ekklesia

The New Testament House Church and Its Worship

by

At the local level, the New Testament church was a house church; Christians met for worship in small groups in the homes of those members who might be wealthier or have larger houses. In a larger city, the church might meet in a number of house churches. In the New Testament, the word church may refer to the universal church, the church in a particular city, or the individual house church, which was part of the larger congregation.

The Universal Church and the Local Church

In the New Testament, the Greek word ekklēsia (usually translated “church”) is used primarily in two ways: (1) to describe a meeting or an assembly and (2) to designate the people who participate in such assembling together—whether they are actually assembled or not. The New Testament contains a few places that speak of a secular Greek assembly (Acts 19:32, 41); everywhere else speaks of a Christian assembly. Sometimes the word ekklēsia is used to designate the actual meeting together of Christians. This is certainly what Paul intended in 1 Corinthians 14:19, 28, and 35, in which the expression en ekklēsia must mean “in a meeting” and not “in the church.” To translate this phrase “in the church” (as is done in most modern English versions) is misleading, for most readers will think it means “in the church building.” The New Testament never names the place of assembly a “church.” Aside from the few instances in which the word clearly means the actual meeting together of believers, ekklēsia most often is used as a descriptor for the believers who constitute a local church (such as the church in Corinth, the church in Philippi, and the church in Colossae) or all the believers (past, present, and future) who constitute the universal church, the complete body of Christ.

When reading the New Testament, Christians need to be aware of the various ways the word ekklēsia (“church”) is used. On the most basic level, the ekklēsia is an organized local entity—comprised of all the believers in any given locality, under one pluralistic eldership. On another level, the ekklēsia is the universal church whose constituents are all the believers who have ever been, are now existing, and will ever be. The word ekklēsia was used by the New Testament writers with these various aspects of meaning, though at times it is not possible to differentiate one from the other. Nevertheless, students of the New Testament could avoid some confusion if they used discrimination in their exegesis of the text. Some interpreters have taught that the smallest unit of the church is the local church, but the New Testament writers sometimes used the word church to indicate a small home gathering. Other interpreters confuse the local church with the universal church. But some things in the New Testament are addressed to a local church that does not necessarily apply to the whole church, and some great things are spoken of the universal church that could never be attained by any particular locality. The things Paul said about the church in his epistle to the Ephesians (which was written as an encyclical for several churches and not just for the church in Ephesus) could never be attained by a local church. For example, a local church could not attain the fullness of the stature of Christ.

There is much to be said about how interpreters have confused the local church with the universal church, but this article is devoted to clearing up the confusion about what constitutes the smallest unit of the church—the local church or what could be called the house church, or home gathering.

The New Testament seems to present the fact that a particular local church (that is, a church comprising all the believers in a given locality under one eldership) could and did have ekklēsiai—“meetings” or “assemblies” carried on in homes of the local Christians. Thus, the smallest unit to comprise a “church” was one of these home meetings. However, there is no indication in the New Testament that each of these home meetings had its own eldership or was a distinct entity separate from the other gatherings in the same locality. According to Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5, elders were appointed for every local church (compare the expressions “appointed elders for them in each church” and “appoint elders in every town”)—not for every house church. Nevertheless, it appears that every local church of some size had several such ekklēsiai (“meetings”) going on within that locality.

The church in Jerusalem must have had several home meetings (Acts 2:46; 5:42; 8:3; 12:5, 12), as did the church in Rome (Rom. 16:3–5, 14–16). A small local church may have had only one home gathering, as was probably the case with the church at Colossae (Philem. 2), but this would have been impossible for large local churches like those in Jerusalem, Rome, and Ephesus, in which there must have been several “house churches” (1 Cor. 16:19–20, written from Ephesus). This is confirmed by an examination of the passages that deal with the issue of the house church as cited above.

The House Church in Rome

In the last chapter of his epistle to the Romans, Paul asked the believers in Rome to greet Priscilla and Aquila and the church that met in their home (Rom. 16:3–5). The entire church in Rome could not have met in Priscilla and Aquila’s home, for the church was much too large to have assembled in a single home. Rather, the church in their home must have been one of several such “house churches” in Rome.

Paul’s epistle to the Romans was addressed to all the “saints” in Rome (Rom. 1:7), not to “the church in Rome.” At the time of writing, Paul had not been to Rome, nor had any other apostle. From Romans 15:23, we know that the church had already been in existence for many years. The church was probably started there by Jewish Romans who had been converted during their visit to Jerusalem during Pentecost (Acts 2:10) and had then returned to Rome. Since the church had not been started by an apostle, it could have been that there were no “ordained” elders in the church at Rome and there were several gatherings of believers in various parts of Rome and its suburbs. Paul knew some of the saints in Rome (whom he addressed by name in the last chapter) and thus addressed an epistle to all the saints in that locality, instead of to the church in that locality, which was his usual practice (1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1). Nonetheless, “all the saints in Rome” would comprise “the church in Rome” (cf. Phil. 1:1, in which Paul addressed his epistle to all the saints in Philippi).

In the final chapter of Romans, Paul asked all the saints in Rome (which equals the “local” church in Rome) to greet the church in Priscilla and Aquila’s house. Later in the chapter, Paul asks the church to greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brothers with them; and then again he asks the church to greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus, his sister Olympas, and all the saints with them (Rom. 16:14–15). Evidently, Paul was identifying two other groups of believers who must have met together. And perhaps Paul was referring to two more groups in Romans 16:10–11, which in the Greek could mean either the ones of Aristobulus’ and Narcissus’ household or the ones of their fellowship. It seems that the church in Rome, like the churches in Jerusalem and Ephesus, had several home ekklēsiai.

The Epistle to the Romans was written around a.d. 58. The Neronian persecution began around a.d. 64. Secular historians such as Tacitus say that a vast multitude (ingens multitudo) of Christians were tortured and killed during this persecution (Annals, 15.44). Seutonius said that the rapid increase of the Christians in Rome had made them unpopular. (Nero 16) Indeed, at the time Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans he said their faith was known throughout the world (Rom. 1:8), which indicates that the church in Rome had already made an impact on the Mediterranean world. When Paul came to Rome three years later (a.d. 61), he came to a city that already had a large church. The entire church could not have met in Aquila and Priscilla’s home—they would have had only a modest-sized dwelling, for they were tentmakers. Besides, Paul greeted over twenty-five individuals by name in chapter 16—and he had not yet even been to Rome.

Thus, nearly every commentary states that there must have been several ekklēsiai in Rome—that is, several home churches all unified as the one local church in Rome. For example, the Bible Knowledge Commentary says, “The Christians in Rome apparently worshipped in numerous homes such as Priscilla’s and Aquila’s.… Other churches in homes are mentioned in Colossians 4:15 and Philemon 2” (John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds. The Bible Knowledge Commentary [Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985], New Testament edition, p. 499). The New Bible Commentary: Revised says, “Groups of Christians met in houses of prominent believers or in other available rooms (cf. Matt. 26:6; Acts 12:12; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philem. 2). This [the church in Priscilla and Aquila’s house] is the first of five groups of believers in Paul’s list, but the only one referred to definitely as a church (see Rom. 16:5, 10–11, 14–15)” (D. Guthrie et al., eds., The New Bible Commentary: Revised [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970], p. 1046). The New Layman’s Bible Commentary says, “They [Priscilla and Aquila] opened their home for Christian meetings. The church here mentioned was obviously only a part of the total number of Christians in Rome. Verses 14ff. seem to refer to two other household churches in Rome. Apparently, there were at least three churches there, and probably more.” The Wycliffe Bible Commentary says, “Household churches are probably also to be found in [Romans] 16:10–11, 14–15. If this is true, then the mention of five household churches makes one realize that Christians in Rome were members of smaller groups rather than of one large assembly” (Charles Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary [Chicago: Moody Press, 1962], p. 1225). Unfortunately, none of these commentaries explain what it means for several “churches” to be in Rome. Each house church could not have been a separate entity with a separate church government; rather, each house church must have been simply one home meeting of some of the saints in the one local church at Rome.

The House Church in Ephesus

In 1 Corinthians 16:19–20 Aquila and Priscilla are again mentioned as having a church meeting in their house. According to Romans, their house church had been in Rome. Many scholars think Aquila and Priscilla left Rome around a.d. 49, at the time of Claudius’s edict expelling Jews from Rome. They could have already been Christians at this time. According to Acts 18, they joined Paul in Corinth (where they all worked together in their craft of making tents) and then went on with him to Ephesus, during the time the church in Ephesus was first established (around a.d. 51). Paul continued with his second missionary journey, while Aquila and Priscilla remained in Ephesus. No doubt the church there first met in their home. Paul returned to Ephesus a few years later and remained there for two years (around a.d. 53–54). During this time, Paul’s proclamation of the gospel went out from Ephesus (as a center) to all of Asia Minor (Acts 19:8–10). As this was going on, the church in Ephesus grew (Acts 19:18–20).

During these years Paul wrote to the Corinthians, sending greetings from the churches in Asia, from Aquila and Priscilla, and the church in their house, and from all the brothers (1 Cor. 16:19–20). In giving this kind of greeting, it seems that Paul was sending greetings from (1) all the churches in Asia Minor, (2) the church in Ephesus (equivalent to “all the brothers”), and (3) those believers who gathered with Aquila and Priscilla in their home. It would be hard to imagine that all the saints in Ephesus met at Aquila and Priscilla’s home. The church probably began that way, but as it grew, so did the number of home meetings. From other portions of the New Testament (specifically 1 Timothy, which was written around a.d. 65 by Paul to Timothy while Timothy was leading the church in Ephesus), we discover that there must have been several home meetings in Ephesus because there were so many saints there (First Timothy 5:6 reveals that there must have been a large number of saints in Ephesus—young men, young women, older men, widows, and so forth). Several saints must have hosted an ekklēsia, or meeting, in their home. (Aquila and Priscilla left Ephesus around a.d. 56/57 and returned to Rome, where again they hosted a church in their home. Others in Ephesus would have had to open their homes.) But each such ekklēsia did not have its own eldership; rather, all of the church in Ephesus was under one eldership—headed by Timothy, Paul’s coworker.

The House Church in Colossae

Colossians 4:15–16 speaks of a church existing in the home of one called Nymphas. In his final remarks to the church in Colossae, Paul asked the saints in Colossae to send his greetings to (1) the brothers in Laodicea, (2) Nymphas in particular, and (3) the church in Nymphas’s house. According to the structure of Colossians 4:15, it seems evident that the first greeting included all the believers in Laodicea (a neighboring church to Colossae), who would comprise the entire church in Laodicea (called “the church of the Laodiceans” in Col. 4:16), and that the second and third greetings were to a specific individual (Nymphas) in the church in Laodicea and a church meeting in Nymphas’s house. This church meeting in Nymphas’s house would probably be one of several home meetings—all part of the one local church in Laodicea.

A textual problem in this passage could have some effect on its interpretation. Some manuscripts read “his house”; others read “her house”; still others read “their house.” Because it cannot be determined from the Greek text whether Nymphas was male or female, various scribes used different pronouns before house. It is far more likely that the pronoun her was changed to his than vice versa. But other manuscripts read “their house.” Some scholars say “their” refers to “the brothers” at Laodicea. But that does not make sense if we understand that “the brothers in Laodicea” is equal to the church in Laodicea. How could the church in Laodicea have the church in their house? Other scholars indicate that the Greek word for “their” (autōn) refers to the ones with Nymphas—that is, the members of this household (see Alford’s Greek Testament [Chicago: Moody Press, 1958], esp. vols. 3–4). Whether the reading was “her house” or “their house,” a particular group of believers within the church of Laodicea met there. Their meeting could legitimately be called an ekklēsia, an assembling together.

In Philemon 1–2 we read about a church in a particular home. Paul wrote a short epistle to Philemon, an elder of the church in Colossae, on behalf of Onesimus, Philemon’s runaway slave converted by Paul to Christ. In his introduction to this short epistle, Paul sends his greetings to Philemon, Apphia, Archippus, and the church in Philemon’s house. It is important to note that Paul did not send greetings to all the saints in Colossae and then to the church in Philemon’s house (as is the pattern in 1 Cor. 16:19–20 and Col. 4:15); he sent greetings to Philemon and to the church in his house. Therefore, we can assume that the entire church in Colossae met at Philemon’s house.

Worship in the House Churches

When the church first began in Jerusalem, the believers met in homes for fellowship and worship. Acts 2:42–47 tells us that the early Christians met in homes to hear the apostles’ teachings and to celebrate Communion (which is called “the breaking of bread”). During such gatherings, the Christians often shared meals with others in what was called a love feast (2 Pet. 2:13; Jude 12). At these meetings, the Christians recited Scripture, sang hymns and psalms, and joyfully praised the Lord (Eph. 5:18–20; Col. 3:16–17). Christians also gathered together in homes to pray (Acts 12:12) and read the Word.

Small groups of believers met in homes for worship quite regularly; and in a city where there were several such ekklēsiai, all the believers would gather together for special occasions. Scripture tells us that all the believers would come together to hear an epistle from the apostles read aloud (Acts 15:30; Col. 4:16), and we can surmise from the New Testament record that all the Christians in a city met together once a week on Sunday, which was called the Lord’s Day. First Corinthians provides several insights about how the early Christians worshiped together when all the believers in one city met together. We know that 1 Corinthians pertains to this larger gathering because in 11:20 Paul spoke of all the believers coming together in one place and in 16:2 he spoke of the whole church coming together in one place.

Paul used this epistle to correct the Corinthians’ behavior in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17–34) and in the exercising of spiritual gifts during church meetings (1 Cor. 14). Paul’s adjustments reveal his perceptions of a model Christian meeting, and his perceptions were probably developed from actual experience in other church meetings. Paul urged the Corinthians to celebrate the Lord’s Supper together in a manner that reflected Jesus’ institution of that meal. They were to remember the Lord and his death for them, and they were to partake of the bread and wine with all seriousness. At the same time, they were to be conscious of the fact that they were members of the same body of Christ—joined to one another, even as they were joined to Christ.

According to Paul’s presentation in chapter 14, this “body consciousness” should be evident in the way the believers worshiped together. One’s personal experience and liberty should not hinder the coordination of the body in worshiping God corporately. Thus, when the believers exercised their spiritual gifts—whether prophesying, speaking in tongues, providing interpretations of the tongues, or teaching—it was to be done in good order and for the edification of the congregation, not for personal edification. When all the church assembled together to worship God, it was to be a display of spiritual unity.

Characteristics of the New Testament Church

by

The church is the assembly of the “saints,” or holy ones, a people called out of the world by God. The early church was an urban movement. It held a world view that differed from that of the prevailing culture, yet it came to include people of all social classes in its radical fellowship.

Terms for the Church

The most common word for the church in the New Testament is ekklēsia, or “assembly.” It is a derivative of the verb kaleō, “call,” in the sense of those who are “called out.” The word was a general word for assemblies, but as used by the apostles it also has a theological significance. The church is the body of those who are called out from the “world,” or surrounding culture, but primarily from traditional Judaism, which the New Testament theologians considered to be unfaithful to the genuine thrust of the Lord’s covenant. Paul spoke of the new covenant community as the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16); he asserted that not all those who are descended from Israel are really Israelites (Rom. 9:6). Unlike the earthly Jerusalem and its religious institutions, which are in bondage, the church is the “Jerusalem above” (Gal. 4:26), an image developed as the “heavenly Jerusalem” in the epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 12:22) and in the Revelation to John (Rev. 21:2). Although today such ideas might sound anti-Semitic, they were given expression by Jews, at least one of whom defended his Jewish credentials to the hilt (Phil. 3:4–6).

The disciples of Jesus were first called Christians (Christianoi) in Antioch (Acts 11:26). By its opponents, the Christian movement was known as the “Nazarene sect” (Acts 24:5). Other designations were “the Way” (hē hodos, Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4), “the way of God” (Acts 18:26), and “the way of truth” (“genuine way,” 2 Pet. 2:2). New Testament writers frequently refer to the church as “the brothers” (adelphoi, Acts 15:36, 40; 16:2; 18:18; Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 16:11; 1 Tim. 4:6; 1 John 3:14; 3 John 5; Rev. 12:10). This term was borrowed from Jewish usage, as early Christian preaching illustrates (Acts 3:22; 7:37). In his letters to local churches, Paul addresses the assembly collectively as “the saints,” or holy ones (hoi hagioi), in the sense of those who belong to the holy God. It is not only the righteous behavior of Christians that makes them “saints,” but the fact that as God’s own people they share in that special aura of sanctity and mystery associated with the Lord’s presence, which is bound up in the Hebrew concept of holiness (qodesh). The author of Hebrews refers to the church as a worshiping body, using the term “festal gathering” (panēguris, Heb. 12:22 RSV).

Images, Concepts

The New Testament offers a panorama of images for the church that, while not sociological categories, nevertheless shed light on the way the institutional church was perceived by its spokesmen. This imagery is drawn from a wide spectrum of human experience. In a favorite metaphor of the apostle Paul, the church is a body, specifically the body of Christ, the continuing embodiment of his Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 4:4). From agricultural life come the images of the church as a flock protected by its Shepherd (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2–3), as the branches nourished by the vine (John 15:1–5), or as the olive tree (Rom. 11:16–21). In an analogy to urban life, the new covenant community is compared to a city, specifically Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22; 13:14; Rev. 21:2). Domestic life contributes the description of the church as a household of faith (Gal. 6:10; Eph. 2:19) and the family of God, in which he is Father, as well as the arresting image of the church as the bride of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7; 21:2; cf. 2 Cor. 11:2). Israel’s religious heritage suggests the portrayal of the church as a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:16). In cosmic perspective, the church is a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). The covenantal foundation of Israel’s faith stands behind the image of the kingdom of God (Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20; Col. 4:11; 2 Thess. 1:5); though this expression has wider applications, it certainly includes the church. The covenant is also the framework for speaking of the Lord as Father, Shepherd, and Creator of his new people.

Evident in this pictorial language is the attempt to grasp a reality that can only be conveyed symbolically. There is a mystery and depth to the church as the community of the new covenant responding to the Spirit of Christ that flat sociological categories and theories of ecclesiastical polity cannot capture.

Social Character

When viewed as a social organization, the church of the first century exhibits certain traits that stand out as especially noteworthy. This discussion, while not a complete sociological analysis, treats some of these social characteristics.

An Urban Movement. Christianity began as an urban movement, spreading from city to city and only later infiltrating the rural areas. The history of the missionary expansion of the church is a narrative of activities carried out in an urban setting, and many books of the New Testament bear the names of prominent cities of the Greco-Roman world, some of which were quite large even by modern standards: Ephesus, Corinth, Rome. One factor accounting for this was the presence of Jewish congregations in these cities; usually a church was started as the result of the preaching of the apostles in synagogues of the Diaspora (Acts 13:14; 14:1; 17:17; 18:4). Paul, for one, was conscious of his urban heritage; being from Tarsus in Asia Minor, home of a major university, he termed himself “a citizen of no ordinary city” (Acts 21:39). He was also a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37; 22:25–26), which signified a relation to the city-state of Rome in an era before the modern nation-state had made its appearance.

A Countercultural Movement. Wherever it went, the church was a countercultural movement, espousing a worldview at odds with prevailing outlooks. In the Gentile environment, steeped in both Hellenistic philosophy and polytheistic fertility religions, Christianity proclaimed a God who was known not through speculation or mystical ritual but through his action in history to deal with the problem of human sin (Acts 17:30–31). Such a message did not fit the presuppositions of many hearers, for whom sin was not the burning issue. Within the Jewish milieu, the church’s proclamation of Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s covenant faith called into question the entire religious system, of which Jerusalem was the center. In their advocacy of the lordship of Christ, the apostles faced open hostility, mob action, and even imprisonment (Acts 5:17–18; 12:3–4). James, the brother of John, met death at the hand of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1–2). Stephen, one of the seven appointed to administer the common life of the Jerusalem congregation, was the first witness to die for his faith, being stoned by a mob stirred up by members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Acts 6:9–12). When Christian evangelists got into trouble with local authorities in other parts of the Roman Empire, it was not for their beliefs, but because of the civil unrest that ensued as the result of hostility toward their activities on the part of either Jews (at Damascus, Acts 9:23–25; 2 Cor. 11:32; at Corinth, Acts 18:12–13) or pagans (at Philippi, Acts 16:16–23; at Ephesus, Acts 19:29–31). Roman officialdom regarded the Christians as a Jewish sectarian movement; the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 18:14–17) records that Gallio, the Roman administrator at Corinth, refused to intervene in what he considered an internal religious dispute.

An Inclusive Organization. The infant church’s constituency included people from a broad spectrum of economic classes. In the early days following the resurrection of Jesus, the believers established a community of property, placing their funds at the apostles’ disposal to meet the needs of the congregation (Acts 2:45; 4:34–37). Evidently, this practice was not continued, but for a time at least the Jerusalem church operated a common food service for its membership (Acts 6:1). Such policies may have been intended to demonstrate the new values of the kingdom of God, where distinctions of wealth have no place. The Jerusalem congregation included both Aramaic- and Greek-speaking Jews (Acts 6:1). Expanding from Jerusalem, the church continued to be a cross-section of Greco-Roman society. All Christians were not poor, uneducated, or disenfranchised, as Paul’s comments show; though there were “not many mighty, not many noble,” there were some (1 Cor. 1:26). The church’s assemblies were frequented by the affluent as well as the poor (James 2:2–4), and special responsibility for liberal giving is laid on those able to do so (Rom. 12:8; 1 Tim. 6:17–18). As Paul’s letter to Philemon shows, the congregation included both slaves and their masters (cf. Eph. 6:5–9; 1 Tim. 6:1). Widows with limited income (Acts 6:1; 1 Tim. 5:9–10) worshiped alongside successful businesswomen such as Lydia (Acts 16:14–15). Some members were tradesmen such as Aquila and his wife Priscilla, who, like Paul, worked in leather goods (Acts 18:2–3). Jewish priests (Acts 6:7) and synagogue officials (Acts 18:8, 17) became Christians, along with Roman officers such as Cornelius (Acts 10), government officials (Acts 8:27–39), prison administrators (Acts 16:27–34), a former companion of Herod the Tetrarch (Acts 13:1), and even members of Caesar’s household (Phil. 4:22).

A Radical Fellowship. The first-century church did not crusade against social inequities or attempt to right the wrongs of its society. Its proclamation of the gospel was a radical enough stand as it was and had economic implications of its own, especially in relation to the industry connected with idolatrous worship (Acts 19:23–27). But while there was no outward thrust to call into question social conventions such as slavery or the often inferior status of women, within its own fellowship the church manifested a radical restructuring of traditional relationships. In Christ, Paul asserted, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female, but all are one (Gal. 3:28). This indifference to cultural labels at the spiritual level had its impact at the social level as well. For example, women played a greater role in the leadership of the church than in the synagogue, functioning as prophets (Acts 21:8–9; 1 Cor. 11:5), praying in the assembly (1 Cor. 11:5), and giving private instruction in the principles of the faith (Acts 18:26). But this openness to new patterns was balanced by deference to traditional expectations; women were not to take authority, at least in Paul’s practice (1 Tim. 2:12), or to interrupt the assembly with questions (1 Cor. 14:34–35). The husband was viewed as the head of the wife, yet the husband was also under the headship of Christ (1 Cor. 11:3) so that the Christian marriage relationship was one of mutual respect, submission, and interdependence (Eph. 5:21–28; 1 Cor. 11:8–12). Even an unbelieving husband was “sanctified,” set apart as the Lord’s, through his wife, and vice versa (1 Cor. 7:14). Fathers were not to act toward their children in an overbearing manner (Eph. 6:4), as cultural expectations permitted.

Perhaps the most radical step, given the Jewish origins of the church, was the breaking down of the distinction between Jew and Gentile, so vigorously pursued by the sect of the Pharisees. The inclusion of Gentiles in the covenant was the “mystery” of which Paul considered himself a steward (Eph. 3:1–8) and was a cornerstone of his teaching. Peter had taken the lead in this breakthrough (Acts 10–11; Gal. 2:8), which occasioned considerable debate within the apostolic church (Acts 15:1–29; Gal. 1–2); the issue was resolved, to the apparent satisfaction of most parties, in a decision that Gentiles coming to Christ need not become Jews also, as long as they adhered to certain basic principles.