Scale model of First Century Jerusalem, centered on Herod’s Temple.
Larry Creek asked me in a comment,
[1] I have not found many that have expounded upon how those who left Jerusalem to go back home lived the same guidelines for their worship gatherings as have been evidenced in the city. …
[2] As you mentioned there was no quick easy communication available [for the Jerusalem church after Pentecost] … . I do have a problem seeing 3000 + later 5000 all being able to meet as as one body as we visualize that many being able to gather together today. …
[3] Being an Elder yourself could you give us an idea how an Eldership today could shepherd over a flock of 8000 with the same technology that was available back then?
1. After Pentecost, it’s likely that the visitors from other nations stayed around for a while to learn from the apostles. Travel in those days was very expensive and very slow. People didn’t go to Judea for a 3-day vacation. They went to stay for weeks, or else the travel would have taken longer than the visit itself.
Moreover, the travelers would not have felt the need to get back in a hurry. That’s for us Westerners with our wristwatches. Travel was so uncertain, no one could know for sure which week he’d return, and so arrangements back home would have been made that would allow the travelers to be gone for an indefinite time. (Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible
Therefore, it seems likely that the out-of-country converts stayed around long enough to be well-instructed by the apostles.
Regarding the Ethiopian eunuch, Acts 8 gives the impression that the eunuch went straight back to Ethiopia after his conversion, leaving no time for further instruction. In fact, the Christian church in Ethiopia is very ancient and claims to date back to the conversion of the eunuch.
It’s possible, of course, that Philip arranged for someone to travel to Ethiopia to give further instructions. Given the strong missionary impulse of the early church, it’s easy to imagine. Acts was never intended to cover the full extent of the early church’s missionary work.
For that matter, it’s possible that there were Jews who lived in Ethiopia present and converted at Pentecost, who later returned to Ethiopia to help establish the church there. The list of nations represented in Acts 2 is clearly not intended to be exclusive.
Nubian village on Elephantine Island in the Nile River
The Jewish Elephantine settlement in Egypt was close to the Ethiopian (Nubian) border, and Acts 2 is clear that Jews from Egypt were there.
So it’s not necessary to suppose that the Ethiopian eunuch was specially inspired to found the Christian church in Ethiopia (although that’s certainly possible).
I suspect that the church there was founded by a combination of the eunuch and Jewish Christians either from Egypt (Elephantine being their likely home) or else sent by the Jerusalem church.
2. Meeting as a church of 3,000 or more was actually easy — the Temple courts were public spaces, suitable for a very large gathering, and plenty big enough. Herod built the courts so large they were bigger than the mountain top — and so he built massive stone walls to allow extra space to the filled in. That is, the courts were nearly as large as his ego.
The picture at the top of the post is helpful, but it’s hard to get a sense of scale from the photo. The colonnades on the Temple’s perimeter are three stories tall on one side. It’s really big.
Of course, speaking to such a large crowd seem unimaginable in this age of electronic sound amplification — but in the 19th Century, Spurgeon preached to crowds of over 10,000 without a microphone. It took special training, but there were men gifted to do that.
Not many years ago, Church of Christ preacher Willard Collins had such a big voice that he had congregations turn the microphones OFF as unnecessary. He overpowered the electronics!
Besides, I imagine the teaching largely took place in the houses, and the gathering at the Temple was mainly for the sake of prayer (the Temple was a “house of prayer”); we forget how seriously the early church took that need.
3. It would be very hard to shepherd such a large church as we understand “shepherd” today. I mean, the apostles would have spent literally all their time at funerals and hospital visitations in a church that large. And can you imagine the time needed to counsel members with troubled marriages and unruly children. Just the “pastoral” burden would be overwhelming with only 12 apostles acting as elders for a church of over 10,000 members.
But I don’t see the apostles doing those sorts of things. They described their role in Acts 6:4 as the ministry of the word and prayer. And I imagine that meant leading prayers at the Temple more than prayers in a quiet private room. Why not pray at the best place on the planet to pray when it’s just a few blocks away? That’s how First Century Jews thought about the Temple (see N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God
Teaching was likely largely house to house (compare Acts 20:20). And so they likely organized into neighborhood sub-churches, so that an apostle could visit the home of Br. Jakob and quickly gather all the brothers and sisters nearby (houses were built tight up against each other — no yards to speak of) for a lesson.
The Jewish style of teaching was normally not a sermon, as we think of sermons, but a class taught with questions and answers (which is why Jesus is so often asked questions). It’s not that no sermons were ever delivered (such as the Sermon on the Mount) but that the usual setting for a lesson was at the synagogue or over dinner, and these formats lent themselves to a question and answer format.
Their way of “doing church” might have been very different from our own — with apostles and other gifted teachers going literally house to house, perhaps every night of the week visiting a different home to teach the gospel to new converts.
“Worship” would have been centered on common meals, house-based, and probably based on where people lived. The Lord’s Supper, prayers, greetings with the Holy Kiss, a few hymns, and a time of fellowship (Eastern style, meaning no real time limit) were likely the substance of the event. No sermons but classes, and those might be taught at a different time entirely — all that plus a weekly trip to the Temple for a word of encouragement from the apostles plus a lengthy time of prayer.
I’m speculating, I admit, but that seems to make sense to me.
Conclusion. Plainly, the Jerusalem church “did church” differently from us. The apostles were not focused on pastoral concerns but on teaching and prayer. The church fed widows in need. They met in homes as well as at the Temple.
The Temple, of course, was still operating as a center for animal sacrifice and had instrumental music and the Levites singing in choirs. It’s clear that the early church did not surrender its Jewishness and continued to consider the Temple ceremonies as legitimate, although destined to soon end.
The only space in Jerusalem big enough for the entire church was the Temple, and so they periodically met there — to be together and demonstrate the unity that God gives through the Spirit. This made their activities extremely public.
But they also met house to house, because it’s just not practical to teach classes and eat together in groups of 10,000 people in a borrowed space. The house meetings served to build truly intimate, loving bonds among the members, and common meals not only brought people together, but in that culture, symbolized acceptance and hospitality and even protection.
Thus, when priests and Pharisees sat next to beggars and newly converted prostitutes at the home of a merchant, a new way of relating to each other was being taught and displayed. No longer were “sinners” and others too “unclean” to eat with. The blood of Jesus washes away the filth, leaving only holiness, forcing a levelized, non-hierarchical social structure that was very different from the Roman and even Jewish way of life.
The emphasis, therefore, was not on Five Acts of Worship but living in a way that demonstrates the changes made by the gospel. And the gospel promises that one day we’ll join Jesus at a great wedding feast with all the saved — and the common meals and the Lord’s Supper anticipate this great day, showing how faith allows the future to change the present.
Have you ever wondered why the Jewish leaders allowed this new church to meet in the Temple?
Good question Michael.. @ Jay.. Have you ever written anything that spoke about the earliest believers and their relationship to the Temple? I think many forget how the whole of Christianity as it is now known, was so completely Jewish in the early days.. Lot’s of good stuff to mine unless you’ve already plowed that field..
How would the jewish leaders know if someone accepted Jesus as messiah? Christianity started out as messianic judaism.
If you want a modern day answer to this question then attend the yearly GROW conference at Church of Highlands in Birmingham usually in August. They share completely how to shepherd/pastor large churches. I could tell you, but it’s something you need to experience. The biblical principles of empowerment, prayer and fasting are taken seriously. The Holy Spirit fills their people and their worship, and Jesus is the Sheperd over that church. They do four things (Exodus 6-the text referenced for the four cups of the Passover) bring people out, set them free, empower them for ministers, then turn them lose. All you have to do is look at their extraordinary blessings, very few modern day church comes close to doing what they have done in some 12 plus years.
Mike their small group system is impressive, constantly training new leaders who can/will replicate the process of making new disciples.
Larry’s question is good. But why imagine that the early Christians had worship services? Nothing in apostolic writings would indicate that they ever held a service aimed at “worship.” Instead, they met to study and to learn and to teach and to heal and to bless one another.
Michael,
The early church was comprised entirely of Jews, who continued Jewish practices, worship, and dress. Their distinguishing feature was belief that Jesus is the Messiah — a very Jewish concern — and they were not the first or last Jews to claim that a messiah had come. So initially, the Jewish leaders just didn’t care.
However, the early chapters of Acts records shifting attitudes and strategies. As the political implications of Jesus as Messiah came clearer (Jesus is king; therefore, we will obey God speaking through Jesus rather than the mere men of the Sanhedrin), the Jewish authorities sought to suppress the new movement,first through intimidation, then arrests, then imprisonment of the leaders, and finally by murdering prominent leaders and persecuting individual Christian families.
The Temple was public space, controlled by the priests and Levites (more or less the Sadducees), but ultimately by Herod (whichever Herod was ruling at the time as vassal to Rome). They may not have been able to bar Christians from the Temple without bringing some sort of charges against them. But the church was well established by the time the authorities began deadly persecutions — partly at the behest of Saul of Tarsus. (See earlier post on Paul and Phinehas: /2013/12/paul-and-the-faithfulness-of-god-re-imagining-the-symbols-of-the-jewish-worldview-battle/).
They adopted a strategy of going after just the leaders at first. I imagine that once they started persecuting families (8:3), the Temple meetings ended. This was also the time when Stephen was martyred, and so over time, the earthly powers went from not noticing to outright murder to stop the church, but this took place over a period of years.
The church continued to grow and even to spread despite, even due to, the persecutions. And Acts does not continue the story of the Jerusalem church much after Paul’s conversion. From history we know that the church continued to grow, and it seems likely that the persecutions were relaxed. After all, it wasn’t long before the Jewish authorities were more concerned with rebelling against Rome than persecuting the Christians. But these are part of the same mindset — to seek purity and please God, the Jewish leaders wanted to purge sin (such as the Christians) and bring about the Kingdom by their own hands by overthrowing Rome.
So there are a lot of un-answered questions.
Price,
The got-to-read book is In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity by Oskar Skarsaune, explaining how very Jewish the church remained for centuries, even among the Gentiles. Very readable, important study.
By the time the book of Hebrews was written, the temptation to forsake Christ for the old way(to get right with God) was very strong. In part because of the amount of money they would make and the security they would enjoy. Thus, the writer warns them to stay away from greed.
A few claim that the Hebrew writer commands the Christian Jews to abandon all their worship customs. But he/she did no such thing. Only to forsake the old way of covenantal union in favor of the new climatic way of salvation and sanctification(Jesus). A place where those taunting Jews have no right to eat. Who worship the system rather then the one who created it.
In conclusion, “suffering outside the camp” is not a call to discard everything Jewish. But rather to embrace suffering if that’s what’s needed to maintain fidel to the cause of Christ.
thanks Jay for the two video’s
i really loved the conversations between those two!
so …much said in so few words 🙂
RICH
LIKE J.M.H
Jay,
While reading your post I was remembering the message you directed me to about the size of the Israelite Nation, and their journey through history. If I remember right the authors proposed a very small occupancy for the Israelite Nation during the time of David, I thought that the facilities had been constructed by his son Solomon would have been an enormous monstrosity compared to their proposal for the population of the Israelite Nation. As you have explained the enormous size of the facilities at Jerusalem at this time, the population of Jerusalem must have been great even before the influx of Jews from all over the known world.
I had understood by previous studies, even though not directly highlighting the population, that on the Day of Pentecost those who accepted the teachings and who were baptized 3000 was a very small percentage of the total population. Even later when 5000 more were added, the Jews nor the Romans identified an immediate threat to their positions. It also appears to me that there was a considerable length of time elapsed till they became worried. All of this information still leaves me in aw as to the magnitude of the number of individuals who were in Jerusalem at that time.