Truth Unites - What Church Was Like in 150 AD (Justin Martyr Reveals)

Episode Date: March 30, 2026

Gavin Ortlund takes you inside a 2nd-century Christian worship service through Justin Martyr’s writings, revealing a gathering that feels both strikingly familiar and surprisingly different from church today.Truth Unites (https://truthunites.org) exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites, Visiting Professor of Historical Theology at Phoenix Seminary, and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville.SUPPORT:Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunitesFOLLOW:Website: https://truthunites.org/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/truth.unites/X: https://x.com/gavinortlundFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/

What would it feel like to attend a church service in the earliest days of church history? We're going to explore that in this video by looking at Justin Martyr and his text First Apology, which probably dates to the 150s AD. This is a defense of Christianity written to a Roman emperor, and it gives us the closest thing to what we can find of a kind of walkthrough of a Sunday morning service in that time period. And what you might notice is that a second-century worship service is both surprisingly familiar and surprisingly foreign. It's both recognizable and remarkable at the same time. That's what I felt. Maybe you'll feel that too. At the end of this video, we'll come back to implications for Christian groups today.

But just to get us oriented, let me introduce some of the themes we're going to get into here a bit playfully by giving seven pieces of advice so that if you were to stumble into a time machine and find yourself in 150 AD going to a church service, what do you expect? Number one, plan on Sunday, not Saturday. This is the biggest, one of the big issues back then, though today we take it for granted, but though it might have been Sunday evening, not Sunday morning. Number two, don't look for a steeple. You are not going to find a baptistery or a steeple or a building at all. They didn't exist. You're going to be in someone's house. Second century church is house church. Number three, don't bring a Bible. You won't own one, so no need to worry about that. But you will hear from

the scriptures, and interestingly, both Old Testament and New Testament, like we'll talk about. number four you won't get a bulletin but you won't need one because the order of service is surprisingly simple scripture sermon prayer eucharist give to the needy those five elements mainly number five you will not be a face in the crowd don't expect to sit in the corner and blend in church is going to be highly participatory and highly communal in fact number six come hungry because the lord's supper is probably going to be embedded though not in every case into an entire meal. And number seven, expect both structure and spontaneity. If you like formal high church vibes, get prepared to loosen up a little bit. But if you prefer informal, low church vibes,

get prepared to get more disciplined. It's going to pull you in different directions in different ways. All right, that's my way of getting introducing some of the themes. Let's dive into Justin Martyr's text. And along the way, we'll supplement this with some other texts as well. Justin writes, and on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. I'll leave this up on screen for a moment, and you can notice what I've underlined here, the reference to Sunday, and then the two-one place.

So here, right out of the gate, we could pass over these too quickly. These are actually really important for when and where worship happened. Both are interesting. First, to speak to when. This is the first thing I mentioned. We won't camp out on this too long, but it's really worth noticing. Today, we just take it for granted that Sunday is church day, right? If you've heard the Kenny Chesney song, I go back, he references the smell of Sunday

chicken after church. I don't know why that song popped into my head when I was thinking about is what Sunday morning feels like, right? a lot of us have memories of like, yeah, you go to church on Sunday morning, and then you're in your nice clothes, and then you come back and have lunch with your family and that kind of thing. And it's wonderful to go back into history and just think how the things we take for granted today so often came about because of hugely consequential battles and changes in the past. And of course, what we forget about is that Sunday worship was a big deal.

It gradually, it wasn't right away, gradually replaced Sabbath gals. which was observed on Saturday. And the significance of that is, of course, the resurrection of Christ, though there were other reasons given as well. But that's the main thing. The resurrection of Christ was such a pivotal event for the early Christians that rearranged their entire weekly rhythm. Easter reset the table. Later, Emperor Constantine will formalize Sunday as a day of rest across the empire. But the significance of Justin here is that it provides evidence of how early this change is coming about. By the way, Justin lives in Rome, and he's familiar with church in other areas as well, like Asia, for example. So here we are, pretty far from Jerusalem, and already,

in the mid-second century, you've got Sunday gatherings. Of course, we have some indication of this from the New Testament as well, that Christians were gathering on the first day of the week, which is Sunday, and many scholars think, the Lord's Day, referenced in Revelation 1, is also Sunday. if you're going to church in 150 AD, the first thing you need to know, so you'll show up on the right day, is it is Sunday or the Lord's Day that Christians gather, though it took some time a little bit for that to be totally universal. Second, not just when, but note where Christians gather. Here it just says to one place, whether you're out in the country or you're in a city, you're gathering to all, so you obviously just wonder, you know, what is that place? And the evidence suggests that at this time in history,

worship largely happened in homes or other informal spaces and that it takes a while into church history before you see anything like larger church buildings as such. So, for example, in another passage from the martyrdom of Justin, he's asked, where do you assemble? And he says, where each one chooses and can. For do you fancy that we all meet in the very same place? Not so, because the God of the Christians is not circumscribed by place and he gives some more theology there. So after this, Justin is actually pressed by the prefect for where they assemble and his answer to the question of where they assemble is he gives his own living address, but then he refuses to give others. So that's interesting. Eusto and Catherine Gonzalez in their book on worship in the early church note, the entire dialogue seems to indicate that Christians had several meeting places in Rome and that the authorities had difficulties locating them.

some calculations suggest that there may have been some 20 meeting places in Rome by the end of the first century. And it's significant that in the earliest generations of church history, worship services, Christian gatherings, are primarily in private homes. So, you know, for example, there's no baptistries. If you want to get baptized, it might be in a river, it might be in a pool, something like this. You have to make special arrangements. And, of course, this fits with the New Testament data as well, which speaks regularly of house churches. I'll put up some examples on the screen.

And then, of course, we have the famous Dura Europus House, Church, which appears to be basically a normal house that's converted to a place of worship sometime around the mid-third century. And it's really after that, it's really in the fourth century, after Constantine's conversion and the legalization of Christianity that you see a dramatic uptick in purpose-built church buildings. By the way, people often bring up the Dura Europus house, you hear that pronounced differently, too, as if it were proof of icon veneration. You know, it's so funny, just because it has paintings and it has wall paintings, the Good Shepherd, the healing of the paralytic, and many others. Even though we constantly distinguish between the cultic use of images and didactic and commemorative and other uses. So just keep on trying to say this, hoping, at least discerning viewers can keep this in their mind when they hear these claims that there's no evidence of icon veneration in a building like this. There's no candles, incense, prayer gestures directed toward images, devotional setup, no indication of anything like that.

And so it's totally fine to have images on walls. That is not the issue. The issue is what Nicaea, too, is talking about with icon veneration, but I've emphasized that in all my videos on that topic. So that's the when and the where. More factual points there, but they're important to draw out. Again, we take it for granted. You're going to gather on a Sunday, and we tend to think of buildings, but back then it was a big deal that it was on a Sunday, and it wasn't in buildings. But now, what actually happens? You walk into this home on a Sunday, you're a Christian in 150 AD. What is going on? Well, first we have, as you can see again on screen, the scripture reading, and then you get the sermon. Let's just make one point about each of these

because they're actually very significant. And just so you know where we're going next, I'll put up all all five elements we're going to cover. These are the first two of five basic elements in this worship service that Justin describes for us. There's some little details in this paragraph, though, that are fascinating. Sometimes little tiny phrases, you know, three little words or something like that you might be tempted to slide over actually are very significant. And studying histories like being a detective, you look at the little details and they can tell you something. Little clues. Let's do that here. First, note that Justin's description of scripture includes the memoirs of the apostles. What an interesting little phrase.

This is very likely referring to the Gospels. And so what we want to appreciate here is that the Gospels here already in 150 AD and 155 and so forth are set parallel in liturgical usage to the writings of the prophets, a reference to books in what we today call the Old Testament. and this is very important because it shows that prior to the formal finalization of the New Testament canon, both Old Testament and New Testament are functioning side by side in worship. Just about 50 years later, in around 200 AD, here's how Tertullian will put it. Quote, the law and the prophets, the church unites in one volume with the writings of the evangelists and apostles from which she drinks in her faith.

So if you're in the second century, it is very clear when you go to church, you are getting both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Now, what is that New Testament? Well, there seems to have been a core set of New Testament books that are widely agreed upon and recognized as Scripture very early on. And then the main questions in the second and third century are about some of the books on the fringes, like is Revelation in or out? And there's dispute about those, but not necessarily the core books. From the earliest of times, Christians are relating to a book like John or Philippians as if it is the Word of God, and that's not really disputed. So the core books are pretty settled early on, and that coheres with the New Testament itself, where you've got references to Luke's writings and Paul's writings being cited and described as scripture. I've discussed that more in my videos on the canon, but just to make this point, if the New Testament canon gets into the end zone in the three,

it's already deep in the red zone in the one hundreds. The other fascinating detail is how the sermon is described. When the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. So the first thing we might notice is, you know, who's the president? Because Justin is using a more general term here because he's writing for a more gentile audience. That's why he also calls it Sunday or Day of the Sun. rather than the Lord's Day or the first day of the week. See Gonzalez's discussion for more on that.

But the term president here is probably just referring to the leader of the church, what in Christian context would be called a bishop or sometimes an overseer or an elder. Everett Ferguson puts it like this. The sermon was given by the president. The word need mean no more than presiding brother, but it can also mean ruler, and there is no reason to doubt that this individual was the functionary we know elsewhere under the titled bishop.

In Justin's time, he was a congregational overseer or pastor, not a diocesan bishop. He presided at the liturgy and administered the finances of the church as well as preached. He was a different person than the reader. By the way, if you want a little bit more about church leadership in the second century, you might be interested in my video exploring Jerome's historical account of that and defending Jerome's account there. But what I want to highlight here and just try to draw us into imagining this, I want you to feel what this would be like to go to a church service like this.

is the description of the sermon as exhorting to the imitation of these good things. I just, you know, I've heard some great sermons in my life, and some of the most life-changing ones have not been real flowery and ornate and sophisticated, but it's had that flavor of an exhortation to the imitation of good things. Just think about what it'd be like to be a fly on the wall, or to, not even that, just to be one of these Christians, okay? It's 156. It's July 156 AD. You're in northern Italy. You walk into the, a living room of a believer's house. It's not a large or luxurious space. And there's just a few dozen other believers there. Some are standing. Some are sitting on the floor. Some are sitting

near the walls. The lighting is pretty dim. The group is quite diverse. You know, you might look around the room and see a wealthy merchant, widows, some slaves, some who've recently left the synagogue and you know what it means for them. What a price they're paying to be there. And yet they're all here together. They're listening. You just had a reading. The sermon on the mount, Matthew 5 to 7 was just read through. The president stands up. He's not giving a polished lecture, but he's urging and pressing with a pite, with a sincere piety toward the values of the kingdom of God. Maybe he camps out on Matthew 5, 44 to 45. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you so that you may be sons of your father who is in heaven. And the president is exhorting people to the

imitation of these good things. He's saying, think of what Jesus did for you. He went to the cross for you. He prayed, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. He loved even those who are crucifying them. Therefore, I'm exhorting you to do likewise. Go pray for your enemies. Go love your enemies and so forth. And those who've just left the synagogue or over there, they're thinking about what this means for them. How do we love our enemies? The people who want to kill us. What does that mean for us? There's a young metal worker standing right next to you, and he's realizing during this sermon, he's been harboring resentment toward his parents. He just became a Christian, and he realizes, I need to forgive.

There's an innkeeper who struck with this language, and he's realizing, wow, to be a son of my father in heaven. That's what I want to be. Help me to practice these things. Help me to be like that. And all around the room, a community is being shaped here. A new reality is being unleashed into the world, the gospel, the values of the kingdom of God. And the same thing, by the way, is happening in our church services today, even if they don't feel dramatic or grandiose. church is the beach point of the in-breaking of heaven on earth.

And God is doing something sacred in that time. And that's just the sermon. So hopefully we're getting an image of this. Now this is where it gets interesting. Note what Justin says next. Then we all rise together and pray. And as we have said before, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought.

And the president in like manner offers prayers and thanks. givings according to his ability and the people assent saying amen and there is a distribution to each and a participation of that over which thanks have been given and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons now this reference to communal prayer let's just go through this bit by bit here again trying to be a detective to note the details it's wonderful to imagine this you know if you again you think of yourself in northern Italy or whatever and you're in this house church and what this prayer would be like, this is the first of several indications of how communal and participatory this worship gathering looks like. If you think of these words, we all rise together and pray. So the merchant and the

slave and the widow and the innkeeper are all there together, shoulder to shoulder, united in prayer to God. I remember, if you've ever been, if you're not a part of prayer gatherings, if it's not a part of your Sunday morning experience, you have to have something like that because it's so edifying. I remember being in Munich last year, and I had the privilege of preaching at a smaller church that was very participatory like this, very communal, but just so edifying. And I've been a part of other services like this where there's something about the gathering and other people are praying and their prayers help teach you how to pray and sharpen you. You just think of the way the presence of Christ is promised in Matthew 18 upon that particular

experience of multiple Christians coming together to petition their father. It's wonderful to imagine this there. Now, you might wonder, well, why isn't there any singing? Well, Everett Ferguson thinks that hymns may have been present under Justin's use of the term prayers here. Remember that Justin's account here is compressed. This is not exhaustive. Think of this as more of a snapshot. But we know that singing also took place because we see this in other sources like the letter from the Roman Governor Pliny to the Roman Emperor of Trajan, written about 110, and it references how Christians are accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsibly a hymn to Christ as to a God. And then it also mentions oaths.

We also have references to singing in the New Testament, for example, Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs in Colossians 316 and various other texts as well. So even though Justin's account doesn't explicitly mention singing, That does not mean that did not happen. Nonetheless, the thing I want us to see is this communal response to the sermon, and then this leads into the climactic element of this gathering, the Eucharist or communion or the Lord's Supper, which Justin has just given a fuller explanation of two chapters earlier. But again, let's play detective and note some of the fascinating little details. First, why bread and wine and water? Because the wine was mixed with, with water, and we know that from two chapters earlier,

where that's referenced, I think more than once, actually. But in the ancient world, this was a common practice, and Christians followed this practice, and over time, this took on symbolic meaning as well. So some connected this with the blood and water from Jesus' side, or the unity of Christ and his people, and other things like this. Second, note the little phrase according to his ability.

So you have the president who's standing up, and so the people have all been praying, and then in like manner, the president stands up to pray, and he's praying, according to his ability, what an interesting little phrase. This suggests that the president's prayer is not yet a fixed script. There is structure and there is leadership. You're not just in a completely spontaneous time.

Nonetheless, there is not a rigid liturgy either. Andrew McGowan, in his study on worship in the early church, thinks that this passage implies that basically the person presiding over the meal is extemporizing when they are praying. And elsewhere, he uses the language of spontaneous rather than fixed to describe the prayer leading up to the Eucharist. And that would flow well with, you know, communal prayer and then in like manner, the president prays. So you might ask, okay, well, what kinds of things would he be praying? And we have an example that is, again, not saying it would always be just this, but an example of what's representative from a little earlier in church history in the Didocay 9 and 10.

Let me just read from chapter 9. This will give you a flavor. Now concerning the Eucharist, thus give thanks. First concerning the cup, we thank you our father for the holy vine of David, your servant, which you made known to us through Jesus your servant, to you be the glory forever. And concerning the broken bread, we thank you our father for the life and knowledge which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant, to you be the glory forever.

Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills and was gathered together and became one, so let your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom, for yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. But let no one eat or drink of your thanksgiving, but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord. For concerning this also the Lord has said,

give not that which is holy to the dogs. And he's quoting Matthew, that text is quoting Matthew 7, 6 there. Remember that word holy and the reference to Matthew 7 there. Again, be a detective, little details, you realize, oh, something significant is there. So often study, careful study is just a matter of just constrained, detailed, attention, you know, just really looking and just thinking, studying, meditating, and so forth. And then in did okay 10, there's a prayer. after the partaking as well. And again, the dominant note is Thanksgiving. Do you see how delightfully

simple all this is? That's something we're going to come back to. I'll put up the beginning of Didac A-10 so you can just see a little bit of this. And again, the term, I think I forgot to say this, but the term Eucharist comes from a Greek word meaning Thanksgiving. So, but remember, what I want you to take away just from here is the ending of Didac A-9 that says, no Eucharist unless you've been baptized. We're going to come back to that when we get to implications at the end. Now, in the Eucharistic prayer of Thanksgiving, there's such a communal thrust. So you have the people saying amen during the president's prayer. Okay, this gives you a certain flavor of the spirit of this.

But then you also have amazingly the care from the deacons to those who are not present. Okay? This is amazing for what it shows of the strong sense of unity here. for even those who are not physically present, they're being thought about. And the early church saw the Eucharist as not just a ritual, but as a bond of communal belonging. It had to do with unity in Christ. So there's a lot of emphasis on peacemaking. If you've been quarreling, you make peace before you take of the Lord's Supper.

That's part of what this is doing. And that fits with Paul's imagery of one loaf for the unity of the body in 1st Corinthians. The focus here is strongly toward Thanksgiving, and it has a strong horizontal element. Now, what Justin describes doesn't look like a full meal, but that was a common practice at this time. Andrew McGowan, in his book on worship in the early church, notes that the Eucharist was one expression among a wider range of early Christian meal practices, and that Eucharistic celebration was often embedded in a larger meal or banquet or sometimes love feast. And that explains how in Corinthians you have people getting drunk during the Lord's

Supper and how in this text you can see on screen, Paul can contrast the Lord's Supper with alternative meals being eaten at home. That only makes sense if the Eucharist is happening within the context of a real communal meal. And in the early church, you also have references to shared meals. I mentioned the word love feasts, which at times appear to be associated. with Eucharistic practice, though over time, the Eucharist proper becomes more distinct from any sort of broader meal practices. Let me just describe, quote, how McGowan traces some of this development. The meal tradition did, however, change in striking ways even across the first few centuries

of Christian history. The detachment of the Eucharistic food and drink from an actual banquet, with its attendant rights, venues, and accoutrements, to be received in token form in separate morning assemblies was the most important change and probably happened somewhat later than usually presumed from the mid or late second century into the mid third century. Theologically, there were important shifts. We have noted that ideas close to that of real presence are early, but that these and in particular notions of sacrificial offering become clearer and stronger over time. As an example, I'm not really trying to make a point about, you know, real presence and sacrifice.

I'll say something about that, but I'm actually trying to get to a more basic, as you hear of just the experience. What is this, how does this administer? What does this look like? And McGowan traces out in Carthage, to give an example of this, from 200 to 250. So think of Carthage in the time of Turtullian to Carthage in the time of Cyprian there in North Africa. And what McGowan is suggesting is that earlier, around 200, you still have a lot of emphasis upon these smaller gatherings, often more in the evening, banquets or love feasts. And then by 250, you because the church is growing so rapidly during this time, you've got more of an emphasis upon a larger gathering in the morning that isn't a full meal. And you can see his discussion around

page 49 of his book for that if you want to chase the weeds on that. That's Carthage. I'm not saying that's everywhere at that time. But it's one example of this change from smaller, meal-centered gatherings to larger, more structured assemblies in which the Eucharist is no longer embedded in a meal banquet. And that change is gradual and complicated. And I'm not even trying to say you have to have a strong opinion about the details of that. But I wanted you to be aware of that. Now, there's a lot more to Eucharistic theology that Justin doesn't go into. Again, you just see the amazing simplicity of this passage in breaking down the core elements. But there's more elsewhere in Justin. So again, don't assume that just this description in

Justin is giving you even his full theology. McGowan just referenced, the Eucharist as a sacrifice, you see that elsewhere in Justin's writings. For example, I'll put up an example there on screen. And those are the issues I've addressed more in other videos. I've addressed that a little bit in my response to Taylor Marshall, and also in a video called a worship problem for Protestants. I'll link to those. I also have done a lot of videos on real presence. You can see my case in five minutes for real presence, or my follow-up dialogue with William Lane Craig on that, and I've even done some other videos on that as well. What I want you to see is the these distinctive elements from Justin, the emphasis upon Thanksgiving, the horizontal focus on

peacemaking, and this more participatory mode, and then the development from meals to more of a focus on Eucharist proper. But let's finish off here with this last part of the passage in Justin, because it continues the communal focus in amazing, in such a beautiful way. And they who are well to do and willing give what each thinks fit, and what is collected is deposited with the president who succors the orphans and widows, and those who through sickness or any other cause are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word, takes care of all who are in need. This is a voluntary gift here. You see that language about those who are willing and what each thinks fit, and this might be the most counterintuitive. And this might be the most counterintuitive.

countercultural feature of this description for modern audiences. Giving is not a separate program. It's part of the worship, and it's not siphoned off. The worship flows organically into mercy ministry. So for Justin, this is just part of what the worship is like. You know, you distribute the Eucharist to those who need, and then you meet the other needs. And the offering here supports widows, orphans, prisoners, sick, and strangers. But then he just broadens it to say, anybody who has need. And, you know, I just think maybe the person in whose home they're gathering is well to do. And she is looking at the orphans and she's saying, I'm one in Christ with them.

How can I not tend to their needs and so forth? A beautiful picture of Christian community reminds me of Acts chapter 2, where you have people selling and their possessions to provide for those who have need. And the simple question is just to say, you know, have we lost this today? How might God call us back to this radical unity and generosity? Maybe some different cultural expressions of the details, but this is a beautiful way to showcase the gospel to the surrounding world. Now, that's really it. That's all Justin says.

Again, I told you those five elements. Again, that's a representative snapshot. I'm not saying that's exhaustive. After this, all Justin really does is go on to explain why they gather on Sunday. day. Again, I touched on that earlier. But then the text ends. I mean, it's a remarkably simple description of a Christian gathering. You might wonder, what about other things? And again, because the account is compressed, you can look elsewhere in Justin's writings and see some other things. For example, after his description of Christian baptisms, he talks about the holy kiss.

Okay, this is something comes up in four different letters of Paul. Nonetheless, even though it's a compressed snapshot. This gives a great window into what Christian worship would have been like in the second century, and we can learn a lot from this. Let's look at the broad structure of it. Because what you basically see is three kinds of activities, the first two being more vertical and the third more horizontal. First, you have the scripture and the sermon where God speaks to us, and then you have prayer and eucharistic reception taking the Lord's Supper, where we respond to God. And then there's sharing the Eucharist and giving to the needy, where there's the more horizontal element. And that really does fit well with the New Testament. You know, think of Acts 2, for example.

So what do we do with all this? Let's close with some challenges and implications. So, you know, the first most basic question we can ask is, do our church gatherings lack any of these basic elements that Justin describes? Even this compact paragraph describes a wholeness that different Christian traditions today tend to emphasize pieces of. Here's how Ferguson puts it. It is commonly said that in the medieval church, the mass was emphasized at the expense of other activities of worship, and that in the Reformation, preaching was highlighted at the expense of the rest of worship. The worship described by Justin calls us back to the fundamentals. Now, you might push back on that a bit. He's making a generalization there. Okay, that might be true for some strands of the

Reformation, but not others. Similarly, in the medieval era, you have some elapse of preaching in some places, but not everywhere. Preaching in Prague, for example, in the 1300s was pretty impressive. But you can appreciate the point, right? There is a contrast here, and in the spirit of admitting our shortcomings, let me offer a challenge to my fellow evangelicals from this account in Justin. I think it's pretty obvious how Justin raises challenges in some of the other directions, because of the simplicity of the worship he describes, and the undeniable fact, when you study church history of development, from the earlier times to the later,

I use this word accretions a lot, and the reason I do is it's just true. Things get added on over time, and in Eucharistic theology, what the reformers were objecting to is developments way later than Justin. Transubstantiation is the way to understand real presence, adoring the Eucharistic elements rather than eating and drinking, withholding wine from the laity, private masses for the dead, various superstitious practices, things like that. I've talked about

that in other videos. But here, let's put the focus, let's turn the, tighten the screws on evangelicals a little bit, because Justin's description of worship emphasizes the centrality and the sacredness of worship, and in particular the Eucharist, in ways that many contemporary evangelicals have fallen away from to some degree or another. Not only is the Eucharist weekly, but in Justin's description, it's climactic within the service. And the fact that it's brought to those absent is one little detail that we should really allow to strike us. And this can rebuke us if we ever think of experiencing Christ and experiencing the gospel through the Lord's Supper as this kind of marginal or optional aspect of Christian worship. May I put it as strong as to say that all throughout

church history, pretty much everywhere, the Lord's Supper, or the Eucharist, has been central. And in Protestant settings, sometimes, not all, I mean, actually, the Reformation itself really recovered that. But in some Protestant strands, we've got our own accretions and our own accreted realities or our own sort of falling away from things. Too often the Lord's Supper is treated as secondary, with a kind of take it or leave it, kind of ethos. And this is something that just doesn't pass a basic whiff test in church history. The significance of the Lord's supper and the sacredness of it is something you really get wherever you dive in. And it's there in the New Testament as well. And so, and I've said more about this in other

videos like this one of just ways, trying to call evangelicals back to our own roots. But let me just highlight one aspect of that here in Justin. It's what we saw earlier, and I promised I'd come back to it, the necessity of baptism for the Lord's Supper. sometimes Christians today are very, especially evangelicals, can be very loose in our administration of the Lord's Supper. It doesn't feel sacred and well governed and protected. And in particular, sometimes we don't fence the table in ways that even historic Protestants have been so careful about. Just a chapter earlier, Justin speaks to this, and I won't read this whole passage, but he talks, no one is allowed to partake.

but the one who believes in the gospel and has been baptized, and that's what he's emphasizing there. He's also got, this is one of those passages where he's got a pretty clear doctrine of real presence as well, even if it's not articulated in scholastic language, it's there. But I want to highlight this point, no Lord's Supper unless you get baptized. You don't get the second sacrament if you don't have the first. The baptism is the gateway into full formal participation in the life of the church, and that was not taken lightly. In the early church preparation for baptism, the Catholic. medical process could take up to three years. And then after the fourth century, that gets compressed a lot.

But this was very serious, and I want to keep belaboring this word sacred. In many contexts in the early church, there's really two portions of the worship service, one that's open to all, and then a second portion specifically concerning the Lord's Supper available only to the baptized, so those not yet baptized would often depart. I'm not saying it looks exactly the same everywhere. again, there's changes, but that's very common, and it comes to predominate. So we can make this basic point. Fencing the table is a historic Christian practice, rooted it in a theology of the sacredness of the table, and I could quote to you from 1st Corinthians 11, if we wanted to get this not from church history, but straight from the apostles,

we can see the sacredness of this act. I mean, let me just actually read these words and just let them land on you afresh, having come through the second century, back to the first century. says here, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself, and then he's saying, that's why some of you have died. And at a minimum, what we can do, we need to, you know, I would encourage every pastor and church later watching this to think through what is our prescribed plan for how we're going to fence

the table. Here at Emmanuel Nashville, we have a certain script that we will repeat. You're trying to make that clear to visitors without embarrassing anyone, but trying to honor them. But nonetheless, we need to think this through, oh boy, I'm burdened about the laxity of much evangelical practice on this topic. Hopefully you see where I'm coming from. I'm not even trying to settle all the details as much as just inculcate some of the basic values here. Worship is sacred. The Lord's Supper is sacred. We need to take this seriously, and that's a clear lesson from church history as well. Let me close by mentioning the deeper principle behind fencing the table. It's not to be purely restrictive. It's because of a sense

of what is so sacred about the Lord's Supper. Church should feel like we're stepping into a different atmosphere. Not because of the outward circumstances like stained glass windows. Stain glass windows can be beautiful. They're great. But in Justin's Day, you didn't have stained glass windows, but you still had the sacredness. Church is sacred, not just because of the external accidents of it, though those should adorn the sacredness of it, but what ultimately makes it sacred is what Jesus is doing in that time. This is like heaven breaking into earth. And that's why it is so beautiful that in Justin you have this simplicity. You don't need a lot of money. You don't need a huge crowd. You don't need fancy lighting. It can be as simple as sitting around the

living room, but there, hearing the word of God, coming to the Lord's table, with genuine faith and open hearts, miracles happen because, as we said, Jesus promises to attend with his presence such meetings. Church should feel like stepping through the wardrobe into Narnia, because we're coming to the presence of Jesus himself, and all our traditions need to think about how do we convey that sacredness. So that's an application to make for today. Thanks for watching this. Let me know what you think in the comments. I'll be curious to read them this time. God bless everybody.