The Greek words oikos and oikia are often used interchangeably in modern discussions of the early church, yet they carried distinct meanings in the first-century context. Understanding their differences is crucial for accurately interpreting biblical texts and their implications for missions, community, and church structure for today.
Oikia: The Physical House and Family
The term oikia refers specifically to a physical structure—a house or dwelling. Its lexical range includes the nuclear family as well as the space where they lived. In its NT use as a physical structure, we see Jesus instructing His disciples in Luke 10:1-12 and Matthew 10:5-15 to enter a house (oikia) and proclaim peace to those within. This indicates that the oikia was the literal building where the disciples would stay.
In 1 Cor 16:15, we see Paul use the word in reference to a specific family (oikia), that of Stephanus, whose household network (oikos) he had baptized (1 Cor 1:16). Unfortunately, the ESV translates both oikos and oikia as household and misses the distinction. Nevertheless, in both instance of oikia, New Testament scholars point out that it functioned as a sort of operational base for the missionary activity of disciples by providing hospitality and a place from which evangelistic efforts could be launched into a city.
Oikos: The Household and Social Network
The term oikos encompasses not just the physical house and immediate family (oikia) but the entire household—family members, servants, and others who were part of an economic, religious, and social unit. The oikos was more than just a residence; it was a hub integral to the Greco-Roman social structure. For example, in Luke’s account of missionary activity, the disciples enter a oikia (physical house) and proclaim peace to the oikos (the entire household), emphasizing the social and relational aspect of the mission.
Thus, oikos would include the idea of oikia. Yet, unlike oikos, oikia referred to both the physical house and family which did not inherently include the social network of a household. To claim that oikos was the primary New Testament missions strategy overlooks the reality that not every Christian was a patron within this socio-economic, religious system. Some of those who lived with their nuclear families in oikia no doubt participated in oikos just as there were nuclear families who lived a subsistence life-style in their oikia.
Example from the Archaeological Record
Two examples from the archaeological record might help to clarify the difference between oikia and oikos.
Priene
Beneath the site of the Temple of Athena lay a marble road lined with houses on either side. Archaeologists identified one of those houses as the location of an early Jewish place of prayer. Later, it was identified as a Christian place of worship based on tell tale signs indicating that Jews converted and the home repurposed. While there is still debate, the house provides a good example of a location (oikia) where believers gathered to hear the teaching of the apostles, pray, and eat meals together. It could accommodate 20-30 people. This would not have been a network of people associated with the socio-economics of a patron. Rather, this appears to be an example of a Jewish home owner who came to Christ and gathered others in a community of disciples at his oikia.
Laodicea
Easily one of the most compelling archaeological sites of early Christianity, Laodicea became a major center of the faith. Along the marble path to the Western theater, archaeologists identified a house as the location of a church. The peristyle architecture along with multiple rooms and two apsidal halls suggest a home of a wealthy benefactor of early Christianity. It provides a good example of an oikos, a household network which included servants, family, as well as those associated with the patron’s business. The apsidal rooms served as dining halls, audience and lecture halls, and the gathering place of Christians. Its size could easily accommodate 150-200 people.
Implications for Early Christianity
The distinction between these terms is significant in understanding the spread of Christianity in the first century. The early church often met in the homes (oikia) of wealthy believers such as Lydia (Acts 16:14-15), Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48), and Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:1-4). These households (oikos) became centers of worship, fellowship, and teaching. They were socio-economic and religious units where faith and work were shared, and they played a crucial role in the growth of the Christian movement. In this system, the episkopos and diakonos—those who managed their oikos well and held good standing in the city (1 Tim 3:4-7, 10-12)—developed into powerful civic and religious positions by the time of Constantine.
At the same time, believers gathered in smaller homes, perhaps due to the absence of a wealthy patron or simply out of the desire to gather regularly for fellowship (Heb 10:25). There is much yet to be discovered about the practices of the early ekklēsia and archaeology will no doubt help as we learn more about the realia of these homes.
We know from later writings of the apostolic fathers that believers were encouraged to gather daily and to work together (Didache 4, To Polycarp 4, Barnabas 19). In some places, believers were not connected to a Christian oikos as a socio-economic network. In many cases, believers used their oikia as a gathering place with friends and neighbors. Yet, whatever the practices, early believers gathered as much in oikia as in oikos. Both were important to the early spread of Christianity.
Wayne Meeks argued that the household (oikos) was “the basic unit in the establishment of Christianity in the city” (The First Urban Christians 1983:29), providing both a gathering space and an economic network for believers. And, it is precisely this oikos idea that led me to suggest that the movement in Ephesus was quite significant as Paul met with the presbyteroi who were patrons of oikous (pl. form of oikos in Acts 20:20). This aligns with Paul’s frequent greetings to churches meeting in households as seen in Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 16:19, and Philemon 1:2.
However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that believers gathered in many places. In this regard, Meeks’s understanding of household cannot be limited to a physical structure (1983:75ff). As I’ve written elsewhere, the ekklēsia was not constrained to oikia. Believers gathered in trade guilds, synagogues, and philosophical schools. They were in the marketplace, gymnasiums, and government. What they were not was invisible. Always in the public square, the ekklēsia testified to the God Jesus Christ with grace and respect for all those who heard (Acts 19:37).
Implications for Contemporary Church Planting
The distinction between oikos and oikia is critical for contemporary church planting because it highlights the relational and communal, even movemental nature of early Christian expansion. The New Testament model was not focused on buildings (oikia) but on social networks (oikos)—households that served as centers for evangelism, discipleship, and community transformation. This has significant implications for modern church planting strategies:
1. Relational Evangelism: The early church grew by engaging entire oikos networks, rather than relying on large gatherings. This suggests that church planting should prioritize relationships, integrating faith into everyday life—where people live, work, and play—rather than depending on formal structures. Those networks might gather in homes, but they might also gather daily in the workplace lunch room, coffee shops, libraries, schools, as well as church buildings.
2. Scalability and Reproducibility: Because oikos gatherings were decentralized and not dependent on institutional support, they were highly reproducible. Church planting today can learn from this by focusing on disciple-making strategies that empower local leaders and utilize existing social structures. In this sense, the ekklēsia makes the missional move to people rather than asking people to make the missional move to a church building.
3. Sustainability Under Persecution: The first-century model thrived under opposition because it was flexible and embedded within networks: trade guilds, philosophical schools, even sports and creative arts. Similarly, church planting in restrictive environments today can adapt this model to ensure resilience and continuity despite external pressures. Instead of being identified by Western styled church buildings and targeted by religious fanatics, a network approach to ekklēsia adapts to its environment and doesn’t appear foreign.
4. Holistic Mission: The oikos functioned as a social and economic unit, meaning early Christians cared for widows, orphans, and the poor within their networks. The economic function of the oikos provided employment for the well-being of the ekklēsia. This integration of spiritual and social transformation is essential for modern movements seeking to embody the gospel in tangible ways. When the church is dispersed into a community, it becomes a powerful purveyor of good for the community.
Understanding the first-century network model through archaeology and biblical studies helps church planters recover a missions strategy that is relational, reproducible, and contextually adaptable—an approach that remains as effective today as it was in the early church.
Conclusion
Recognizing the difference between oikia and oikos helps clarify biblical texts and the missions strategy of the early church. The oikia served as the physical space of families who practiced hospitality and engaged in mission, while the oikos represented a broader socio-economic network through which the gospel spread. This distinction remains relevant today as we consider how faith communities can engage both physical spaces and social relationships in fulfilling the will of God to unite all things in Christ (Eph 1:10).
Yet, while relevant, we cannot disregard the multifarious spaces early Christians occupied in their daily gatherings. In this sense, the NT house church cannot be viewed as a principle to apply today. Rather, it was a means by which the early ekklēsia gathered and dispersed into the community. We will never recover the same house church form as our socio-economic reality is far from the first century. Yet, the function of oikos as a network can be adapted and applied if we dare be innovative.
Adapted from Dr. Cooper’s forthing book, Mind the Gap: Filling a Void in Missiology with the Archaeological Record of Asia Minor (Wipf and Stock).
Archaeology and Early Christian Missiology
Join Dr. Cooper on an exploration of the dynamic intersection of archaeology and missiology in the study of early Christian movements with a focus on Asia Minor. Drawing on the material culture and historical records of the Seven Churches of Revelation, the immersive learning experience delves into how archaeology informs both ancient and modern mission practices. The course will also discuss how early Christian communities adapted to cultural, political, and economic pressures while remaining faithful to the gospel.
You must be logged in to post a comment.