Many of us are aware of the great work Dr. Tom Wadsworth is doing. His popular YouTube videos, podcasts, and writings have made a significant impact on those seeking a better way to do life together. While his 300-page PhD dissertation may be more than most of us are ready to tackle, we are looking forward to seeing his research adapted into a book for a broader audience in early 2027.
Below is an excerpt from The Shift. In this short work Dr. Wadsworth examines the shift of Christian worship. All of Tom’s writings are available free of charge on his website tomwadsworth.com.
In the third century, several Christian writers such as Minucius Felix, Origen, and Arnobius repeated the common refrain that Christians have “no temples, no altars, no images.” Origen even affirmed that Christians “object to building altars, statues, and temples.” These patristic citations reveal the normative teaching about the temple as found in the first three centuries. Christians oppose temples, along with the worship, altars, sacrifices, and images that commonly accompany them. Since God now dwells in the human heart, Christians honor Him by living righteous and holy lives. But these texts do not represent the entirety of patristic thought in this period. At a very early stage, some writers introduced concepts that would begin to shift away from this normative view.
The shift between first-century terminology and fourth-century terminology is astonishing. “In its first centuries Christianity was a religion highly inhospitable to the idea of ‘holy places;’” says Robert Markus, “by the end of the fourth century it had become highly receptive.” Even as recently as Origen in the third century and Arnobius in 300, Christians proudly proclaimed that they had no temples, no altars, and no sacrifices, which are principles grounded in NT teaching. But with the transformation emboldened by the imperial support of Christianity, Eusebius reveals that (at least some) Christians embraced such temple concepts less than one hundred years after Origen and only twenty years after Arnobius.
Such terminology runs against the grain of NT teaching. Regarding the Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice is “a distinct break from the teaching of the apostles.” As I. Howard Marshall says, “Nothing in the NT suggests that the Lord’s Supper is to be seen in any way as an offering by us to God, and the practice of offering the elements to God reverses the whole direction of the atonement in which God himself offers his Son to die and gives to us the benefits of his passion.” In the NT, Christ’s sacrifice was accomplished “once for all” (Heb 9:27; 10:12). If Jesus’s sacrifice is viewed as inadequate so that it must be repeatedly offered, have we not, in the words of Heb 10:29, “spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant, and outraged the Spirit of grace”?
Beginning with this foundational idea that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, the fourth-century church had fully resurrected the associated “temple worship” ideas of altars, priests, and temples. Do any of these four concepts have sin-remitting power? One might argue that these terms are only applied figuratively, with no intention of resurrecting a Christian sacrificial cult. However, in reality, if a table is called an altar, it will be viewed as a literal altar. If a minister is called a priest, he will be viewed as a literal priest. If a Christian building is called a “temple” or a “house of God,” it will be viewed as a literal house of God. Such terminology will lead each new generation of Christians to fail to see the great difference between the ἐκκλησία of the NT and the temple of the OT, if not the fundamental difference between Christianity and Judaism.
Free resource material from Dr. Tom Wadsworth at https://www.tomwadsworth.com/the-christian-assembly.
Sign up for my bi-monthly newsletter here. Thank you.