A Tale of Five Cities

A History of the Five Patriarchal Cities of the Early Church

Thompson

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2009
• eBook ISBN: 9781498274470
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

The worship and organization of the Christian church must be defined by the Hellenistic world in which it took root and emerged victorious over Roman Imperial paganism. The struggle of the early church to maintain a testimony and doctrine that would be faithful to the Rule of Faith--which was established by the authority of certain Apostles who had the biggest impact in setting up the missional churches of the first century--and would conform to Jesus Christ's earthly ministry. Eusebia (piety) marks the Hellenistic understanding of all worship based on the relationships that are changed as a result of an encounter with a supreme being. This opens the door to explore all the aspects of Church History as a product of corporate worship. Five cities emerge in the apologetic and concilar church ages (150-850 CE) that have the greatest impact on the world of Christianity for all time. Those churches are called the Patristic churches because their bishops became the power holders of all the churches (for good or for bad). This book provides insight into the contribution of the five patriarchal cities (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople) to the worship, polity, doctrine, and traditions of the church. The account begins with the exegetical back-drop of the Hebrew and Greek words for worship and the impact of these in the milieu of a Jewish church and a gentile church. The study of the patriarchal leadership in the apostolic, apologetic, and concilar ages of the church marks a clear direction of the church to the beginnings of the medieval era. It clearly delineates the differences in the East and West and the struggles within the Empire to gain unity through preeminence of polity. A unique approach was taken to combine the historical events and activities of the leaders of each of the churches with motive and intent toward good or bad. It was written from a Protestant and Orthodox perspective, which adds insight to set up the spiritual and theological reasons for the Reformation that begun under Wycliffe, Huss, and later Luther.

1

Introduction to the History of the Five Patriarchal Cities

A study of the history of corporate worship and administration found in the five patriarchal cities of the early church in no way can be comprehensive. Where does one go to collect the historical data for such a project? How does one make the project a task that can be completed? How is worship distinguished from ritual, and administration from political gain and intrigue? In asking these questions the reader will perceive the monumental undertaking of the project.

It is best not to distinguish worship from ritual as a historical observer because in any form of corporate worship there will be individuals participating who are in every spiritual sense of the word “worshiping,” and in the same setting, individuals who are “practicing ritual.” The administration of the church is in like manner tightly related to and linked to worship, because the administration is the maintenance and control of the environment surrounding the corporate service of worship through doctrine, prayer, evangelism, and life conduct. Therefore, in order to introduce corporate worship and administration, I will draw some parameters for the study.

This research is confined to the history of church of the God of the canonized Christian Scriptures (66 books) as defined by the sixteenth-century Reformers, and that corporate worship and administration is identified by orthodoxy (biblical and historical). Attention may and must be given to some movements in history labeled as heresy. The historical time concern will concentrate from 35 ce to the sixth century ce.

To accomplish this great task I will focus my attention on the five primal church cities in which Christianity has its roots. Ultimately, the churches of most importance to history and which provide us tradition and progress toward a worldwide evangelism are the five patriarchal churches identified from Constantine onward. These are Jerusalem from 35 ce to 115 ce, Antioch from 35 ce to 550 ce, Rome from 35 ce to 450 ce, Alexandria from 40 ce to 500 ce, and Constantinople from 323 ce to 550 ce. These churches represent the study of the transition from a Judaistic worship to a Gentile church form of worship and administration.

The method of my study takes a historical theological approach. Source material is used when possible. The writings of the church fathers are of particular importance and help to establish connection to the time that these churches were conducting their affairs in administration and worship. I do not attempt to analyze liturgies that were prevalent and in use in past days, except where they establish the orthodoxy of doctrine and practice for the whole of the church.

After defining the terms that are relevant in the Scriptures, I will establish the position that most of the churches in their settings contributed to the understanding that worship is a life experience, and that all that was done was to be a testimony to God and his righteousness. This was the understanding of the Greek philosophical schools. Pistis and pisteuein (faith and to believe) were always accompanied by the preposition eis (into). If I was a stoic philosopher, I believed into my system of thought, rhetoric, and life. If I was an Epicurean philosopher, I believed into my system of thought, rhetoric, and life. All those with whom I was in contact would know me by my philosophy. As soon as I opened my mouth in word, all those hearing me knew who I was. This Eastern (Hellenistic) concept of belief permeates the Eastern churches and establishes that all my acts are worship to my God whom I serve in eusebeia (piety). In contrast to the Hellenistic East was the Latin West, which believed on, or unto something. The foundation did not incorporate me into it but allowed me to jump on and off at will so that I lived two lives, the life of a believer and also the life of a secular citizen. In the East there was no distinction between secular and sacred.

What Is Worship in the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures?

In the Old Testament there are three words commonly translated as “worship.”

SHAHAH means to bow down, to prostrate oneself before another for the purpose of giving that one homage, honor, and reverence. This is a mode certainly indicating salutation, as the worshiper initially enters into the presence of the objective of worship. The act of greeting the one in authority by kneeling to the ground and touching one’s forehead to the ground also invokes the image of this word. I must also confess that the word has been used historically in regard to a king-to-subject relation.

SeGID, in the Aramaic, refers also to the act of worship in the same way as the Hebrew word SHAHAH.

ASAB is a Hebrew word that means to carve, to labor, to serve an idol. The worship form of idolatry in the Hebrew mind begins with the making of the idol through carving or some other form of labor. The intent of the worship is to create the object that one will then serve in his labor.

In defining the word “worship” it is expedient also to distinguish between false practices of worship in the historical settings in which the words came forth. As ASAB means to carve, to labor, to serve an idol, there are two distinct criteria within the definition that point toward the falsity of the worship (ASAB). This term denotes that man has created the object of worship for his own edification, and such an object is the product of man’s hands. The outcome of the planning process replaces the reverence and homage to the true God with the service to that “thing” which can be controlled, namely, man’s own creation. Secondly, that man who created the image or object will serve the object in his labor whether the created object is physical or imagined.

We see in Exodus that the Law Moses receives is to be kept as a condition for “possessing” the land that the Israelites are given in fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham about the “ownership” of the land. A clear distinction will be made between these two covenants: The one is a promise to Abraham that YHWH would be God to “his descendants (seed)” and would “give” to Abraham’s offspring the land of Abraham’s sojourning (Canaan) (Gen 17:7–8). The sign of this “everlasting” covenant was circumcision. To the Jew, circumcision became a sign to the world that he was a part of the Hebrew race and a participator in the covenants with YHWH. It was also a sign to God that the Jew was obedient to that sign of circumcision and therefore could be allowed to approach YHWH through the interworkings of the priest and the sacrificial system affiliated with the temple that was given through Moses.

The second everlasting covenant is given through Moses, and does not nullify or add conditions to the first. Moses is given these words, “If you . . . keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a Holy nation” (Ex 19:6 asv). Upon this the Law was given to Moses to speak to the people. He was asked to come up again taking with him Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders of the tribes to worship at a distance, and it says “they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they beheld God and they ate and drank” (Ex 24:10 nasb). From there Moses was summoned to the mountain and given the stone tablets and a large portion of the rest of the Law, including a pattern for making the sign of this covenant, the Ark and the tabernacle. These were the conditions for Israel to “possess” the land of Canaan, from which God himself would drive out its inhabitants.

As SHAHAH in Hebrew connotes that the individual is responding to or toward the one in the superior seat, be that a person of higher status or a being of superiority such as God. The key in the equation is individual, and not group, congregation, crowd, or corporation. Worship, then must be understood as the individual response to God. Be that as it may, observation of worship will never be perceived on the individual level, but on the corporate. So then, what is observed in the worship form is not the actual worship itself. To the Hebrew, the superior seat was in the “temple of the Lord.” But as the prophet warned “Trust ye not in lying words, saying, ‘The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these’” (Jer 7:4 kjv). In Israel it was easy to believe that the protection afforded to the nation was on account of the temple being in Jerusalem. So it was in Jerusalem at the ministry of Christ that the Jews put their faith and worship in the building and not the Lord. The worship revolved around it, and the nation was unable to function in their ritual and worship without it, yet the Lord had declared the temple to be “a house of prayer,” oikos proseuchēs (Matt 21:13). The ministry of James as described by Heggesipus and recorded in Eusebius illustrates this point well: “he used to enter the temple alone and was often found kneeling and imploring the forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like a camel’s from his continual kneeling in worship to God and in prayer for the people.”1

By the time of the destruction of the city and the temple, three sects of Jews were fighting each other for the possession of the temple, and they believed that the possession of it would make everything right, even the hatred of each other. There is a story in the Talmud about a servant who had misread the guest list of his master and invited a bar Kamza (the known enemy of the host) instead of his friend Kamza. When the day of the feast was at hand the enemy showed up at the banquet. The host, deeply riled by his enemy’s presence, sought to remove him by force. Bar Kamza appealed to the host’s sense of fair play saying that he should allow him to stay so as not to humiliate him before such important guests. Bar Kamza even negotiated and finally offered to pay for the entire banquet, but the host’s hatred would not allow for any mercy, and the unwanted guest was thrown out of the banquet with due force. The rabbinic teachings attributed the destruction of the second temple in 70 ce to the host in this story and placed the blame on a certain Zechariah ben Abkilus, a leader of the zealots, who did not cast his vote to kill the bar Kamza and remove the defiling element from the temple.2 But according to Josephus, because of the martyrdom of James the Just the destruction of the temple would not be postponed. He believed that the hatred of these three groups overwhelmed the compassion that God would have toward even his temple and therefore God had it destroyed because they had killed a holy man in the temple courtyard.

Once the temple was destroyed the Jewish Christians had some adjustments to make in regard to their connection to Judaism and the role they would play in Jerusalem. Not only was the temple a magnifice...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1: Introduction to the History of the Five Patriarchal Cities
• Chapter 2: The Jerusalem Church Model (35 ce–70 ce)
• Chapter 3: The Antioch Model
• Chapter 4: The Roman Church Model
• Chapter 5: Hellenism and the Gospel of Alexandria
• Chapter 6: Constantinople, the New Roman Christian Empire
• Chapter 7: Conclusion
• Bibliography