Category: Eucharist (Page 3 of 6)

By What Authority?

February 21, 2015 / Robert Arakaki / 0 Comments

Scottish Communion Service source

A Response to Rev. Peter Leithart’s “Puritan Sacramentalism”

The Rev. Peter Leithart wrote a provocative article “Puritan Sacramentalism” which appeared in First Things. Already his article has elicited at least two responses by Orthodox Christians on Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy: Gabe Martini’s “On Leithart’s Puritans and the Purity of Sacraments” and Father Andrew Stephen Damick’s “Is Liturgy Magic? A Response to Peter Leithart’s Puritan Sacramentalism.” Fr. Andrew and Gabe Martini in their response articles explained how Rev. Leithart misunderstood the nature and purpose of the preparatory rites in the Liturgy.

What I seek to do here is examine the issue of sacramentalism which is key to Leithart’s argument.

What Makes the Difference?

The issue here is: Do we truly partake of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist? This doctrine of the real presence has been held by Christians from the early days of the Church. Unlike low church Evangelicals who view the Lord’s Supper as just a symbol, Leithart’s understanding is much closer to the historic doctrine of the real presence. Like the Reformers and even the Puritans, Rev. Leithart affirms the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist.

But the question that Rev. Leithart must answer is: What makes the difference between a Holy Communion service where the bread and the grape juice are just symbols and a Holy Communion service where one truly partakes of the body and blood of Christ? Is it whether one holds to the doctrine of the real presence or something more? Is saying the Words of Institution enough?

There was a time when I was a high church Calvinist attending a low church Evangelical congregation. My former home church believed that the bread and the grape juice distributed at the monthly Communion service were symbols to help us remember and appreciate what Jesus did for us on the Cross. However, as a result of reading Reformers like Luther and Calvin, and also the early Church Fathers, I had come to accept the doctrine of the real presence. So while my fellow church members sitting next to me saw the piece of bread and the grape juice as symbolic reminders, I saw myself as partaking of Christ’s body and blood. I held to this view until one day I was at a Graduate Christian Fellowship retreat. When I walked into the room where the Communion service was to be held I thought to myself: “They’re right! It is just a symbol because it’s not the real thing. It is just a symbol because they have no priestly authority to bless the bread and the wine.” Because there was no priestly authority the bread and the wine remained just bread and wine, and could only serve as symbolic reminders of Christ’s death on the Cross. This started me thinking about what goes on in the Liturgy and the Eucharist, and how Protestant worship differs from Orthodox worship.

Ancient Near Eastern Covenant/Treaty source

I learned from the Reformed tradition that running through Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, is the theme of the covenant. So if Jesus Christ is the Suzerain who inaugurated the New Covenant then the implications are staggering. The Bible is more than just an instruction manual, it is a covenant document for the covenant community, the Church. This implies that just as the old Israel had a Temple and ordained priesthood, so likewise the new Israel would have a Temple and a priesthood. We find this in Hebrews 13:10 which refer to the Christians having an altar that the Jewish priests could not partake of and Isaiah 66:23 where God promised that in the Messianic Age he would take from the Gentiles certain men for the priesthood. This means that at every Sunday Eucharist we as vassals partake of the covenant meal with our Suzerain Lord – Jesus Christ. This means that the authority of an Orthodox priest is grounded in the authority structure of the New Covenant. Just as the Old Testament priesthood had an authority structure, so also does the New Covenant priesthood have a covenant authority structure.

Eucharist in the Early Church

In the early Church the Eucharist was celebrated only by the bishops, the successor to the Apostles, or a priest who served under him. Ignatius of Antioch served as bishop of St. Paul’s home church in Acts 13. Remember, Ignatius is held by tradition to be the child in the Gospel Christ put on his lap as a lesson to the Apostles (Mark 9:56). Ignatius likely knew several of the Apostles for decades as a young man and served early in the second century just after the original Apostles died. He was the first generation of bishops charged to keep the Tradition – Paul’s exhortation in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Ignatius wrote:

It is not lawful either to baptise or to hold an “agape” without the bishop; but whatever he approve, this is also pleasing to God, that everything which you do may be secure and valid. (To the Smyrnaeans 8.2)

Be careful therefore to use one Eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup for union with his blood, one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow servants), in order that whatever you do you may do it according unto God. (To the Philadelphians 4.1)

The bishop’s authority to preside over the Eucharist is rooted in the Church’s covenant structure. This was the answer to my predicament as a high church Calvinist. When the priest together with the congregation as a covenant community prays for the Holy Spirit to descend upon the bread and the wine then a real change takes place in the Eucharist. What makes the difference between any of the best even the fullest Protestant Lord’s Supper and a valid Orthodox Eucharist is the bishop’s covenant authority to pray for the Holy Spirit to descend upon the gift offered on the altar.

There is a covenant authority structure that undergirds Orthodoxy and it is a sad fact that as a schismatic breakaway movement Protestantism lies outside this covenant structure. Protestants can claim quoting from the Bible in the Holy Communion service is sufficient but for unauthorized person (not properly ordained by a bishop) to undertake a covenant act apart from proper covenant order is unauthorized and therefore invalid. Furthermore, no early Church Father taught that merely invoking the Words of Institution is sufficient for a valid Eucharist. This application of sola Scriptura to the Lord’s Supper is a doctrinal and liturgical innovation with no grounding in historic Christianity.

Does this mean that all Protestant celebrations of the Lord’s Supper in this manner are completely without grace and meaningless? The Orthodox are not prepared to say just where the Holy Spirit might indeed choose to bless . . . or in what way He might bless. We do not know the mysterious ways of the Holy Spirit. But we can say that we are assured that the fullness of blessing is assured at the Orthodox Eucharist, premised upon the historical continuity of the Orthodox Church, the Scriptures they received from the Apostles, and the declarations of the Ecumenical Counsels.

What makes the bread and the wine the body and blood of Christ is the Holy Spirit who comes down on the gifts offered up by the people of God. The descent of the Holy Spirit on the gifts at a “typical” Sunday Liturgy are a miracle much like the descent of fire from heaven on the prophet Elijah’s sacrifice on Mount Carmel in 1 Kings 18. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures stated:

Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whosoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed (Lecture XXIII.7; NPNF vol. 7 p. 154; emphasis added.)

For Orthodox Christians today this is all very familiar because we follow the same Liturgy as that used by Cyril in the fourth century. The Liturgy we use has its source in Apostolic Tradition. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread . . . . (Emphasis added.)

The phrases “received from” and “passed on” point to a traditioning process. The early Christians did not say: “Let’s see what the Bible has to say about how to conduct a Holy Communion service”; instead they would look to their bishop who had been discipled and ordained by the Apostles. In the early days the New Testament as we know it did not exist; what the early Christians had were the Old Testament writings, copies of the Gospels and some of Paul’s writings, and what the bishop had heard from the Apostles. The Liturgy we use today has been guarded by the Church throughout history. It was passed on from generation to generation beginning with the Apostles who passed it on to their disciples, the bishops (cf. 2 Timothy 2:2).

This in turn leads to some hard questions for Rev. Leithart. Does he have the covenantal authority to celebrate the Eucharist? I would say that as a Presbyterian, Rev. Leithart cannot claim apostolic succession. This link was severed at the Protestant Reformation. So a Protestant minister can dress himself up with vestments and recite ancient liturgical formulas but without valid covenant authority which comes through apostolic succession it is all going through the motions. It is valid covenantal authority, not “high church” ceremonialism, that makes the difference in a valid Eucharist. It is valid covenantal authority via apostolic succession that is key to what Leithart calls “high sacramentality.”

Rev. Peter Leithart either misunderstands or misrepresents Orthodoxy if he thinks that the elaborate ceremonials are just that – preparatory rites. The elaborate ritual actions and prayers are intended to prepare us to receive Christ in the Eucharist. If Orthodox worship is elaborate, it is so because it came out of the Jewish liturgical tradition described in the book of Exodus and reflects the rich liturgical worship up in heaven as found in the book of Revelation.

Catholic and Protestant?

The root cause of Peter Leithart’s predicament lies in his attempting to be (1) both an ancient Orthodox/Catholic and Protestant at the same time, and (2) both historically sacramental and Puritan at the same time. It doesn’t work. It can’t work because it flies in the face of church history and the witness of the early Church Fathers. Where low church Evangelicalism holds to sola Scriptura (Bible alone) and the memorialist understanding of the Lord’s Supper, Orthodoxy holds to the Holy Tradition – the teachings and practices of the Apostles – which the Apostles entrusted to the Church Fathers who in turn handed it down to their successors (2 Timothy 1:13-14). Holy Tradition consists of Scripture and how the Apostles understood the Scriptures. Holy Tradition also consists of how the Lord’s Supper was to be celebrated and the understanding of the real presence in the Eucharist. While the low church Evangelicals and liturgical Orthodox Christians may be radically at odds with each other’s positions, there is a certain logical consistency to their respective theology and worship. It is people like Rev. Leithart who seek to be both sacramental and Protestant at the same time who end up in such convoluted theological straits. It’s one thing to go a contemporary worship service, but it’s another thing to attempt to emulate historic Christian worship while at the same time disdaining the ancient historic Church founded on the Apostles and refusing to submit to her leaders who share a common ordination from the Apostles.

Peter Leithart tells how on Christmas Eve he first attended a low church service that included a Neil Young song and a jazzy rendition of a “Charlie Brown Christmas” song, then afterwards attended a high church midnight Mass at an Episcopal cathedral. All this left me puzzled. Why would Rev. Leithart, a PCA minister, attend these two wildly divergent services? What about his Reformed church tradition? It appears he is currently in limbo between low church Evangelicalism and high church Episcopalianism, and is straining hard to devise a new alternative between the two.

That Rev. Peter Leithart is without question well read and well educated is obvious. So it is distressing to us – Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick, Gabe Martini, and this writer — when he misrepresents the Orthodox tradition. It seems that he is earnestly seeking to reconnect with the early Church but hasn’t quite figured out how to let go of his Reformation convictions. This is a hard step that one must make if one wishes to be in communion with the early Church. I would encourage Rev. Leithart to continue reading the early Church Fathers in context and discuss his concerns with a knowledgeable Orthodox Priest – perhaps one who knows well his Reformed background and concerns. One thinks of Father Josiah Trenham, who studied at Westmont College then Reformed Theological Seminary. Rev. Leithart should also seek to imbibe the spirit of Orthodox worship by visiting a local Orthodox church as often as possible, and again, discuss his concerns and the Why questions with a knowledgeable priest. All too often Protestants are like tourists who think they understand the foreign culture they are visiting, but there are significant cultural differences between Protestantism and Orthodoxy. Protestants should beware of thinking they already understand what is going on in an Orthodox Liturgy. I would also encourage Rev. Leithart to put aside his Puritan glasses when he reads the early Church Fathers, and remember the wisdom of “Praxis leads to understanding” and we “Obey in order to understand.”

Advice for Curious Protestants

Cyril of Jerusalem

In light of the fact that Great Lent has just begun I suggest that curious Protestants use this as a time to read through Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures and compare this ancient lecture series with the way today’s Orthodox churches celebrate Lent, Holy Week, and Easter (Pascha). Many will be surprised to see how similar Orthodox worship today is to the worship of the early Church. They can also reflect on what makes the difference between Puritan sacramentalism and the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Orthodox Eucharist.

Robert Arakaki

St. Paul’s Home Church

September 25, 2014 / Robert Arakaki / 18 Comments

Icon – St. Paul

Many Evangelicals love to read and study St. Paul’s letters and consider Paul the greatest missionary of all time. But few stop to think about which church Paul came from. Many know that he was born in Tarsus, was educated in Jerusalem under Rabbi Gamaliel, and that he spent three years in the Arabian dessert after his encounter with Christ. But many would draw a blank if asked: Where was Apostle Paul’s home church? Fewer yet would think to ask: Is Paul’s home church still around today?

Modern Evangelicalism’s historical amnesia has caused many Evangelicals to neglect or ignore the history and practice of this early Church. It is tragic to see how this unspoken Protestant bias is playing out in our day! Learning from church history can provide a valuable corrective.

We read in the book of Acts:

In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off. (Acts 13:1-3, NIV; emphasis added)

The Church in Antioch played a significant role in the book of Acts and in early church history. Christianity had its origins in Jerusalem but very little cross cultural missions was done in the early days. As Luke noted in Acts 11:19 at the time Jews evangelized only their fellow Jews. It was not until Jews from Cyprus and Cyrene began to share the Good News of Christ with non-Jews in the city of Antioch that a major evangelistic breakthrough was made (Acts 11:20-21). Then when Paul and Barnabas were commissioned to do missionary work the Church of Antioch became a sending church – another milestone in world missions.

During Paul’s time Antioch was the third largest city following Rome and Alexandria. The city was also a major administrative and military outpost for the eastern edge of the Roman Empire. Its population was multi ethnic comprising native Syrians, Romans, Greeks, and Jews. Antioch had a sizable Jewish presence, of the 300,000 residents about 50,000 were Jews. Rodney Stark in The Rise of Christianity (1997) gives a grim description of what urban living in Antioch must have been like in ancient times. In addition to the overall squalor due to the lack of modern sewers and sanitation, social interaction was marked by ethnic divisions (there were at least 18 different ethnic groups at the time) and numerous newcomers “deficient in interpersonal attachments” (pp. 156-158). Christianity brought hope to many with the promise of new life in Jesus Christ and a new basis for social solidarity in the Church (pp. 161-162).

In terms of religion Antioch was an interesting amalgam. In addition to the pagan religions and Judaism, there was also a certain amount of syncretism taking place. Some of the Jews were drawn to the freedom of Hellenism, while a number of Gentiles were drawn to Jewish monotheism. Many became God fearers, Gentiles who accepted Jewish monotheistic faith but refrained from full conversion to Judaism. Paul’s message that one could become right with God apart from the Jewish Law would appeal to many causing them to become Christians.

Paul Barnett in Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity (1999) notes that Christianity came to Antioch in two waves. The first wave stemming from the persecution of the church in Jerusalem likely took place in AD 34 – a year after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The second wave stemming from men from Cyprus and Cyrene evangelizing non-Jews likely took place in the late thirties – nearly a decade after Christ’s death and resurrection. This points to rapid growth and expansion of early Christianity. Barnett is of the opinion that the majority of the converts came not from the Jews or the pagans, but from the God fearers.

They were Called “Christians”

Luke’s observation: “The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26) indicates that the number of converts had grown to the point where it had the attention of the general public. The term Christianoi reflected the practice of naming followers of a noted ruler, e.g., Herodianoi and Augustiani. The context for Isaiah’s prophecy in 56:5 points to God’s missionary outreach to the Gentiles and the ingathering of the Jews along with that of the non-Jews. Acts 11:26 can also be viewed as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prediction of a new covenant and a new name for God’s elect in the Messianic Age.

I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off. (Isaiah 56:5)

And,

. . . you will be called by a new name that the mouth of the Lord will bestow. (Isaiah 62:2)

The bestowal of a new name is significant. When Jesus gave Simon the fisherman the name “Peter,” this signaled a new life and a new vocation. Similarly, the emergence of the name “Christian” can be understood as signaling the emergence of a faith community which would take the place of the old Israel and the dawn of a new dispensation of grace.

"The Lamb of God is broken and shared, broken but divided; forever eaten yet never consumed, but sanctifying those who partake of Him."

Holy Communion

What is striking about Acts 13:1-3 is how central and important worship is for world missions. Paul received his missionary call in the context of worship. To be precise, Paul received his missionary call during the Liturgy! The original Greek in Acts 13:2 is λειτουργωντων (leitourgounton) which can be translated: “as they performed the liturgy” (Orthodox Study Bible commentary notes for 13:2). As an Evangelical I have heard many missions sermons but not one linking missions to the Sacraments or the Eucharist as the basis for Christian missions!

Middle Wall of Partition Separating Jews from Non-Jews Source

The Church of Antioch is a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of “a house of prayer for all nations.” (Isaiah 56:7) The sizable influx of Gentile converts described in Acts 11:20-21 changed the church demographics significantly, from predominantly Jewish to predominantly Gentile. There were so many new converts that Barnabas recruited Paul to assist him in the catechizing of the Gentile converts (Acts 11:25-26). Where before Gentiles were separated by a dividing wall in the Jerusalem temple, in the Church Gentiles prayed and worshiped alongside with Jews in the Liturgy. What is happening here in Antioch is historically unprecedented! Here in the Eucharist Christ the Passover sacrifice reconciled Jews and Gentiles with God the Father giving rise to a new Israel! No wall separated them now. Rather, in united fellowship Jews together with their Gentile brothers and sisters partook of the most holy Body and Blood of Christ! Memory of this powerful worship experience in Antioch probably inspired Paul as he wrote in Ephesians 2:11-22 of Christ abolishing the dividing wall in his flesh (v. 15) and making “one new man out of the two”’(v. 15).

Paul’s Missionary Journeys Source

While Paul’s apostolic ministry was translocal in scope, he was very much rooted in the life of the Church and its sacramental ministry. Acts 13 and 14 describe Paul’s first missionary journey. We read in Acts 13:3: “they placed their hands on them (Barnabas and Paul) and sent them off.” Later we read in Acts 14:26-28 that at the end of the first mission Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch and reported to their home base on their ministry. A similar pattern can be seen in Paul’s second mission. Paul started out from Antioch, his home base (Acts 15:35-36), and returned to the church at Antioch at the conclusion of the mission (Acts 18:22-23). The strong role of the church in Acts stands in contrast to modern Evangelicalism where parachurch ministries quite often overshadow the local church.

Antioch in Church History

Ignatius – 3rd bishop of Antioch

Just as Antioch played a major role in the book of Acts it would likewise play a major role in church history. Ignatius of Antioch was an early bishop and one of the Apostolic Fathers, i.e., Christians who knew the Apostles personally. Prior to his death circa AD 98/117 Ignatius wrote a series of letters that shed light on what the early Christians believed. In his Letter to the Philadelphians Ignatius wrote:

Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God. (Philadelphians 4.1; emphasis added)

Ignatius’ high view of the Eucharist stands in contrast to popular Evangelicalism’s low view of the Lord’s Supper as purely symbolic. Just as striking is Ignatius’ high view of the office of the bishop. Where many Evangelicals hold to a congregationalist ecclesiology or Reformed Christians prefer a presbyterian polity, Ignatius held to an episcopal view of the Church! This is not a momentary quirk but an integral part of his theology. We find in Ignatius’ Letter to the Smyrnaeans:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. (Smyrnaeans 8:1-2; emphasis added)

John X – 171st Bishop of Antioch

These passages shed valuable light on Acts 13:1-3. They underscore the importance of the Eucharist in the life of the early Christian Church. Furthermore, they show that the Church in Antioch during Paul’s time was under the rule of a bishop. According to Orthodox Tradition, St. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch. He was then succeeded by Euodius who was followed by Ignatius (cf. Eusebius’ Church History 3.22). The current Patriarch of Antioch, John X, can trace his apostolic succession back to St. Peter as well as to St. Ignatius. According to the list of patriarchs John X is the 171^st bishop since St. Peter.

For two millennia the Church of Antioch would guard the Faith and evangelize the nations. The renowned preacher John Chrysostom (Golden Mouth) was born and raised in Antioch. He later edited the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which is still in use today. The church was also known as the home of Antiochene Theology which emphasized a more literal and historical reading of Scripture than the allegorical method favored in Alexandria. With respect to Christology the Antiochene School insisted on Christ’s true humanity.

Patriarchate of Antioch, Damascus, Syria Source

The city of Antioch has not been sheltered from the upheavals of history. Shifts in trade routes, numerous Crusades, and the Mongol invasion resulted in the city’s decline and the removal of the ancient Patriarchate in the 1200s to present day Damascus. Today it is known as Antakya in present day Syria.

The Antiochian presence was established in the US during 1800s when political events and economic conditions forced many in the Middle East, especially Syria, to emigrate. An account of the challenges the young immigrant community faced in America can be found in Peter Gillquist’s Metropolitan Philip: His Life and His Dreams (1991). The Antiochian Archdiocese was instrumental in receiving some 2000 Evangelicals into the Orthodox Church. To become Orthodox these Evangelicals needed to adopt the faith and worship of the Antiochian Patriarchate. The welcoming of the Evangelicals in 1987 has done much to dispel the notion that Orthodoxy is an ethnic church constrained by ties to language and customs of the old world. One thing I have noticed in my visits to Antiochian Orthodox churches is that while their parishes tend to reflect mainstream American culture their doctrine and worship are identical to other Orthodox churches whether Greek, Russian, Serbian, Ukrainian, etc.

Antioch’s Challenge to Protestants

If the Church of Antioch is Apostle Paul’s home church and if it still exists today then Evangelicals and Protestants are faced with some challenging questions. Is my church like the Church of Antioch? Do the doctrines and practices of my church resemble that of Antioch?

The Church in Antioch as described in Acts 13:1-3 and Ignatius’ letters provides three markers of early Christianity: (1) it was liturgical, (2) it practiced fasting, and (3) it was episcopal in structure. Inquiring Protestants and Evangelicals can use these three markers (among others) as a means of evaluating their church tradition.

Evangelicalism’s historical amnesia has created a huge blind spot in their theology. One of the basic assumptions of Protestantism is that the early Church fell into heresy soon after the first generation of Apostles passed away but when one looks at history one can find no evidence of such apostasy. The absence of apostasy points to a fundamental continuity in the Church of Antioch. Antiochian Orthodox parishes today like Acts 13:1-3 use liturgical worship and fast on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, liturgy and fasting are very much a part of Orthodox Christianity everywhere. And like Ignatius’ letters all Antiochian Orthodox parishes live under the authority of a bishop whose apostolic lineage goes back to Acts 13.

The Protestant Reformation resulted in a number of developments that diverged from Acts 13:1-3. The doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) has resulted in the sermon displacing the Eucharist as the focal point of Sunday worship. Under the influence of Puritanism worship was simplified to the point where the Lord’s Supper became a mere symbol. Fasting which was an important spiritual discipline to both Judaism and historic Christianity is for all purposes absent in Evangelicalism. The Reformed tradition has been inconsistent and erratic in its approach to fasting, and more recently, at times hostile.

Come and See!

Evangelicals and Protestants have the opportunity to go beyond reading Paul’s letters by visiting a local church that has a direct historical link to Paul’s home church, the Church of Antioch. Today there are over 250 Antiochian Orthodox parishes in the US, many within driving distance. The curious inquirer may find reading Orthodox books and blogs very helpful for understanding Orthodoxy, but there is no substitute for an actual visit to an Orthodox worship service. There you will experience firsthand the hymns, prayers, incense, and ritual of the Divine Liturgy (usually of St. John Chrysostom originally of Antioch!). A visit to an Orthodox Liturgy offers an Evangelical or Protestant a unique and holy opportunity to reconnect with the ancient roots of the Christian Faith.

Go and visit! And let us know what you think of the ancient Liturgy.

Robert Arakaki

“A Peek Into Orthodoxy” — a video preview of a visit to an Orthodox Church

Worship in Ancient House Churches

June 28, 2014 / Robert Arakaki / 2 Comments

Folks,

Did you ever wonder how the early Christians worshiped? As a follow up to “Jurassic Park and the Protestant Quest for the Early Church,” I am reposting Gabe Martini’s “The Eucharistic Liturgy in Ancient House Churches.”

Robert Arakaki

The Eucharistic Liturgy in Ancient House Churches

by Gabe Martini

Many evangelical groups today are proposing that we abandon traditional models of doing the Church, instead replacing that presumed stodginess with what is—they claim—a more “New Testament” model: the “house church” or “cell” church models.

Essentially, they are promoting that the local church be a de-centralized assembly, meeting in the homes of various individuals and proportionally scattered throughout a city (or town or region). The presumption is that this is the Biblical model for both fellowship and discipleship, derived from the New Testament itself.

While we certainly read of house Churches in the New Testament (e.g. 1 Cor. 1:11,16;Rom. 16:5; Col. 4:15), usually being the homes of wealthy individuals with enough room for a large assembly of people, the house/cell churches of the modern day do not actually resemble the worship or piety associated with such New Testament prototypes.

Additionally, the house Churches of the New Testament developed into the basilicas of the post-Constantine Roman empire, when the faith was no longer forced underground as a result of both imperial and Judaic persecution. The same elements present in the earlier house Churches found their way into the more established basilicas and temples of the fourth century and beyond—they were just given a newer and freer context within which to thrive.

Dura Church Diagram

Two distinct features of the most ancient house churches—and in fact, of the most ancient churches that archaeology has unveiled—are that of the baptistry and the place of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

When discussing the Eucharistic controversy at Corinth, Jerome Kodell describes a typical, first century Christian house Church:

Archaeology has shown that the typical large home of the period could accomodate about fifty people for a meal, ten in the triclinium (dining room), where the guests reclined on couches, and forty in the atrium(courtyard), where the guests sat around a central pool.
—The Eucharist in the New Testament, p. 75

This description corresponds with that of the two oldest archaeological finds of ancient house churches—those at Megiddo (Palestine) and Dura Europos (Syria), which both date to the third century A.D. (early or mid-200s). Both house churches have a place for baptism (like the central pool mentioned above), an area for the general assembly of laity, and a small area for the Eucharistic celebration (often an elevated platform with a table or altar). A large, mosaic inscription in Greek at the Megiddo house church reads: “The God-loving Aketous has offered this table to the God Jesus Christ, as a memorial,” a seemingly obvious reference to the Eucharist, given both the words “table” and “memorial.”

These substantial structures were not simple homes with simple services, lacking any notion of adornment or beauty. In fact, Hugh Wybrew notes:

Even if worship took place in a domestic setting, it was not necessarily lacking in a certain splendor. Paul, Bishop of Samosata in the sixties of the third century, had a lofty throne erected on a dais in the meeting-hall. Attached to it was an audience chamber. When he entered the room for services he was acclaimed by the congregation like a Roman magistrate . . . The congregation at Cirta, a small town in North Africa, met in an ordinary house. But it possessed a rich collection of gold and silver vessels, and bronze lamps and candlesticks.

Despite occasional persecutions, the Church was growing rapidly in strength throughout the third century, laying the foundation for its remarkable expansion in the next. —The Orthodox Liturgy, p. 22

This church at Cirta, worshipping during the rule of the emperor Diocletian—one of the most ruthless persecutors of the Christians in Roman history—was raided by imperial authorities. In the official records kept by the pagan Roman officials (written by the hand of one Munatius Felix), an inventory of the church is given:

Victor, son of Aufidius, made the following brief record: two gold cups, also six silver cups, six silver jugs, a silver vessel, seven silver lamps, two candlesticks, seven small bronze candelabra with their lamps, also eleven bronze lamps with their chains, eighty-two women’s tunics, thirty-eight cloaks, sixteen men’s tunics, thirteen pairs of men’s shoes, forty-seven pairs of women’s shoes, nineteen rustic belts. —Beard et al., Religions of Rome: Volume 2, A Sourcebook, p. 112

It is even more interesting at Dura Europos, where the extensive discovery has yielded not only abundant examples of iconography throughout the house church structure (e.g. frescoes of Christ as the Good Shepherd, him walking on water, the Samaritan woman at the well, and the myrrh-bearing women at the empty tomb), but also some fragmentary manuscripts in the Hebrew language that show a continuity between the Eucharistic liturgy of the first century Didache and the more developed (fourth century) Apostolic Constitutions. A Greek-language harmony of the Gospels (in fragments), which is distinct from the Diatessaron of Tatian, has also been found at this site.

The Eucharistic anaphora in the Didache (ch. 10), which has been dated as early as AD 50–60, reads:

Thou, O Lord, Almighty, hast created all things for the sake of Thy name, hast given food and drink to the children of men for enjoyment, but to us Thou hast granted spiritual food and drink for eternal life through Jesus, Thy servant.

For all these things we thankfully praise Thee, because Thou art powerful. Thine is the glory forever. Amen.

The Hebraic fragment uncovered at Dura Europos also includes an anaphora, and it has a strikingly similar composition:

Blessed be the Lord, King of the Universe, who created All things, apportioned food, appointed drink for all the children of flesh with which they shall be satisfied; But granted to us, human beings, to partake of the food of the myriads of his angelic bodies. For all this we have to bless with songs in the gatherings of [the] people. —Fragment A, Dura Europos (ca. A.D. 235)

Despite being separated by at least two centuries, the anaphoras of both the apostolic Church in the first century, and that of this Syrian house church in the 3rd century share a number of similarities. They certainly reflect the same tradition of the Eucharist, and, as St. Irenaeus has asserted, the Eucharist is the heart of where our faith and theology both begins and ends. Similarities between these and the Judaic blessings for food and wine should be noted, as well. The Christians of both the Didache and third century were certainly assembling in the large homes of wealthy believers, but the detailed instructions for the rites of Baptism and the Eucharist in both sources indicates a community gathering for a purpose that is quite distinct from a simple Bible study, lecture, and sing-along.

So while evangelical groups in our present day might be attempting to emulate the house churches of the so-called New Testament era, it can be demonstrated with great clarity that these ancient Christian communities were gathered together primarily for the celebration of the sacred mysteries of Christ: Baptism and the Eucharist. I wouldn’t expect to find much in the way of iconography in a present-day house church, either.

If a Christian today wants to assemble in a way that is comparable to these ancient and New Testament-era house churches, the best way to do so is within the apostolic Church itself. A Church within which these venerable traditions have been preserved for centuries. And that church is the Orthodox Church.

Category: Eucharist (Page 3 of 6)

By What Authority?

St. Paul’s Home Church

Worship in Ancient House Churches

The Eucharistic Liturgy in Ancient House Churches

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives