“Those who have the means help all those who are in want,
and we continually meet together.”
Justin Martyr’s First Apology,
written approximately 155 CE to the Roman emperor Antonius Pius, was composed with the threat of violent persecution flickering in the background. Likely
written in response to the burning at the stake of Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna,
Justin strains to address the main accusations against Christians
including atheism, immorality, and disloyalty to the Roman emperor.
As part of this argument, Justin
included a general outline of how Christians assembled for worship in the
second century. Beginning with “Those who have the means help all those who are
in want, and we continually meet together,” Justin describes a pattern that feels remarkably familiar. He describes how the Christians
assembled on a Sunday, heard a reading from “the writings of the prophets”
followed by a discourse from the presider. After a moment of prayer, the
service proceeds to a meal of bread, wine, and water with the remaining portion
taken by deacons to those who could not be present. Finally, the community
takes up a collection given to the presider specifically for aid to the poor.
“[The presider] aids orphans and widows, those who are in want through disease
or through another cause, those who are in prison, and foreigners who are
sojourning here. In short, the presider is a guardian to all those who are in
need.”[1]
Justin’s description of this second
century Christian community highlights how attuned these early assemblies were
to distinctions between the rich and poor. He emphasizes that both those with
means and those in want share a common meal, and the collection to aid the poor
plays such a prominent role in the service that one liturgical scholar
has suggested that second century Christians worship was marked by three focal
points (word, table, and collection for the poor) rather than two (word and
table).[2]
Why did Justin make it a point to
say that both the rich and poor shared in the common meal? What should we
make of the collection - both in terms of its focus on direct aid to the poor
and its prominence in the service itself? Through this (overly lengthy) blog
post, I explore the broader context for Justin’s First Apology and how the
shared meal and collection for the poor echo Paul’s concerns regarding class
distinctions at the Lord’s supper[3] and
the Jerusalem collection referenced in Paul’s letters[4]. I end with a note of hope
that Justin’s description of second century worship may spark ‘traditioned
innovation’ by encouraging the development of a worship pattern that aligns
with a threefold focus of word, table, and collection for the poor.
----
Justin Martyr (100-165) was born in
Flavia Neapolis, Samaria, in a Greek speaking town in Judea of the Roman
Empire. Recounting his journey to Christianity, Justin describes how he journeyed from Stoicism to Aristotelianism to Platonism, eventually encountering an old
man near the Ephesus seashore who told him of the Hebrew prophets who had
foretold Christ.[5] His
past explorations of Greek philosophy and conversion to Christianity would lead him to create a synthesis of these many schools of
thought, an effort neatly symbolized by his continuing to wear the philosopher’s
cloak after his conversion. Justin is especially remembered for his synthesis
of Platonism and John’s Gospel’s use of the term Logos, arguing that it was through the divine Logos that God prepared
the way for his final revelation in Christ. “For all writers were able to see
the truth darkly, on account of the implanted seed of the Logos which was
grafted into them.”[6]
Justin’s theology of the logos spermatikos represents a fusion of Platonist philosophy and Christian claims about Jesus’ divinity at a time when violence against Christians, while sporadic rather than systematized[7], were compelling leaders to demonstrate how Christianity represented continuity with the wider Greco-Roman culture. It appears, however, that Justin was not entirely successful in convincing Roman authorities. Approximately a decade after he wrote the First Apology, he was beheaded along with several of his students.
Justin’s theology of the logos spermatikos represents a fusion of Platonist philosophy and Christian claims about Jesus’ divinity at a time when violence against Christians, while sporadic rather than systematized[7], were compelling leaders to demonstrate how Christianity represented continuity with the wider Greco-Roman culture. It appears, however, that Justin was not entirely successful in convincing Roman authorities. Approximately a decade after he wrote the First Apology, he was beheaded along with several of his students.
The burning at the stake of Polycarp
and beheading of John reflect the fact that Christians had become a nuisance to
the Roman empire. While there were a variety of reasons for this including
secrecy and a refusal to worship the emperor, Christianity also challenged Roman values on the body and wealth and poverty.
Mary Beard’s incredible book SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome provides
a Roman perspective on these sporadic persecutions. Although Christians
represented a relatively small percentage of the population - approximately
200,000 in a empire-wide population of 50-60 million - they provoked the ire and frustration of many. Whereas the Romans regularly incorporated the gods of their subjugated peoples
into a diverse and growing pantheon, and they understood gods to be rooted in a
specific region (Isis from Egypt, the Jewish god from Judea, Mithras from
Persia), Christians were secretive, stubbornly monotheistic and
exclusive. Worse still, they claimed their faith was universal as opposed to
geographically-bound, and were constantly seeking new adherents. Christians also
provocatively appropriated terms from Rome’s imperial theology, such as the
‘Good News’ of Augustus’ birth, to the annoyance of traditional-minded and
sensitive Romans. Further, their preaching “threatened to overturn the most
fundamental Greco-Roman assumptions about the nature of the world and of the
people within it: that poverty, for example, was good; or that the body was to
be tamed or rejected rather than cared for.”[8]
On issues of wealth and poverty,
Beard describes the wide gulf between traditional Roman values and the great reversal that
Jesus of Nazareth preached in his Sermon on the Mount and in his interaction
with the Rich Young Ruler:
“What all
would have agreed, both rich and poor, was that to be rich was a desirable
state, that poverty was to be avoided if you possibly could. Just as the
ambition of Roman slaves was usually to gain freedom for themselves, not to
abolish slavery as an institution, so the ambitions of the poor were not
radically to reconfigure the social order but to find a place for themselves
nearer the top of the hierarchy of wealth.... The idea that the rich man might
have a problem entering the kingdom of heaven would have seemed as preposterous
to those hanging out in our Ostian bar as to the plutocrat in his mansion.”[9]
And so it was in this broader
context of a clash in practices and values resulting in sporadic violence that
Justin takes up writing, perhaps nervously, to the Roman Emperor Antonius Pius.
Creatively, he employs this standard Roman legal petition to address the main
criticisms of Christians at that time and in doing so expounds on
Christianity’s compatibility with Greek philosophy and describes the worship
practices of the Christian assembly.
----
In chapter 67 of First Apology,
Justin begins by noting that “those who have the means help all those who are
in want.” He then describes how the assembly gathers “on the day named after
the sun” wherein “records of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are
read for as long as there is time” followed by the a discourse from the
presider who “admonishes and invites us into the pattern of these good things.”
After a moment of prayer, the assembly proceeds to the simple meal. Justin
writes:
“And, as we
said before, when we have concluded the prayer, bread is set out to eat,
together with wine and water. The presider likewise offers up prayer and
thanksgiving, as much as he can, and the people sing out their assent saying
the amen. There is a distribution of
the things over which thanks have been said and each person participates, and
these things are sent by the deacons to those who are not present.”[10]
Just a few sentences in, Justin has emphasized that those with means and those in want come together to share a
meal and that deacons are charged with bringing a remaining portion to those
who are not able to be present. This is a remarkable contrast with Paul’s first
letter to the Corinthians, a text that was undoubtedly part of Justin’s mental
furniture.
In what is quite possibly - and unfortunately - the first historical reference to the Lord’s Supper, Paul angrily chastises the Corinthians because the wealthy had begun to eat the Lord’s Supper separately from the poor, thereby shunning the common meal. “What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?”[11] Yet the wealthy Corinthians’ decision to separate themselves out, or even eat entirely different meals at the same table, would have been in keeping with Greco-Roman meal practices at that time.[12]
In a somewhat humorous passage written around the turn of the second century, the Roman magistrate Pliny the Younger bitterly complains about a dinner host who had assigned three different levels of food and wine in keeping with the three levels of social orders present at the table. “One was for himself and me; the next for his friends of a lower order (for you must know, he measures out his friendship according to the degrees of quality); and third for his own freed-men and mine.”[13]
In what is quite possibly - and unfortunately - the first historical reference to the Lord’s Supper, Paul angrily chastises the Corinthians because the wealthy had begun to eat the Lord’s Supper separately from the poor, thereby shunning the common meal. “What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?”[11] Yet the wealthy Corinthians’ decision to separate themselves out, or even eat entirely different meals at the same table, would have been in keeping with Greco-Roman meal practices at that time.[12]
In a somewhat humorous passage written around the turn of the second century, the Roman magistrate Pliny the Younger bitterly complains about a dinner host who had assigned three different levels of food and wine in keeping with the three levels of social orders present at the table. “One was for himself and me; the next for his friends of a lower order (for you must know, he measures out his friendship according to the degrees of quality); and third for his own freed-men and mine.”[13]
Both Paul’s chastising
of the Corinthians and the Greco-Roman practice of different social
orders eating separately helps explain why Justin emphasized the coming together of ‘those with means’ and ‘those in want’ in a shared meal.
Following this shared
meal, the Christian assembly took up a collection for aid to the poor that was
deposited with the presider. “Those who are prosperous and who
desire to do so, give what they wish, according to each one’s own choice, and
the collection is deposited with the presider. He aids orphans and widows and
those who are in want through another cause, those who are in prison, and
foreigners who are sojourning here. In short, the presider is the guardian to
all those who are in need.”[14]
Once again, Paul’s letters help us
understand the significance of this second century collection. In his letters from the middle of the first
century, Paul makes multiple references to an effort among the Gentile
assemblies to provide support for the Jerusalem poor.[15] This Jerusalem collection originated as both a sign of unity among the first century
Christian assemblies and as a practical way of helping the needy among the
Jerusalem assembly.
There are multiple interpretations
of the use of the word ‘poor’ in Paul’s references to the Jerusalem collection,
and at times it has been suggested that ‘the poor’ served as simply an
honorific title. Most likely, however, it actually described the social status
and needs of those within the assembly, one that may have recently experienced a famine
and was experiencing food shortages at that time. Therefore, “the collection
was intended not merely as a symbolic effort meant to demonstrate unity among
the different churches; it also addressed a genuine need in the Jerusalem
community.”[16] Paul urged the gentile Christians to contribute, made specific
arrangements for a deacon to deliver this collection, and grew frustrated when
the collection only proceeded in fits and starts.
Unlike the Jerusalem Collection, the
collection described in Justin’s First Apology is kept within the assembly, with monies given to the presider for aid to the poor. It is
significant that this collection takes place after the shared meal and constitutes the final
liturgical action described before Justin begins an explanation about why
the assembly takes place on the day of the sun.
----
When I first read Justin’s sketch of
Christian worship, I was struck by the sustained focus on wealth and poverty at
both the shared meal and, most obviously, in the collection for the poor. I also wondered what happened to that latter collection for the poor
and wanted to explore how it had become an occasional occurrence -- a second
collection for a particular cause -- rather than an essential part of the
liturgy. As Gordon Lathrup writes in Holy
things: A Liturgical Theology, in this pattern “the structure of God’s word
is set next to the taste of promise which opens on to a response to the actual
needs of the world.”[17]
Might there be elements here worth exploring in our contemporary liturgy?
Justin’s text requires us to ask several questions of our liturgy. Given the significant attention paid to diminishing
distinctions between “those with means” and “those in want”, I’d ask how and
whether this same spirit is reflected in our worshiping assemblies today.
Having been around the Episcopal Church for a while now, I’m frequently struck
by how many congregations were built and have remained wealthy enclaves, where the separation from the poor appears almost complete. Why do we continue to find creative ways to separate ourselves by class?
Further, I find it striking that the 1978 Book of Common Prayer’s offertory sentences make no reference
to providing aid to the poor, nor do they appear to draw on any of the
references to the Jerusalem collection in Paul’s letters.[18] There is a
creative opportunity here to write and include an offertory sentence acknowledging the ancient history of Christians bringing their gifts to support
the mission of the Church, of which providing aid to the poor has been a key
component since the time of Paul.
Finally, I’d note that the Book of
Common Prayer’s Order for Celebrating the
Holy Eucharist[19]
offers creative room for developing a Eucharistic liturgy that patterns itself
on Justin Martyr’s description of a threefold movement from word to table to
collection for the poor. To be clear, I’m not suggesting that the collection
for the poor replace the current collection embedded in the Eucharistic portion
of the service. What I am instead suggesting is that there is historical precedent for
making permanent a second collection specifically aimed at providing aid for
the poor.
Such a pattern would be faithful to
one of the earliest outlines of how Christian assemblies gathered, would fulfill the ancient role of Christians providing direct aid to the poor, and would help communities focus on the needs of the poor on a more regular basis.
[1] 1 Apology 67 in Gordon Lathrup’s Holy things: A Liturgical Theology, page
45
[2] Lathrup, Gordon. Holy Things: A Liturgical Theology, page 45
[3] 1 Corinthians 11:21-22
[4] Rom 15:26, 31; 1 Cor
16:3; 2 Cor 8:14; cf. Gal 2:10
[5] MacCullough, Darmaid. A History of
Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. Page 142.
[6] McGrath, Alister. Introduction to Christian
Theology. Page 16.
[7] Beard, Mary. SPQR. Page 518.
[8] Beard, Mary. SPQR. Page 516.
[9] Beard, Mary. SPQR. Page 472.
[10] 1 Apology 67 as translated by Gordan Lathrup,
pg 45.
[11] 1 Corinthians 11:21-22
[12] Malina and Pilch, Social-Science Commentary
on the Letters of Paul, pg 109.
[13] Pliny the Younger, Letters II, 6, LCL
109-13
[14] 1 Apology 67 as translated by Gordan Lathrup,
pg 45.
[15] Rom 15:26, 31; 1 Cor
16:3; 2 Cor 8:14; cf. Gal 2:10
[16] Duff, Paul. “Paul’s Collection for the Poor”
Oxford University Press -
[17] Lathrup, Gordon. Holy Things: A Liturgical
Theology. Page 46.
[18] Book of Common Prayer, Page 343
[19] Book of Common Prayer, Page 400
Comments
Post a Comment