Why Do People Eat The Lord's Supper in Church Buildings Instead of Homes?

"Many institutions and elements of institutions which have sometimes been thought to belong to primitive Christianity belong, in fact, to the Middle Ages.--Edwin Hatch

"Experience supplies painful proof that traditions once called into being are first called useful, then they become necessary. At last they are too often made idols, and all must bow down to them or be punished."--J. C. Ryle

"Protestants (as well as Catholics) do not practice the Supper the way it was observed in the first century. For the early Christians, the Lord's Supper was a festive communal meal. The mood was one of celebration and joy. When believers first gathered for the meal, they broke the bread and passed it around. Then they ate their meal, which then concluded after the cup was passed around. The Lord's Supper was essentially a Christian banquet."--Frank Viola

"When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.” After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you.For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you" (Luke 22:14-20).

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread...When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives" (Matt. 26:26-30).

"The word deipnon (1 Cor. 11:20), meaning "dinner," tells us that it was not a token meal (as it has become since) or part of a meal (as it is sometimes envisaged), but an entire, ordinary meal. The term indicates that this is the main (normally evening) meal, the one to which guests were invited. The breaking and distribution of the bread was the normal way of commencing such a meal, just as the taking of a cup was the usual way to bring it to a conclusion, prayers of blessing accompanied both."--Robert Banks

"It is not in doubt that the Lord's Supper began as a family meal or a meal of friends in a private house. The Lord's Supper moved from being a real meal into being a symbolic meal."--William Barclay

Painting of a feast / Early Christian catacombs (Catacombe di Priscilla) / Paleochristian art.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS

"In the first three centuries the church had no buildings."--John A. T. Robinson

"That the Christians in the apostolic age erected special houses of worship is out of the question. As the Savior of the world was born in a stable, and ascended to heaven from a mountain, so his apostles and their successors down to the third century, preached in the streets, the markets, on mountains, in ships, sepulchers, eaves, and deserts, and in the homes of their converts."--Philip Schaff

In Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices, Frank Viola writes,

"The edifice complex is so ingrained in our thinking that if a group of believers begins to meet together, their first thoughts are toward securing a building. For how can a group of Christians rightfully claim to be a church without a building? (So the thinking goes.) The "church" building is so connected with the idea of church that we unconsciously equate the two."

"Strikingly, nowhere in the New Testament do we find the terms church (ekklesia), temple, or house of God used to refer to a building. The first recorded use of the word ekklesia to refer to a Christian meeting place was penned around AD 190 by Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215). Clement was also the first person to use the phrase "go to church"--which would have been a foreign thought to the first-century believers. (You cannot go to something you are!) Throughout the New Testament, ekklesia always refers to an assembly of people, not a place."

"Clement's reference to "going to church" is not a reference to attending a special building for worship. It rather refers to a private home that the second-century Christians used for their meetings. Christians did not erect special buildings for worship until the Constantinian era in the fourth century. New Testament scholar Graydon F. Snyder states, "There is no literary evidence nor archaeological indication that any such home was converted into an extant church building. Nor is there any extant church that certainly was built prior to Constantine. The first churches consistently met in homes. Until the year 300 we know of no buildings first built as churches."

"When Christianity was born, it was the only religion on the planet that had no sacred objects, no sacred persons, and no sacred spaces. Although surrounded by Jewish synagogues and pagan temples, the early Christians were the only religious people on earth who did not erect sacred buildings for their worship. The Christian faith was born in homes, out in courtyards, and along roadsides. For the first three centuries, the Christians did not have any special buildings. As one scholar put it, "The Christianity that conquered the Roman Empire was essentially a home-centered movement."

"Some have argued that this was because the Christians were not permitted to erect church buildings. But that is not true.Some have argued that the pre-Constantine Christians were poor and could not own property. But this is false. Under the persecution of Emperor Valerian (253-260), for example, all property owned by Christians was seized. L. Michael White points out that the early Christians had access to higher socioeconomic strata. Also, the Greco-Roman environment of the second and third century was quite open to many groups adapting private buildings for communal and religious use."

"Meeting in homes was a conscious choice of the early Christians. As Christian congregations grew in size, they began to remodel their homes to accommodate their growing numbers.One of the most outstanding finds of archaeology is the house of Dura-Europos in modern Syria. This is the earliest identifiable Christian meeting place. It was simply a private home remodeled as a Christian gathering place around AD 232. The house at Dura-Europos was essentially a house with a wall torn out between two bedrooms to create a large living room. With this modification, the house could accommodate about seventy people. Remodeled houses like Dura-Europos cannot rightfully be called "church buildings." They were simply homes that had been refurbished to accommodate larger assemblies."

In The AnteNicene Pascha, Karl Gerlach writes: "Deducing from 1 Cor. 14:23 that the entire community could meet at least for special occasions in the house of Gaius, [Jerome] Murphy O' Connor notes that the atrium and triclinium (dining room) even of luxurious homes would only have room for 50-60 people. The problem at the meal may have been between the wealthy "strong" who were privileged to dine in the triclinium on choice fare, while the "weak" were relegated to the atrium. Perhaps no one in Corinth felt called upon to enlarge the dining area as was done some generations later in the housechurch at Dura Europos, appropriately enough, by knocking out an interior wall."

Note: After looking at this picture of the house church at Dura Europos, you may ask: "What's the difference between this set up and a public building?" First, this is a home. Where is the dining hall? Where is the bedroom? The people placed in this picture are done so anachronistically. Based on Gerlach's quote above, I believe that the "Assembly Room" is the dining room where the triclinium (or "three couches" would be where first century custom was to "recline at table," Luke 22:14). Also, note that even this earliest known place of assembly was remodeled 200 years after the NT was written. In Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine, Graydon F. Snyder writes, concerning the room labeled "Teaching Area" (Bible class) above, that it would have "housed the living area of the women," so I believe that this was originally a bedroom.

TRANSITION FROM THE HOME TO THE CHURCH "BUILDING"

Frank Viola continues, "The Christians picked up from the pagans the practice of having meals in honor of the dead. Both the Christian funeral and the funeral dirge came straight out of paganism in the third century. Third-century Christians had two places for their meetings: their homes and the cemetery. They met in the cemetery because they wished to be close to their dead brethren. It was their belief that to share a meal at a cemetery of a martyr was to commemorate him and to worship in his company. Since the bodies of the "holy" martyrs resided there, Christian burial places came to be viewed as "holy spaces."

THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH BUILDING

(It is not the Old Testament Synagogue)

"In AD 312, Constantine became Caesar of the Western Empire. By 324, he became emperor of the entire Roman Empire. Shortly afterward, he began ordering the construction of church buildings. He did so to promote the popularity and acceptance of Christianity. If the Christians had their own sacred buildings-as did the Jews and the pagans-their faith would be regarded as legitimate."

"Constantine also borrowed from the pagans (not the Jews) the notion of the sacredness of objects and places. Constantine built his first church buildings upon the cemeteries where the Christians held meals for the dead saints. That is, he built them over the bodies of dead saints. Why? Because for at least a century beforehand, the burial places of the saints were considered holy spaces. The church edifices built under Constantine were patterned exactly after the model of the basilica. These were the common government buildings designed after Greek pagan temples. Basilicas served the same function as high school auditoriums do today. They were wonderful for seating passive and docile crowds to watch a performance."

"Let's explore the inside of the Christian basilica. It was an exact duplicate of the Roman basilica that was used for Roman magistrates and officers. Christian basilicas possessed an elevated platform where the clergy ministered. The platform was usually elevated by several steps. There was also a rail or screen that separated the clergy from the laity. In the center of the building was the altar. It was either a table (the altar table) or a chest covered with a lid. The altar was considered the most holy place in the building for two reasons. First, it often contained the relics of the martyrs. (After the fifth century, the presence of a relic in the church altar was essential to make the church legitimate.)"

"Second, upon the altar sat the Eucharist (the bread and the cup). The Eucharist, now viewed as a sacred sacrifice, was offered upon the altar. No one but the clergy, who were regarded as "holy men," were allowed to receive the Eucharist within the altar rails. In front of the altar stood the bishop's chair, which was called the cathedra. The term ex cathedra is derived from this chair. Ex cathedra means "from the throne."

"The bishop's chair, or 'throne' as it was called, was the biggest and most elaborate seat in the building. It replaced the seat of the judge in the Roman basilica. And it was surrounded by two rows of chairs reserved for the elders. The sermon was preached from the bishop's chair. The power and authority rested in the chair, which was covered with a white linen cloth. The elders and deacons sat on either side of it in a semicircle. The hierarchical distinction embedded in the basilican architecture was unmistakable. Interestingly, most present-day church buildings have special chairs for the pastor and his staff situated on the platform behind the pulpit. All of this is a clear carryover from the pagan basilica."

"All of these features were borrowed from the Greco-Roman culture and carried straight into the Christian church. Fourth-century Christianity was being profoundly shaped by Greek paganism and Roman imperialism. The upshot of it all was that there was a loss of intimacy and open participation. The professional clergy performed the acts of worship while the laity looked on as spectators."

"As with other pagan customs that were absorbed into the Christian faith (such as the liturgy, the sermon, clerical vestments, and hierarchical leadership structure), third- and fourth-century Christians incorrectly attributed the origin of the church building to the Old Testament. But this was misguided thinking."

THE BANQUET IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WORLD

 

Dennis E. Smith writes,

"Whenever they met as a church, early Christians regularly ate a meal together. In this they were no different from other religious people in their world: for when any group of people in the ancient Mediterranean world met for social or religious purposes, their gatherings tended to be centered on a common meal or banquet. It did not matter whether it was a social or religious occasion; nor what the ethnic group might be, whether Jewish or Greek or some other ethnic group; nor what the social class might be. If it were a special occasion, whether religious, social, or political, more often than not a formalized meal functioned as a centerpiece of the gathering."[Acts 20:7; cf. 1 Cor. 11:33, sp].

"Scholarship on early Christian meal traditions has tended to concentrate on the issue of the origins of the Eucharist and to define that issue in a deceptively narrow way. It is a perspective that does not develop naturally out of the ancient evidence, but rather represents a retrojection onto the ancient sources of the form taken by the Eucharist in the later "orthodox" church. Models are constructed for analyzing the ancient data based on the form of the Eucharist in the later church. The ancient data is not studied in its own right and on its own terms. Early Christianity was made up of varied groups, however, who adapted the common banquet tradition to their own situations. This proposal fits the form of our data, which witnesses to a variety of ways in which early Christians practiced communal meals. The process eventually led to the collapsing of all these traditions into one orthodox form and liturgy."

‎

"Many studies of early Christian meals attempt to compare them with forms of meals in their pagan environment. Invariably, however, what is compared is the assumed essence of the early Christian Eucharist, namely, its nature as a "sacramental" meal. The larger category into which the "sacramental" meal is generally placed is that of the "sacred" meal. But the category of sacred meal also lacks clarity. There is an assumption that it has little relation to the form of an ordinary banquet. Indeed, scholars in history of religions studies typically see sacred and secular as existing in two different realms. They then analyze the data based on this model. To be sure, they base this idea on foundational premises of the sociology of religion. Emile Durkheim, for example, defined the sacred and the profane as two separate realms of human existence. It is my contention, however, that the sacred versus secular model is not appropriate for ancient meals. Instead I consider meals to have an integrative function in ancient society in which they combine the sacred and the secular into one ritual event."

"Here I use the terms sacred and secular to refer to the degree to which meals might exhibit a religious purpose or might lack any religious emphasis at all. Most Greco-Roman meals would fall into a middle category in which they exhibit characteristics of both sacred and secular. Indeed, in ancient Mediterranean culture in general sacred and secular are interwoven and tend to be indistinct. To be sure, there are surely degrees of secularity or sacredness. On the one hand, in a normal formal meal, or banquet, it was customary to offer libations or prayers to the gods no matter how "secular" was the overall situation. On the other hand, there were varying degrees in which a meal might have religious connotations, depending on whether it was connected with a sacrifice, a sanctuary, or a religious association. Nevertheless, what is common to all such examples is that the meal itself was of the same form, that of the ancient banquet."

"Another significant feature of ancient banquets was the always-prominent idea of social ranking. The banquet provided a significant means for one's status in society to be formally recognized and acknowledged. Two aspects of the banquet especially carried this symbolism: the custom of reclining and the custom of ranking places at table. The act of reclining in itself was a mark of one's rank in society: only free citizens were allowed to recline. Notably excluded were women, children, and slaves. If they were present at the banquet, they would sit.”

Does not the following quote from James 2:1-6 make better sense in the above context rather than at a building full of pews where there are no "chief seats"?

"My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor."

Do not Paul's comments in 1 Cor. 11:18-34 make better sense in the context of a first century banquet meal than at a school-house lecture hall?

“In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world. So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions" (1 Cor. 11:17-34).

The context of Paul’s comments describes a first century banquet setting. Some were not sharing their meals with others and were told to eat at home if they could not wait on their brethren, and as a result of not being able to control themselves because of their hunger, were shaming those who had nothing. This context has nothing to do with an “inward examination." In Paul's context, the "body of Christ" that some were not discerning is the other members of the church. Those who had food to eat were not caring for "weaker body parts," or poorer brethren, who were also part of the body of Christ (10:17; cf. 12:20-27). Why do we perform hermeneutical gymnastics to remove first century culture from the Bible to maintain our inherited Catholic/Protestant modern practices?

While perhaps benign, the following quote seems to describe what Paul and James hope the church avoids doing in a cliquish way:

"The defining of boundaries is primary to the social code of banquets. That is to say, whom one dines with defines one's placement in a larger set of social networks. Because of the clear boundary-defining symbolism of table fellowship in the ancient world, banquets became a significant feature of various identifiable social groups. The social code of the banquet represents a confirmation and ritualization of the boundaries that exist in a social situation."

The following quote seems to grasp what Paul (1 Cor. 11:17-34) and James (2:1-6) wanted all Christians to enjoy on a equal basis:

"The act of dining together is considered to create a bond between the diners. In the ancient world this symbolism was carried by various elements of the banquet, such as the sharing of common food or sharing from a common table or dish. But above all it simply derived from the fact that the diners shared the event together. To be sure, the diners were normally already bonded into some sort of social network that existed before they gathered for dining. Thus the most common banquets were those of a family, a host and his close friends, or the members of a formally organized club or religious group. The banquet could also create ties that did not previously exist."

"Those who dined together were to be treated equally. This was a standard feature of ancient dining protocol. It functioned as an elaboration of the concept of social bonding at the meal and was a strong feature of banquet ideology at all levels of the data. The idea was that a meal that was shared in common and that created a sense of community among the participants should be one in which all could share equally and with full participation. In essence, then, a meal conceived in this way had the potential to break down social barriers and allow for a sense of social ordering internal to the group."

NOTE: Reading Romans chapters 14 and 15 in the context of Jews and Gentiles gathering for a meal, and the natural problems of dietary restrictions that would cause divisions (16:17), rather than some "compartmentalized fellowship meal after worship," makes better sense, as well. This is why we need to invite all to the assembly for the Lord’s Supper (we call it inviting folks to church), so that the borders of the kingdom of Christ may grow. Jesus was “inclusive” not “exclusive.” Jesus ate with publicans and sinners. The self-righteous and “religious” Pharisees would not and derided Him. We compartmentalize a “fellowship” meal with “sinners,” after worship, but we do not include them, because we assume a “sacred—secular” dichotomy between real life and worship. Including them as the Lord did will generate a genuine response within them to want to be among us and obey the Lord. To think otherwise is to think evil of them. Sadly, we are prone to use the state’s method of insisting they conform to our specified doctrines from the top-down or outside-in. The state uses fear to coerce. The Lord uses love.

‎

All the above information makes far more sense than the modern misinterpretation that says Paul was condemning a common meal and telling the Corinthians just to use a tiny piece of bread and sip of juice. Jesus took bread “while eating” a meal. “After the supper (deipnon, the common evening meal), He took the cup.”

Smith continues, “A banquet was an occasion of "good cheer" or "pleasure," viewed here as values that governed the proper meal. Another term for the good cheer of the banquet was festive joy (euphrosyn), which was seen as an essential component of the "proper" banquet. As such, it was spoken of as the gift of the god(s), and often associated with the wine. Festive joy was viewed not as an individual experience but as a social experience inherent to the overall communal function of the banquet. Indeed, a proper banquet could be judged by how well it promoted festive joy. Consequently, festive joy could also function as a category governing social obligation at the banquet."

"The ancient banquet presupposed entertainment as part of the event. This could vary from party games to dramatic presentations to music to philosophical conversation. It developed elaborate and specific variations according to the different settings and circumstances in which the banquet would be held. But no banquet would be complete as a social event without some form of entertainment.”

The above comments provide a different viewpoint to interpret Paul in 1 Corinthians chps. 11--14 and Eph. 5:19:

"What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God. Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.” (1 Cor. 14:26ff).

“Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph. 5:15ff).

Does Ephesians 5:19: “Do not get drunk on wine...instead be filled with the Spirit, sing and make music in your heart” make sense to you in the "worship setting" of sitting in a pew wearing your Sunday best and listening to a preacher? But what if you were attending a banquet in the first century where the evening meal (deipnon, Luke 22:20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:20) was followed by a symposium (entertainment, conversation) that for pagans often included getting drunk and behaving immorally? When we read Ephesians 5:1-24 and 1 Corinthians chapters 5--6 with the banquet context on our minds—not the "public worship building brought in by Constantine in AD 312—330," then the text comes alive! And in the case of 1 Corinthians 5 rather shockingly! And Paul was shocked! Talk about an "unscriptural worship service!"

"When Israel had departed from God's original thought, the prophet cried: "Thus says the LORD, Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; and you will find rest for your souls"' (Jeremiah 6:16, NASB). In the same way, can we shun the vain traditions of men and return to the ancient paths ... those holy traditions that were given to us by Jesus Christ and His apostles?"--F. Viola

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident."--Arthur Schopenhauer

GOING TO CHURCH IN THE FIRST CENTURY: PART THREE

________________________________________

Frank Viola; George Barna. Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices. Kindle Edition.

Dennis E. Smith. From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World. Kindle Edition.

Robert Banks. Paul's Idea of Community. Revised Edition.

Graydon F. Snyder. Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine.

Karl Gerlach. The AnteNicene Pascha: A Rhetorical History.

All bold quotes for emphasis and underlined comments mine, sp.