I got the following in an email but thought it would be good if we could get all of you to give opinions on the question. No rudeness allowed. Just click on comment and begin commenting. I will do the same. These are questions that we are faced with and should get an answer to:
it says "And daily in the temple, and in every house,
they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ."
I was wondering did they do this daily because;
1. it was tradition to be in the temple daily
2. were they meeting in certain houses every day,or
3. meeting every day, but in different houses
4. did they do it every day because of transportation for example, cell type meetings for each area so that everyone could at least have a meeting once a week?
Vision News
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I really interested in reading the comments. I am not commenting because I have answers but because I would really like to see other peoples comments.. so I am posting to provoke.
I wonder who was meeting daily. Was it the majority of the congregation or was Tuesday mornings for single mothers and Friday nights a youth service. In Acts 6 we find that may disciples were needed for the ministry of Word and prayer. Possibly, because they all had to teach the next day. As our church at Vision grows I could very easily foresee a time where some group was meeting daily in the church.
I have no definite answer either but would say that we know that the Jews had the custom of meeting on Saturdays or the seventh day. That seems to be indisputable. That was a custom of the day that even Jesus followed. We do know that Hebrews 10:24-25 indicates that they felt that they should meet together even more so as you see the day approaching.
We do know that the disciples met together on at least two consecutive Sunday nights.
As pastor I also know that if I have something every night I am going to kill my people.
I hope the rest of you will jump in here with a comment.
I agree. Some of my folks travel great distances to work as well as church. Come Wednesday night they already spent some come with I am so exhausted try to bless me. Notice I said some. Most want to be there to get a spiritual uplift. It will be great when Philadelphia has differnt groups meeting on seperate days every day. I believe it is important for the community to see something going and activity at the church daily. As far as who was meeting daily in Acts, it may have been everyone. I do know that Christians in general need more and would do them good to be truly commited to being daily in the Word!
Something else to consider is the number of believers in those early days. Within a very short time, there were thousands of Christians. All of them probably never met together at one time or at one place... or did they?
I am swamped right now trying to get caught up from the trip and to get ready for tonight but I will be giving some answers and opinions on this in just a few hours
As the church was growing daily and groups of believers were popping up on all sides of the city there was a hunger for learning the Scriptures which created a demand for the apostles’ time. If all the estimates of the size of the church of Jerusalem are factual could there have been a venue that could accommodate them all at the same time? (There were no old stadiums waiting to be converted into a mega-church.) In reading Acts 5:42 I don’t think it was a single congregation meeting daily, but that the apostles had daily meetings as they were doing the work of an evangelist going from one group of believers to the next that eagerly wanted more doctrine.
Another thought. What if we removed television, little league, karate, movies, and the hour commute from our daily schedules, and coupled that with being the scorn of society because we have joined a new despised “religious sect”. We couldn’t wait to meet together with fellow believers. Just imagine how explosive it must have been to watch the church grow like it was. As the old saying goes; “Start a fire and people will come to watch it burn.”
Here are few thoughts that I would like to share on this subject. (I bet you are wondering how I define “few”! Well I do have a “few” kids! Smile!)
First, we must remember that the Apostles were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to prophesy and teaching the Word of God and souls were being saved daily. This was an extraordinary moment in time and had never occurred before. It confounded and fascinated all and brought many to their knees in repentance, faith and salvation. The disciples were teaching completely new doctrine. Doctrine that was completely foreign to the minds of the Jews in that day as well as the gentiles.
The Jews were still living their lives under the law and traditions of men and needed instruction in regard to this matter of salvation in the name of Jesus Christ. Thus the early church leaders were very involved in teaching the new Christians about their new covenant in Christ; which would in and of itself necessitate a great deal more personal exhortation and explanation. Hence, daily in the temple and from house to house.
These verses do not say to me that each individual disciple was out there every day in the temple and in houses. It would seem to me that you could equate it like this using law enforcement as an example:
And the deputies were at the station and street by street daily securing the safety of the community.
This does not mean that each and every deputy was out that day, but that there were deputies on duty daily but of course in different shifts and some were even off the clock. I believe the same could be said for this passage. It is possibly just a general overview of what was taking place on a daily basis in the new church. I am sure that the Disciples and Apostles rested because that was taught in Scripture and by example in Christ.
The Apostle needed to dedicate time to prayer and the Word as well. However it was only natural that they would meet in houses as there were no formal church buildings at that time. In fact, almost all mention of church meetings were in houses of believers and not in a rented or purchased building. That is not to say that they did not meet in some common meeting halls; one thinks of that night when Paul was preaching and the young man fell to his death (& subsequent life again). That appears to have been in some sort of meeting place. The Disciples were together in an upper chamber.
EUREKA! THAT’S IT! ALL CHURCH MEETINGS SHOULD BE IN AN UPPER CHAMBER AND NEVER ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF ANY BUILDING BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE CHRIST MET WITH THE DISCIPLES AND THE APOSTLES PREACHED! Hmmmmm?!?!?!
Is it not sad where we pick and chose what we can take and apply literally where it serves our purposes but reject where it does not? Then we criticize those who do it differently because we KNOW better than they. Sorry, I digress.
The temple was the obvious clear choice for much ministry to take place as it was where the Jews met for religious observance and it appears clear to me that people were also given the opportunity to stand and expound the scriptures in the synagogues as Jesus and some of the Apostles did. In addition, the Temple had open areas such as the court of the Gentiles etc. which would lend themselves to public gatherings.
I would say that I think trying to read more into this is not helpful. One of the great under-taught blessings of New Testament Bible doctrine of Grace is that I have been liberated from the bondage of man-made traditions. I AM the Lord’s Freeman! With the liberty I have in Christ, I can choose to meet more often or less often. I can choose small group worship or large group worship. The Lord gives us guidance in Hebrew 10:25, but context needs to be maintained.
Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
This verse does NOT stand alone as no verse does. It has a context. The purpose of that exhortation is in vs. 23-24:
Heb 10:23-24 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised ;) 24 and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
How do we hold to our profession of faith? How do we “consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works”? It is impossible if we are not meeting together and strengthening one another in the faith. I personally do not believe that this passage is specifically referring to the corporate meeting of the church at one set time in one set place, but that this is an exhortation to us as individuals to have close fellowship as often as we can to sharpen each other’s “iron”.
If we look at vs. 26 and following, we see that our meeting together, whether in small groups of two or three or large groups of thousands, helps to strengthen the believer to resist sin and its consequences and enjoy the support and care of one another as they cared for one another.
In Acts chapter two, the Bible clearly teaches what they were doing every day in those meetings:
Acts 2:42-46 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
There were four things that they did DAILY:
• Training in Doctrine
• Fellowship
• Eating – this included the memorial of the Lord’s Supper
• Praying
Other things that were done:
• Signs and wonders by the Apostles – Faith building
• Sale and distribution of goods – Faith practicing
The Lord’s Supper was part of the meal time and that was when the memorial was observed, during meals. The Corinthian church was doing it carnally, thus Paul’s rebuke.
We can speculate all day long about the logistics involved as to why they met in houses or went to the temple; however I believe that is not the issue at all. The issue is that we MEET, and that we do so often. And when and where we meet, we practice the same things we have in our example above from Acts chapter two.
Remember when Peter was in prison and then freed by the angle, Peter went to John Mark’s mother’s house where the saints had gathered to pray for him in Acts chapter 12.
That the church met in houses during the early days is without question:
Act 8:3 As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
Rom 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well-beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
1Co 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
Col 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
Phi 1:2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in thy house:
In 1 Tim.3:15 we have a reference to the “house of God”:
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
This in my opinion is referring to the family of God and not the structure where they met. It is like saying as for me and my “house” we will serve the Lord. It is not talking about the building but the people.
The average Christian today equates the church with the building and has done so for centuries. I believe this can be traced back to the Catholic Church and its offspring the protestant churches of the reformation. It is my understanding (limited as it may be) that the true church of Christ throughout the ages has always met in small groups, most of the time under the threat of persecution except in certain locales and at certain times. Churches did not seem to meet in formal buildings until the end of the dark ages and persecutions of the Catholics, Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. which means, only in the last 400 – 450 years or so.
Look where it has brought us. Even the Baptist church is fixated on bigger is better. Is this perspective the correct one? Are the individual needs of our brothers and sisters in Christ best served in the mega-church or the family oriented home or small church atmosphere?
One other tidbit that needs to be recalled is that the first New Testament churches were being persecuted prior to the rest they experienced after Paul’s conversion,. Of course they were not going to be building fine meeting houses to hold their services in. They were underground. Then, they had rest for a time. During this rest the disciples were free to propagate the gospel and strengthen the believers and many were added to the Body of Christ. They began to form churches in cities in the houses of the believers and then the church had to go underground again with the Roman persecutions. It was not till several centuries later that the church as a whole had rest and thus began the formal church settings that we are so used to today.
Please note that after the “mega” conversions of Acts chapter two and four, the church was dispersed by God via the Jewish persecutions. God was pushing them out to fulfill his command to GO! From there we see fewer mass conversions and more individual or small group conversions.
Does this mean that the formal church setting is wrong? That depends, if you mean what the Catholics did and their influence on the trappings and building construction of even reformation protestant denominations (and to some degree us Baptists as well); in my opinion yes. If you mean the practical needs of a local New Testament church that is frugal and wise with their funds, whether they choose to meet in a home, rented facility or formal building, then no.
The dynamics and demographics have changed. The Master and the message change not, however the method can and often does change. Paul was a prime example of this. He adapted the manner and methods to the people he was with, adapting to their needs that they might come to the knowledge of the truth of the changeless message of the Gospel.
In summary (Praise God he’s done!!), there are many reasons as to why the disciples and Apostles met in homes and at the temple. If you are looking for a model for today that matches, look to China and other countries where true persecution is currently taking place. They do not have the luxury of discussing the color of the carpet or the type of pews, chairs or platform furniture that is to be installed as we do in our non-persecuted free churches. They typify that first century church more than anything that currently functions in our western free societies. The only difference is they do not have a temple they can go to and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. If they were to go to the Buddhist temple and openly expound the scriptures, they would be hauled off; much like the first century church was, once the persecutions began. They could not go to the temple any more nor to many of the synagogues around Jerusalem without fear of death, imprisonment or damage once the persecutions began. They went underground or far away to the gentiles where souls were saved but they still met primarily in houses. Then came the Roman and secular persecutions which drove them underground as well, where they flourished.
It was not until Constantine that the big building local churches began to surface as he mixed the trappings of religious paganism and their temples with “Christianity” which resulted in the Holy Roman Catholic church, her offshoots and her protestant daughters. From there with the religious freedoms enjoyed during the reformation and the spiritual movements among the Protestants and the Baptists in England and the United States, we became caught up in the trappings of our Baptist “religion” as well – shallow, sizable, and satiated!
Praise God he has always had a remnant to bring us back to Him and the roots of the Word of God! I fear we are in need of that today. Our freedom and affluence, though a great blessing for the propagation and work of the Gospel at home and via our missions programs, also cuts in a negative way in the form of indulgence, indifference and idolatry.
When the struggles for freedom become a footnote in the history books, the subsequent generations forget what it cost in blood, sweat, tears and prayers to have the freedoms we enjoy: Freedoms unlike any ever seen in the history of the world. With that freedom came a God-given responsibility to spread the Gospel to the entire world. That freedom also has allowed us to get to this point where we are discussing on a blog whether the home church or formal building church is right for us and Biblical and whether we should be meeting daily or not. Imagine that!
God Bless,
Bro. Joe
Maybe it is just talking about how everywhere they were going they were witnessing and telling people about Jesus Christ who had changed their lives. May it does not mean that they were meeting for corporate worship daily but rather they were involved in evangelism on a daily basis. The emphasis seems to be on teaching and preaching who He was rather than just meeting for fellowship, discipleship, and public worship.
Just a few thoughts. Apparently the Greek implies that the time involved is every day and all through the day .
The context seems to limit the individuals doing this to the apostles. In which case they seem to function just as pastors do today.
Maybe others, in the vital foundational days of the church, did refrain from work in order to dedicate time, energy and resources to evangelism. Maybe businessmen interested in world evangelism... :)
It could tie in with the temple worship, not in the Old Testament sense, but in the timing. Whereby they would be there morning and evening for prayers.
Lastly, I do not think it means the people stopped working indefinitely and simply met together. Doesn't II Thessalonians 3:11 refer in part to those who, in expectation of the second coming, stopped working and consequently received a poor testimony?
It seems the public worship, teaching and evangelism took place initially in the temple, in some places synagogues and as time passed in personal homes, then building on the idea of the synagogue they used dedicated buildings.
The door-to-door work sounds like regular visitation as we know it, building up the saints and witnessing to the lost.
Lastly, and then I'll shut up, in Acts we have principles and patterns. Some things we follow to the letter, they are non-negotiable, such as baptism. Others are negotiable, such as, I believe, the place in which we meet and the frequency of those meetings.
By meeting in the temple they were utilizing their best opportunity for public ministry. The multitudes would gather there, especially at certain hours to pray and they took advantage of these gatherings. The people were already thinking of God, and seeking Him, so I believe they wanted to capitalize upon this opportunity.
As for “in every house”, we know that they did meet in houses for the first couple of hundred years and more than likely they had a meeting somewhere everyday. Whether or not this was a regular “church type” meeting is unclear. It must also refer to their evangelistic effort to get the Gospel to every house possible. The norm of the early church seems to be public and private preaching and teaching – probably making contacts with people in their public preaching meetings and then following that into their homes for further and more in-depth instruction and teaching. One thing is clear – the ministry for them did not revolve around the Sunday – Wednesday “tradition” that we have today. They ran a “daily” operation in Jerusalem. That was in Jerusalem.
In other locations their startups were different. Part of their evangelistic plan is fairly evident, they tried to get started with some kind of public situation – i.e. – Philippi, riverside where prayer was made; Thessalonica and Corinth, in the synagogues; the “certain disciples in Ephesus and etc. But aside from them having a “daily” “preaching” and “teaching” ministry, probably every location they had to discover what worked best there.
Well I do thank God for the brief comment from Joe. If any body here could write a book I think that it would be Joe.
Now as to one small opinion. I do not think that it means either that we must meet each day or all day or all the time. I do believe that we need to be careful about canceling meetings because we have very little time with them now and the world gets all of their time. If you you have Sunday School and 3 services a week you will only get 208 hours a week. That is not much time. I do not want less time to teach the Bible. I want more
Also I asked the person who wrote the original question and he said that he is not so interested in cutting out a meeting but making it worth coming to so that it is not just routine or boring. If the service is the same each time why come? Give us an answer on that if you will
Travis wrote the following based on part of the email conversation.
I wasn't very convinced by the reasons they
gave
for
not having Sunday night
church. I agree that people are busy and
have
a
lot
going on, but I don't
think we should stop Sunday night church just
for
that. There so many more
benefits of having church on Sunday night -
discipleship, fellowship,
obedience to Scripture that we are to gather
"so
much the more" as we see
the day approaching.
I was just saying to Teri on this past Sunday
night
that I am glad that we
do not just have Sunday morning like some
churches.
If all we have is
Sunday morning when most of our visitors
come,
there
we would miss out on so
much of the fellowship, training, and
preaching
that
we need as a church
family. It would be like only spending time
with
your family when you have
visitors over.
Any other alternative like meeting in homes,
etc.
doesn't seem to be a very
good alternative. Just my opinion.
This is a response to that email
Travis,
Thanks for replying. Let me reiterate, I am not about
taking away services, just maybe changing the way that we do them, so that they will not become
boring or mundane. You mentioned some of the benefits like
discipleship, fellowship etc. Those are the types of things that I want to discuss, the benefits yes,
but lets look at the way we are doing them. I know that we
all love to eat, but to be honest if my wife cooked the same thing all the time, and there was no
variety, it would be like having left-over night all the time.
Please feel free to comment honestly that is how great ideas come about.
Wayne
To answer your question "what is Sunday morning
producing?" the sad commentary is, that in most
churches, nothing. I know that many would come
back
just based on this deduction, well cancel Sunday
morning also. I guess the original question was
not
stated clearly. I agree that all who are mature
will
be faithful, but they don't come that way. I , by
way
of outside observation would say that the success
of
the ministry in Peru would be contributed to those
first guys around Bro. Austin's desk , and then a
succession from there. So my question would be how
to
more effectively produce that in a church setting
or
do we all get our own "desk" not being funny just
saying that could be our platform.
Wayne
I do not know how much of the ministry that Dad started had to do
with the services, Sunday morning included. His desk taught and
imparted wisdom, his services gave them a place to practice what they
had learned.
Chris
Post a Comment