House Church Architecture
In the early days of Christianity, followers of the Way met and gathered in whatever spaces were available to them. More often than not these gatherings took place in private residences. The importance of these early gathering places was largely ignored until 1939 when Floyd V. Filson wrote an article proclaiming the need for an examination of the impact of house structures on the early church. While these structures varied widely according to region, setting, and economic or social level, it can be helpful to examine a cross-section of each in order to cast light on the backdrop of these early Christian assemblies. The structure and architecture of these “house churches” made a tremendous impact on the early development of the Christian movement. Rightly understanding the environment and context of these meetings continues to affect our interpretation of much of the New Testament.
Little about the size and structure of first century houses can be gleaned from the New Testament. In the gospel accounts there is no significant architectural information, but there are a few small hints as to the nature of the typical dwelling. There are references to the roof, doorway, foundation, lighting, and of course the upper room.[1] While not much can be interpreted from these references there is much that can be understood about these passages once we understand that to which they are referring. The story of the paralytic being lowered through the roof (Mk 2:4) does not translate well into today’s society, but makes perfect sense when we realize that many of the houses at the time were built around an atrium which was open to the sky. Small details like these from the gospels can broaden our overall understanding of the world in which Jesus lived and ministered.
Most of the biblical attestation to houses in the first century and their impact on the church come from the book of Acts and the letters of Paul. The first possible mention of a house church in the book of Acts can be seen on the day of Pentecost. "When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting." (Acts 2:1-2, NASB95)[2] Depending on the interpretation of “all” there could be anywhere from twelve to one hundred and twenty people in that house. From this point on the number of Christians multiplied rapidly, and there was a greater need for spaces to gather. If we assume that Luke’s numbers are close to accurate, then there would soon be thousands of Christians to accommodate. In Jerusalem this was not as critical an issue, because it is readily assumed that the Christians continued to meet in the synagogues while there, but once Paul began his missionary journeys throughout the rest of the Mediterranean world and establishing churches, there was an immediate need for a place to gather.
Paul refers to a number of houses in which churches meet throughout his letters (Rom. 16:5, 1Cor. 11:12, Col. 4:15). While there are more details than in the gospel accounts, there is still far from sufficient evidence to get a clear picture about the world of the New Testament. In order to truly understand these dwellings, we have to examine them through the scope of archaeology. One could guess that these houses would differ significantly by region and that does turn out to be the case. “Housing patterns, of course, varied considerably across the Empire. The Italian villa, the Greek peristyle, and the Hellenistic-oriental multistoried insula, apartments, and others had their own local stylistic traditions.”[3] It would be beyond the scope of this study to examine all of these local variations, so we are going to tackle their over-arching influence. “In the words of archaeologist H. K. Beebe, ‘The impact of Greek culture upon the people of Palestine was stunning’. Remote villages may have escaped Hellenization, but ‘city life was revolutionized.’”[4] While there are differences in the housing structures from region to region, there are also common features influenced by the culture of the Graeco-Roman world. “The wealthy house of NT times in Palestine was similar to the Roman house everywhere.”[5]
We will primarily examine the houses and dwellings of the city of Rome to get an overall impression of the typical structures common to the time period. Rome was the largest of the Mediterranean cities with a population around 650,000 at the end of the first century. From the time of the first century on, more and more people continued to move into the cities and over-crowding became a serious problem. The three most common structures in the Roman world were the town house or domus, the apartment or insula, and the villa. Since most of Paul’s ministry focused on the cities of the Roman empire, we will concentrate on the architecture of the domus and insula which made up the majority of city life, while the villas were generally found in more rural settings. While the domus may have been the primary structure in city life early on, it was quickly overshadowed by the insula as space became a premium.
The figure below is of a typical domus style town-house in Rome.
1. Atrium 9. Exhedra/Oecus
2. Peristylium 10. Taberna
3. Vestibulum 11. Cubiculum
4. Fauces 12. Andron
5. Impluvium 13. Posticum
6. Ala 14. Bathroom
7. Triclinium 15. Cucina
8. Tablinum
These houses have their roots in early Etruscan houses that were inwardly designed and built around a central atrium. Most of the other rooms were placed around the atrium with each designed for a specific function (a person only ate in the dining room, slept in the bedroom, etc.). Later the Peristyle, which could be seen as a small garden, was added along with surrounding rooms. “An interesting thing to note about the layout of the Roman house, is that the names given to the front part of the house around the atrium are Latin, whereas those in the back are largely Greek.”[6] Both of these structures are adapted to the climate of the Mediterranean. They are both open to the sky to allow in cool air to circulate throughout the house, and to utilize the abundance of rainwater. In the peristyle the rainwater would water the plants in the garden, and in the atrium the water would be collected in the impluvium, which was a small pool sunk into the floor, and was sometimes attached to a collection tank. The openings or compluvium in the atrium and Peristylium provided the majority of light and air into the house since there were very few if any windows.
In between these two rooms was the tablinum, which served as the reception area or as the study for the head of the house or paterfamilias. This room was generally well decorated with wall paintings and floor mosaics, and housed the important documents such as family records and finances kept locked away in a chest or safe. Curtains were generally preferred to doors on the inside of the house, so there were little or no obstructions between the two great rooms. “Often a visual axis ran from the door through the atrium, then through the tablinum, that is, through the “living room/office” where the owner was displayed as if upon a stage (with the floor actually built a few inches higher than the other rooms), and then into the peristyle, the colonnaded garden.”[7] The tablinum was a sort of cut-off from the more public parts of the house around the atrium to the more private areas around the peristylium.
A word should be said here about privacy in relation to the modern perception of the word. Due to the lack of space in the cities, there were generally no front lawns or even walkways. Most houses sat abreast of the street and most of the front of the house was somewhat considered public space. The door, if there was one, was left open and people were coming and going all throughout the day. “Access was much more fluid than modern persons typically allow, more analogous to modern businesses where customers regularly enter and leave than to modern western homes.”[8] There was very limited privacy. The notion of privacy was measured in relation to the other rooms of the house. For example, the atrium was less private than the peristylium which in turn was less private than the triclinium.
The triclinium was the dining room, and was typically found in the back of the house as it was one of the more private rooms. Dinner was typically an extravagant event in the Roman world and generally lasted for several hours, from late in the afternoon until late in the evening. The triclinium was also well furnished and decorated and derives its name from the couches used for seating in the room. Typically there were three couches to accommodate nine people in the main triclinium, but many houses had multiple rooms for different sized gatherings. The diners would recline, much like the beloved disciple in John 13:23, and eat as the slaves brought in the progressive courses and occasionally provided entertainment for them as well. Guests would be arranged in varying degrees of proximity to the host based on their relationship and status. Upon entering the room it would be immediately evident as to the social status of the diners based on their positions.
The final features of the house that need to be highlighted are the outward facing rooms at the front known as Taberna. These rooms, while sometimes just used for storage, were more often used as shops, or rented out to poor client families of the patron. The Taberna were typical throughout most types of Roman housing, both in the domus and in the Insula. In the domus they occupied the front of the building, but usually had no access to the interior of the home. In the insula, the taberna were built on the ground floor with the rest of the apartment building above it. Now that we have a basic idea as to the structure of the typical domus, we sill take a brief look at the construction of the insula.
The insula came to prominence as the people moved into the city from the country side in larger and larger numbers. These apartment-like structures were quickly erected to accommodate the influx of lower and middle class citizens. By the time of the fourth century insula outnumbered domus by a ratio of 25 to 1. “The vast majority of city residents were non-elites; city-born plebeians, displaced peasants and a sprinkling of capable immigrants and freedmen.”[9] As they were hastily built, they tended to be of very poor construction. They were in constant need of repair and quite prone to catching fire. Some insula went as high as six or seven stories until height restrictions were placed on them. The more desirable apartments were closer to the ground floor, and the conditions only worsened as one climbed higher. In the lower apartments, there could be a number of rooms for different uses, but those at the top tended to consist of just one room. The insula functioned in much the same way as the domus, but on a smaller and more cramped scale. If there were multiple rooms then they were used for very specific functions.
So what does all of this architectural data tell us about the early church? As it turns out, quite a number of things. Not only does this data help us to picture and visualize events recorded in the Bible, such as the disciples reclining in the triclinium during the last supper, but it enlightens our interpretation of much of the New Testament and the history of the church.
Probably the most influential facet of the architecture on the early church was simply the aspect of size. While the first Christians in Jerusalem may have continued to meet in the temple, that was not the case throughout much of the New Testament world. There was a plurality of churches meeting in houses where the gospel spread, and possibly even in Jerusalem as well (Acts 2:46). From the book of Romans, we have evidence of at least five different house churches (16:5, 10, 11, 14, 15) in the city of Rome in the middle of the first century.
We should note here the differences between the various terms used for distinguishing the utilization of private houses for worship. The term “house church” that we have been using throughout this study refers to a room of a private domestic house that was used at certain times for religious purposes without any structural changes to the house. Later in the development of the church, the term “church house” came to be applied to a room or a number of rooms in a private domestic house that was used exclusively for religious purposes and had undergone some structural adaptations. The final term “church hall” generally refers to a private house or building that was specifically adapted for exclusive religious purposes.[10] The latter two terms came later in the development of Christianity, and will not be covered here.
These original house churches probably accommodated from 20 to 40 people. They would have originally met in the triclinium as they continued to break bread together, and as they grew larger may have moved into the atrium and finally into the peristylium. It would have been rare for all of these early Roman house churches to have the opportunity to meet together as one body, because there simply was not a sufficient space to do so. This division early on due to the lack of a sizable meeting place could have led to a number of problems within the church.
In his book Paul’s Idea of Community, Robert Banks suggests that the quarreling between those that belonged to Paul, Apollos, or Peter referred to various house churches begun by the different ministers. One of the reasons that Paul is forced to so frequently condemn false teaching and teachers, is that there is no cohesive training for all of the churches even in the same community. “The proneness to division that we see in the apostolic churches was not unconnected with the division of the Christians of a particular city into house churches.”[11]They did not have the Bible as we do now as the standard for orthodox teaching. It would have been easy for the individuals in the church to be caught up in a form of “emperor worship” with their leaders, because that is all that they knew of Christianity.
Another issue derived from the structure of the individual house churches is that of polity. Who were the leaders of the churches, and how were they chosen? It seems natural that the paterfamilias took on a leadership role, or the leadership role since the church met in his house, and there was already a built in authority pattern. “In the undisputed Pauline Letters, nothing is said about the official installation of church leaders through Paul or anyone else. This could be related to the fact that it did not appear necessary because leadership structures were already built in to the ancient household.”[12] The leaders of the church were the heads of the house, be that a good thing or a bad thing. Could this possibly be a reason that Paul excludes women from his discussion about the requirements for leadership in the church? "(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)," (1Timothy 3:5, NASB95)[13] This notion of the head of house becoming the head of the church seems predisposed to lend itself to the development of the office of the bishop
Paul’s continual references to the church as a family make perfect sense in the context of the first century house church. “The family house-hold basis must have had an overwhelming effect on the earliest believers’ understanding of the church as family, the very ‘household of God’ (Eph. 2:18-19; 3:14-15; 5:1; 6:23).”[14] This dynamic would have had a tremendous impact on the church. Within the typical domus there were generally a number of families represented. Not only the family of the patron, but also the slaves and those who my have rented the adjoining taberna. There would have been a large blend of people in the more public areas of the house, such as the atrium, but farther back in the more private areas of the house there would have been little association between classes. Slaves and clients did not eat with there patrons, and many times wives did not even eat with their husbands. Inviting the whole congregation into the triclinium to eat would have been entirely intrusive. These church meetings in the private areas of the house truly evened out the social levels.
Being in such a close proximity with such a blend of classes also helped to promote the unity of the church. “Hence by necessity these first Christian communities were small, family-like groups in which individual pastoral care, intimate personal relationships, and accountability to each other were possible.”[15] Only in the context of the home could these relationships develop the way that they did. They could cry together, and sing together, and eat together because they were within the safety of the walls of the home.
The public nature of the houses also made an impact on the church gatherings. If the church had outgrown the triclinium and was meeting in the atrium then it was open for all and everyone to enter. Paul may have been referring to this fact in 1Corinthians 14:23 when he said “Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?"[16] This type of assembly sounds far different from the secretive meetings of the later Gnostic teachings. Everything that a person taught and the way that he lived and ran his house was open for everyone to see. How many pastors today struggle to balance running their church and running their home? Neither could be neglected because they were one and the same, and they were everybody’s business.
The house church was the predominant venue for Christian worship until the 4th century when Constantine came to power. Christians faced tremendous persecution previous to this time, and it would not have been wise to broadcast one’s beliefs by building a cathedral. In the middle of the 3rd century, as more and more of the church body would have been housed in insula there became a greater need for more defined places of worship. The church houses and church halls eventually led the transition to the basilica and ever greater architectural wonders. Trapped inside those cold stone walls of the cathedral, we are so far removed from the warmth and merriment of the modest Roman triclinium. Why did we ever change?
----
[1] Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, Map on Lining Papers. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1988).
[2] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995.
[3] Roger W. Gehring, House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 57.
[4]Albert A. Bell, Exploring the New Testament World (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1998), 207.
[5]D. R. W. Wood, New Bible Dictionary (InterVarsity Press, 1996, c1982, c1962), 490.
[6] The Roman-Empire, “The Roman House”; available from http://www.romanempire.net/society/soc-house.html; Internet; accessed 25 October 2007.
[7] Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World Households and House Churches. The Family, Religion, and Culture (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 25.
[8] Ibid.
[9] A.B. du Toit, The New Testament Milieu (Halfway House: Orion, 1998), 98.
[10] Roger W. Gehring, House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 288.
[11] Robert J. Banks, Paul's Idea of Community The Early House Churches in Their Historical Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 44.
[12] Roger W. Gehring, House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 298.
[13] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995.
[14] Vincent P. Branick, The House Church in the Writings of Paul (Wilmington: M.Glazier, 1989), 55.
[15] Roger W. Gehring, House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 290.
[16] New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995.