was the witness of the apostles.  “Apostolic” thus became a Christian synonym for “authentic” and “authoritative”. When the Gospels later came to be written and circulated what made those works authoritative and acceptable for liturgical reading at congregational worship was whether or not they were truly apostolic in authorship and provenance.  So, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were “in” while later works like the so-called “Gospel of Thomas” were “out”. 

The letters of the apostles were also regarded as similarly authoritative.  Note:  the issue here was never one of “inspiration” (i.e. “Is this work inspired by the Holy Spirit?”) but of apostolicity.  The apostles were the bearers of full authority, the plenipotentiaries of Christ, the One who was only true authority.  Whatever the apostles wrote or transmitted to the congregations, either by word of mouth while with them or by letter sent later (see 2 Thessalonians 2:15) was considered to be authoritative.

The Christians regarded themselves as the true people of God, the faithful remnant of Israel, the only authentic bearers of Israel’s glorious destiny.  Jews who rejected Jesus were regarded as apostate and not heirs of Israel’s true identity and destiny at all.  Given the tiny numbers of the Christians compared to the Jews, this was a bold claim indeed!

Christians also believed that they possessed eternal life and upon death would go to be with the Lord in glory.  They therefore showed no fear of death and would willingly give up their lives in the arena of martyrdom if circumstances required.   Those who did so—the martyrs—were regarded as Christians par excellence, as examples to all believers and as witnesses to the eternal life with God that all Christians possessed.

We see then that the Church was far-flung and had practically no social mechanisms for concerted action.  The church in each city was very independent though they maintained a fierce sense of unity with Christians in other cities, regarding all Christian congregations throughout the world as one family.  The dividing line between the Church and the World was firmly drawn and vigorously maintained.

That was then; this is now.  Obviously much has changed.  For example, the bishop is now no longer the pastor of the local congregation whom the faithful see every Sunday serving with his fellow-presbyters but is most often an important administrator who visits from time to time.  Christians now meet on Sunday morning, not Sunday evening and the meal (or “agape”, love-feast) no longer forms the context for the partaking of the consecrated bread and wine.  (The separation seems to have made at the end of the first century; by the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch in the early second century, the separation was so complete that the ceremonies had their own different names—viz. “the Eucharist” and “the Agape”).

Christians now meet in specially-built buildings; the clergy now don special vestments when officiating at the services, and the words of those services are now set and prescribed.  Also, we no longer expect prophetic utterances to punctuate our church meals or services.  And we now have a canon of Christian literature, an agreed upon list of works regarded as apostolic and authoritative—the New Testament.

The list goes on, but you get the idea.  Much has changed.

But the essence of the Church has not changed because Christ has not changed, but is the same yesterday, today, and forever. 

In particular, the apostolic witness remains primary and authoritative, sacralized as Holy Tradition, of which the written New Testament forms the heart.  The weekly Eucharistic worship remains unchanged in meaning, importance, and basic structure.  The moral parameters of the Faith remain the same, with its rejection of such immorality as homosexuality, abortion, and sexual promiscuity. 

The border between the Church and World remains firmly drawn and impermeable, expressed in the Church’s sacramental boundaries which exclude giving the Eucharist to those outside the canonical boundaries of the Church.  And the Church retains its determined sense of unity, recognizing all Orthodox congregations as part of a single indivisible family—the Church may consist of a number of autocephalous churches, each with their own ecclesiastical and clerical machinery, but it remains one Church nonetheless.  

The things that have changed (e.g. the use of vestments, the meeting in special buildings, the basic fixity of the liturgical tradition) are not of the essence of the Church; they could in theory be changed without harm to the Church’s faith or mission.  The year 60 A.D. was a long time ago but what was said of Christ could in some measure be said of His Church also:  she remains the same yesterday, today, and forever.