Newsletter Vol.1, #33—August 7, 2005

 Matthew 6: ⁸Therefore do not be like them, for your Father knows what things you have need of, before you ask Him. ⁹Therefore pray in this way: Our Father, who is in Heaven, Hallowed be Your name.  ¹⁰ Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. ¹¹Give us this day our daily bread; ¹²and forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors. ¹³And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil. For Yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

 house churches continued from last weekà Snyder says the term “house church” now refers to private dwellings that were remodeled to be meeting places for the local church, “church buildings.” There may be many such buildings whose remains still exist. We may not recognize them for what they are. Without any literary or archaeological evidence, no one can say they did or didn’t have them.

(3) The first century churches were too large to regularly assemble in one place; having no place of a size to contain them, they had to meet in small groups as house churches. It’s strange that they make an argument like this. They also admit that the whole church did assemble in one place for various functions, and must do so even today. If the whole church had to meet in one assembly at times, there must have been a place to do it. Look at the evidence.

First, the church at Corinth met in one place regularly. See I Corinthians 5:4, 11:17-18, 33-34, 14:23. This means that the church was of a size that it could meet in one place. Obviously, they also had a place of sufficient size to have such assemblies. Jennings, page 73, argues that churches such as Corinth could not have assembled every Sunday in one place. However, you will notice he just says, “It is improbable” that they did. That’s real evidence, isn’t it? Jennings also contends, without evidence, that the Corinthian church numbered several thousand members. I deny that and have shown the fallacy of it already. If we granted the number he gives, there still had to have been a place large enough for the whole church to come together. A church that size couldn’t have assembled in a private home. We know from the above passages that the local church not only did, but had to assemble every Sunday. They especially had to assemble to eat the Lord’s Supper. (See also the church at Troas in Acts 20:7).

Second, it is also claimed that the church at Jerusalem had fifty to a hundred thousand members. Thus, Jerusalem could not have assembled in one place; they had to meet in “house churches.” Jerry Jones, page 12, says:

“The size of the church must have measured in the thousands (Acts 2:42; 4:4). Without being able to meet in the temple or in the synagogue (to any great extent) because of opposition, meeting in the homes of Christians was the best alternative. On the Lord’s day it would have taken many homes to hold a church with a membership this large.,’

Note how tentative his statements are; they are mere assertions. Jennings, p. 74, puts it this way:

“Where would this size church meet every Lord’s Day with its eldership at any one time and place? Believers were in the Temple every day teaching and praising God, but we have found no scholars who affirm the Temple gatherings to have constituted the orderly and regular Lord’s day worship assemblies including the Lord’s Supper, contributions, prayers, singing and preaching. Rather their consensus indicates these regular assemblies of devotion and thanksgiving were in the homes of the saints.”

I couldn’t care less about the “consensus” of some “scholars.” There is no evidence given by either man; just assertions. Jennings adds this, page 33:

“Immediately after the crucifixion, the apostles met behind closed doors ‘for fear of the Jews,’ and later throughout the book of Acts it is clear they and the disciples met specifically for prayers and devotions only in the private homes of fellow Christians. The atmosphere of one meeting of this kind is recaptured from the account of Paul’s visit at Troas (Acts 20:7-8), possibly a rented hall of some size (‘many lights’), or an upper chamber in a private dwelling.,’

The errors in that statement should be obvious even to Jennings. He contradicts himself within the same paragraph. He says Troas perhaps met in a rented hall of some size, or a private dwelling. He doesn’t know which, but claims that it was “clear” that they met only in private homes. Well, let’s look more closely at the Jerusalem church. Acts 2:46 says:

“And day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart.”

That’s the American Standard Version. The NIV, that’s so admired by the Crossroads groups, renders this, “Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.”

Who is the antecedent of “they” here? In verse 44, it identifies them as “all that believed.” So, the whole church met daily in the temple. Verse 42 says they “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.” Seeing they were together in one place “every day,” it had to include the first day of the week. This meant that the whole church met every first day of the week, and they ate the Lord’s Supper together.

In verse 42, the phrase “continued steadfastly,” is a double emphasis to show their consistent practice; it was repeated. The “breaking of bread” in the passage was not the common meals they would eat each day, though such common meals are mentioned in verse 46. Otherwise, verse 42 would mean, according to the Apostles’ teaching, that they were not to miss a meal, “continue steadfastly” in eating every meal, every day. Ridiculous! Rather, verse 42 is talking about the Lord’s Supper which the church continued to eat.

This is also seen by verse 46. A special point is made that they ate common meals at home. There is a clear distinction between what they did together and what they did “at home.” This was the consistent practice from that time on. Twenty-seven years later, Paul made the same distinction when he wrote to Corinth, I Corinthians 11:17-34. The congregation came together to eat the Lord’s Supper, but common meals were to be eaten at home. “Ye have houses to eat and drink in,” he said, verse 22. In verse 34: “If any man is hungry, /et him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment.” Why didn’t Paul say: “Ye have house churches to eat the Lord’s supper in!” Simple! it wasn’t to be done that way. Note the clear distinction between the act, and place, of congregational assembly, and what was to be done “at home.” A year after Paul wrote Corinth on this matter, we find the church at Troas coming together in one place to eat the Lord’s Supper, Acts 20:7.

It is true the Jerusalem church continued to grow after Pentecost. Yet, by the time of Acts 6, regardless of how many there were, there was still some place all the disciples could assemble. Look at the record! A short time after that, the persecution arose around Stephen, and the disciples at Jerusalem were scattered abroad. That cut down the numbers considerably. By the time of Acts 15, there was still some place the whole church could assemble, Acts 15:4,22. We don’t know the exact place where they assembled, we just know they did, Acts 21:20 speaks of many thousands of Jews that believed, but it doesn’t say they were all in the Jerusalem church, or even in Jerusalem. It means nothing more than Jewish believers, whoever and wherever they were in Palestine and neighboring areas, as versus those Jewish believers living among the Gentiles, verse 21.

The argument of Jones, Jennings, and others on the Jerusalem church here is just like that of the sprinklers who argue that three thousand people couldn’t have been immersed on Pentecost because there wasn’t enough water nor enough people to baptize them.

(4) Justin Martyr, from the second century testifies to house churches. Jennings, page 32, quotes the following from Acts of Martyrdom. The Prefect of Rome asks Justin, “Where do you assemble?” Justin answers:

“Where each one chooses and can; do you suppose that we all are accustomed to meet together in one place? Quite otherwise, for the God of the Christians is not confined by place, but being invisible, He fills the heaven and earth, and the faithful everywhere adore Him and sing His praise.”

This is quite misleading because Jennings doesn’t quote all the dialogue. Apparently Justin misunderstood the question of the Prefect. The answer he gave was in regard to all Christians everywhere, The rest of the account, that Jennings doesn’t quote, has the prefect asking Justin more specifically about the local assembly of Christians, So, picking up where the above quotation leaves off, it says in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, page 305: (to be continued)