The Sociocultural Context of the New Testament (Part 6): House Churches

Christians assembled in the homes of Aquila and Priscilla in Rome (Rom. 16:5) and earlier in Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:19), others in Rome (Rom. 16:14, 15), Gaius in Corinth (Rom. 16:23), Philemon in Colosse (Philem. 2), Nympha/s in Laodicea (Col. 4:15), Mary in Jerusalem (Acts 12:5, 12), and Lydia in Philippi (Acts 16:40). While the nucleus of house churches was often the household itself, this does not mean every person in the home was converted (e.g. Philem. 2, 10-17). New converts would have been added to the household communities.

The landmass of urban environments, where early Christianity took root, was relatively small compared to today’s megacities, while population density was rather high. This made for very crowded living conditions, and privacy would have been a rarity (W. A. Meeks, First Urban Christians 28-29, 75-76). R. Jewett maintains that city churches assembled in tenements, restricting the number of members who could meet together (“Tenement Churches and Communal Meals,” BibRes 38 [1993]: 23-43), and A. A. Bell, Jr. concludes that a small apartment “is likely to have been the sort of ‘house’ in which the earliest Christian groups gathered” (Exploring the New Testament World 207).¹ However, this was probably not the case for every congregation. 

In Corinth at least some of the converts were among the upper echelons of society [eugenēs] (1 Cor. 1:26; 11:22),² and Gaius had a house large enough to accommodate “the whole church” (Rom. 16:23). There are 17 known names of Christians at Corinth (not to mention those unnamed) plus households,³ which would have required a fairly sizeable dwelling. Unless there were multiple house churches in Corinth, which is unlikely in view of the fact that Gaius was the host of “the whole church,” the congregation probably consisted of fewer than 50 members. Archeology has conclusively shown that the atrium or courtyard in a large Roman-style home would accommodate only about 30 to 50 people.⁴

A typical upper class Roman house was centered around a columned courtyard with an open room (atrium), in the center of which was a shallow pool (impluvium). At the opposite end from the entrance was a raised area (tablinum) containing a table and used by the family as a reception area and for ceremonial functions. The congregation in Corinth probably gathered in the atrium of Gaius’ home, and could have used the tablinum for the Lord’s Supper. In the ruins of a Roman garrison city in Mesopotamia (Dura Europos), archeologists have discovered the remnants of the earliest known building to be used by Christians explicitly as a place of worship (ca. 230-240). “The building was a converted house, with a large meeting room and a second smaller room holding a baptistery” (D. Irvin and S. Sunquist, History of the World Christian Movement 54-55).

J. D. G. Dunn comments, “Historically, it is a reminder of how dependent on quite tiny groups was the development of Christianity …. Theologically, the point is that the dynamic of being ‘the church of God’ did not require large groups in any one place” (Theology of Paul 542). W. A. Meeks adds, “The house as meeting place afforded some privacy, a degree of intimacy, and stability of place. However, it also created the potential for the emergence of factions within the Christian body of a city” (First Urban Christians 76).⁵ Although Meeks proposes Corinth as an example, the situation at Rome is a better representation. Paul writes to “all in Rome … called saints” (Rom. 1:7) and sends greetings to what appears to be three or more separate house churches (16:5, 14, 15) comprised of both Gentile believers (1:5-6, 13; 11:13-24; 15:14-21) and Jewish believers (2:17; 6:14-15; 7:4; 16:3, 7, 11). He devotes a sizeable block of the letter addressing apparent division among them (14:1–15:13).

While the divine will is for Christians to regularly assemble together (Heb. 10:24-25),⁶ a particular meeting place is not enjoined and would necessarily depend on the unique circumstances of each group. While other assembly places are noted in scripture (e.g. Acts 2:46; 5:12; 16:13; 19:8-10; 20:7-8; 26:11), the house proved to be the most expedient for many 1st-century congregations.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The term oîkos could apply to any dwelling place or home or household. See The Pentecost-Day Miracle.

     ² Domestic slaves, as opposed to the more underprivileged peasants and rural slaves, were among the converts at Corinth (1 Cor. 7:21-23). There was disposable income available (1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 8–9). References to individual members (Acts 18:8; Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 1:14, 16; 16:15-18), including their occupations or positions, households, services rendered, and travels, indicate that a number of them enjoyed relatively high social status (G. Thiessen, Social Setting 73-96). This includes Erastus, who was potentially the same person who obtained the office of aedile, about whom there is an inscription in the pavement in Corinth (see B. Witherington III, Conflict and Community 32-35; also Paul Quest 92-94).

     ³ A. J. Malherbe, Social Aspects 76. Twelve are Latin names: Lucius, Tertius, Gaius, Erastus, Quartus (Rom. 16:21-23), Titius Justus, Crispus (Acts 18:7-8), Fortunatus and Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:17), Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:1-2). At least three of these were Jews (Aquila, Priscilla, Crispus), the others were probably Roman, and the rest of those mentioned had Greek names.

     ⁴ See G. D. Fee, First Corinthians 533-34; also Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “1 and 2 Corinthians,” in The Cambridge Companion to St Paul 74, and St. Paul’s Corinth 178-85, although Murphy-O’Connor’s estimates tend to be somewhat exaggerated. J. D. G. Dunn notes that even a large house would have been pressed to accommodate more than around 40 people (Theology of Paul 542).

     ⁵ Another challenge created by the church meeting in houses was the question of “role and status” and “the tension caused by public gatherings in private space” (J. D. G. Dunn, Theology of Paul  592, emp. in the text).

     ⁶ Cf. Acts 11:26; 12:5, 12; 14:27; 15:30; 20:7-8; 1 Cor. 5:5; 11:17-20, 33-34; 14:3-5, 12-26; Jas. 2:2.

Related Posts: The church of the NT, Sociocultural Context Part 1: Introduction, Part 4: Individualism vs Collectivism, Part 5: Households & Slavery, Part 7: Hospitality, Part 8: Public Reading, Part 9: Kiss Greeting & Feet Washing

Image credit: http://opening.download/open-download.html  

The Sociocultural Context of the New Testament (Part 5): Households and Slavery

Households

In the New Testament we read about the households of a nobleman of Cana (John 4:53), Cornelius (Acts 10:2; 11:14), Lydia (Acts 16:15), the jailer at Philippi (Acts 16:31-34), Crispus (Acts 18:8), Aristobulus (Rom. 16:10), Narcissus (Rom. 16:11), Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11), Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16; 16:15-17), Onesiphorus (2 Tim. 1:16; 4:19), and even Caesar (Phil. 4:22). Specific instructions are given for Christian households,¹ a number of which would have formed the nucleus of local congregations.

In the ancient Mediterranean world a “household” [oîkos] “was essentially a patriarchal institution, with other members of the household, not least wives, children, and slaves, subject to the authority of its male head” (J. D. G. Dunn, Theology of Paul 591 n. 128). This generalized description, however, does not consider households (without a male head) managed by women (e.g. Acts 12:12; 16:14-15; cf. Rom. 16:1-2; 1 Cor. 1:11). Certain household communities would have also included “not only immediate relatives but also slaves, freedmen, hired workers, and sometimes tenants and partners in trade or craft” (W. A. Meeks, First Urban Christians 75-76). 

Slavery

Christianity entered a world where slavery was already an established element of society and regarded as an economic necessity, though not necessarily comparable to the harsher forms in other times and societies. It has been estimated that 1 in 5 of the Empire’s population and 1 in 3 of Italy’s population were slaves.² The condition of slavery was the result of prisoners of war, criminal conviction, debt, abandoned children, or birth to a slave mother. A more sinister means involved the so-called  andrapodistēs (1 Tim. 1:10), i.e., enslaver, slave-dealer, kidnapper, or one who steals and sells another’s slaves.

Different kinds of slavery co-existed, and one must be careful not to make sweeping generalizations. Ethnicity and race were not determinative factors.³ Domestic house slaves were much better off than those (usually condemned criminals) working in the fields or mines. Educated slaves were valued. A slave middle class consisted of skilled craftsmen, secretaries, educators, and medical practitioners. Slaves could earn and save money and own property. Influential positions held by a number of slaves afforded benefits and power over free persons of lower social standing.⁴

M. Barth and H. Blanke observe: “The dividing line between slaves and free persons was not always sharply drawn or easily recognized …. Often a reasonably rich man’s slave was better off than a poor citizen in possession of all civil rights …. Among ancient slaves there were highly intelligent and well-trained people who did qualified work and had — especially in Paul’s day — a fair chance of being eventually manumitted and/or of marrying into the owner’s or another free person’s family …. in many respects an ancient slave’s treatment was better and his life conditions more secure than those of a nineteenth-century factory worker” (Letter to Philemon 3-4).

Being a Roman slave was not necessarily a permanent plight, as indicated by the plethoric former slaves throughout the Empire. Antonius Felix, procurator of Judea (Acts 23:26–24:27), was a freed slave (cf. Tacitus, Histories 5.9). In Jerusalem there was a “synagogue of freedmen” (Acts 6:9), apparently founded by Jewish ex-slaves. However, manumission was no guarantee that one’s social and economic circumstances would improve, and in many cases would have resulted in destitution. Depending on the wealth, status, and temperament of the owner, emancipation might not be the desirable option.

The New Testament does not enjoin, endorse, or condone slavery but simply gives regulatory instructions within the existing social structure. In his letter to Philemon (a Christian slave-owner), Paul urges a new relationship between Philemon and Onesimus but stops short of demanding emancipation. Elsewhere Paul encourages Christian slaves who could legally obtain freedom to take advantage of this opportunity, but otherwise their situation in life was to be accepted and used to the glory of God (1 Cor. 7:17-24). A Christian slave was still free in Christ (cf. Gal. 5:1), just as a free Christian was Christ’s slave (1 Cor. 7:22). Even though Paul taught compliance for slaves and fairness for masters (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22–4:1), the principles of Christianity were to mitigate the harshness of slavery and eventually lead to its demise.⁵

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Tim. 3:4; 5:4, 8; 6:1-2; Tit. 2:1-10; 1 Pet. 2:18-20; 3:1-7. 

     ² M. Cartwright, “Slavery in the Roman World,” Ancient History Encyclopedia (1 Nov. 2013), <Web>. During the 1st century approximately 16-20 percent were reportedly slaves within a population of about 60 million (W. V. Harris, “Towards a Study of the Roman Slave Trade” MAAR 36:117-40); some estimates are as high as 33-40 percent (K. R. Bradley, Slavery and Society 33). 

     ³ “Many of these slaves were natives of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. Later, as the Roman Empire expanded westward, the peoples of Britain, Germany, and Gaul (modern-day France) became new sources for slave labor” (R. E. Van Voorst, Reading the NT Today 93-94).

     ⁴ S. S. Bartchy, “Slaves and Slavery,” in The World of the NT [eds. J. B. Green and L. M. McDonald] 172-73.

     ⁵ Cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; Tit. 2:9-10; 1 Pet. 2:18-21. When a 1st-century slave owner obeyed the gospel, the master-slave relationship was turned on its head. He was taught to treat his slaves like he wished to be treated (Matt. 7:12), to love them as himself (Matt. 22:39), to put their interests before his own (Phil. 2:3-4), and instead of threatening, to serve them out of respect for Christ (Eph. 6:9). “Slavery is turned upside down, so that the master becomes the servant of his servant…. The gospel changed a master and a slave into family and that is one of the miracles of Christianity” (W. McAdams, “Does the Bible Condone Slavery?” Radically Christian [6 Sept. 2017], <Web>). See also B. M. Metzger, The New Testament: Background, Growth, Content (3rd ed.) 268-69.

Related Posts: Paul's Letter to Philemon, Sociocultural Context Part 1: Introduction, Part 4: Individualism vs Collectivism, Part 6: House Churches, Part 7: Hospitality

Related Articles: Kyle Butt, The Bible and Slavery

Image credit: http://www.museumsyndicate.com/item.php?item=36658