Newsletter Vol.1, #34—August 14, 2005
Matthew 6: 14 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you;15but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
house churches continued from last weekà “Rusticus the prefect said, ‘Tell me where you assemble, or into what place do you collect your followers?’ Justin said, ‘I live above one Martinus, at the Timiotinian Bath; and during the whole time (and I am now living in Rome for the second time) I am unaware of any other meeting than his. And if any one wished to come to me, I communicated to him the doctrines of truth.’ Rusticus said, ‘Are you not, then, a Christian?’ Justin said, ‘Yes, I am a Christian..”
Justin knew of no other assemblies in Rome than that one. There was no multitude of house church assemblies in Rome at that time. Strangely, he follows the above quotation with a part of a statement from the first Apology of Justin, in which Justin says:
“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in the cities or in the country gather together to one place and the memoirs of the prophets are read as long as time permits.”
Justin goes on to talk about their eating the Lord’s Supper while together on Sunday, and says: “Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly.” (See Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 186). There had to be a place large enough to hold them. I’m amazed that these house church advocates would use references like this. Yet, here’s more. Jerry Jones, pages 34-35, makes the same reference to Justin. He says:
“In an account of his death entitled Martyrdom of Justin (Chapter 2), he is quoted as saying that the Christians did not all meet in the very same place.’ This statement confirmed the practice of the church in the large cities meeting in many places at the same time because of the size of the church and the persecution it was receiving,”
Jones makes the same mistake in using Justin as does Jennings That’s even more surprising because Jones continues after what I’ve quoted above, saying: “Later in the Martyrdom of Justin he is quoted as saying, ‘/ live above one Martinus, at the Timiotinian Bath; and during the whole time (and I am now living in Rome for the second time), / am unaware of any other meeting than his.” How can the statement of Justin confirm a practice of multiple house churches in the large cities when he specifically denies it in Rome?
Justin doesn’t help the house church position at all, nor do any other writings of the second and third centuries. Both Jennings and Jones also refer to various modern historians that have the same views as theirs on house churches. It doesn’t matter who advocates the positions, nor what their credentials may be, There is no evidence for their position.
THE CHURCH IN THEIR HOUSE
There are four places that we find the phrase “church in their house.” These four places furnish the basis in this movement for the name “house church” and its concept. So, the house church advocates translate the phrase “church in their house” into “house church.” With that as a base, they manufacture a reorganization of the church, making “house churches” the parts of their “metropolitan” church. As Jennings, page 81, says:
“We have observed that in Rome, Ephesus, and Colossae, the church consisted of several groups that assembled in private houses of the brethren.”
To sustain their position, they must define the words house and church to suit what they are arguing at the moment. For instance, they insist that the word “house” refers to the building a family lives in, the home. So goes their argument on passages like Acts 2:46; 8:3, and others. It’s a “house” church because it’s just some disciples assembling in the private home. However, “house” is also part of the name for a particular kind of small group. As we have already seen, they make it an identifiable, distinctive, organized entity of itself, regardless of whether its members are assembled or not. One is a member of a particular house church, under the authority of that particular House Church Leader, no matter where he might be at any given moment.
Then they use the word “church” to mean an actual meeting, or assembly, of those people that make up the group. Remember, Jerry Jones said that they could have called them house assembly, house meeting, or house gathering, as well as house church. He places those terms on equal footing. However, in actual practice, each house “church” becomes an entity. It has real existence, an organization, identifying name, and geographical location. It has a roll of membership making up the group, whether the group is in assembly or not.
The four scriptures most used by these house church advocates are Colossians 4:15, 1 Corinthians 16:19, Romans 16:5, and Philemon 2. First to Colossians 4:
“Salute the brethren that are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church that is in their house. And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea.”
You will note that ‘the church” in Laodicea is mentioned. It shows one church there. It also says that there were “brethren” at Laodicea, particularly Nymphas “and the church that is in their house,” There were brethren in the church at Laodicea that were not a part of the church in the house of Nymphas. It is concluded from this that there was more than one “house church” at Laodicea. These house churches made up “the church” in Laodicea. One such house church met in the home of Nymphas.
Jerry Jones, page 1 3, even asserts the possibility that Philemon was a citizen of Laodicea instead of Colossae, and had a house church in his home there, Philemon 2. He recognizes a total lack of evidence for the idea because he says: “The proof of the church meeting in two houses in the same city is not conclusive from the material available, but it is certainly a possibility to be considered.” Mark that quotation well! I don’t know of a better statement to illustrate the kind of “evidence” they have for their whole position. Just for the record, I will point out that it is conclusive that Philemon was a citizen of Colossae and not Laodicea. Colossians 4:9 places the Onesimus of Philemon as part of Colossae, as he does Archippus, Colossians 4:17, Philemon 2.
We must understand that the word “church” is used two different ways in Colossians 4. There is a difference between the “church of the Laodiceans,” and “the church in their house.” Even the house church advocates take the word “church” two different ways in their argument on this passage. One sense in which they use it refers to the “city church.” That embraces all house churches in a metropolitan organization. The second way they use it involves some of the Christians of the city forming a group identified especially with Nymphas, a particular “house church.” Holly, page 3, refers to this passage, quoting it as follows: “To the brothers at Laodicea and to Nymphas and the assembly that meets in his house.” I don’t know what “translation” Holly uses, but it’s a totally inaccurate one. It’s more commentary than translation. There is no justification at all for reading it that way.
To understand this passage, and the others in the list, we must understand how the words “house” and “church” are used, particularly in these passages.
There are two related Greek words translated as “house.” For the most part they are synonyms. Oikos, is one, oikia the other. One is masculine, the other feminine. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says that in early Greek law oikos referred to the entire estate of a person. Oikia meant the dwelling only. However, he adds, page 566: “this distinction was largely lost in later Greek.” In the New Testament, oikos may refer to a literal structure where people live, a home, dwelling, a house. Mark 7:17 uses it this way: “And when he was entered into the house from the multitude. . .” Or, Acts 21:8: “. . . and entering into the house of Philip the evangelist … Oikia may also refer to the same thing. Acts 4:34 says: … for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them. . .” Or, I Corinthians 11:22: “. . . have ye not houses to eat and drink in?” Now compare I Corinthians 11:22 with verse 34 of the same chapter, where we find the other term, oikos: “If any man is hungry, /et him eat at home.” These are parallel passages in their subject matter; the dwelling place is meant in both scriptures. So, we must conclude that both oikos and oikia may refer to a physical dwelling.
Oikos also refers to a household, the people of the family, regardless of where they might be geographically. According to Acts 10:2, Cornelius: “feared God with all his house.” “House” means the people of his household, not the structure where he lived, as in verse 30. Acts 11:14 also refers to the people of the household of Cornelius:
(to be continued)