APOSTOLIC TIMES?"

In answer to the question which constitutes the caption of this article, I must say: It all depends upon the circumstances. If but few Christian lived in any city all could and possibly did meet in one assembly, as is the case in some cities today. In Nashville, there are about fifty places of meeting. In Memphis, about a dozen. Possibly fifteen in Ft. Worth, and as many in Dallas. In Richmond, Va, there is but one assembly and it is small.

In Jerusalem, it would have been impossible for all Christians in the city to worship in one group or assembly. "About 3,000 souls were added" at Pentecost. A few days later at Solomon’s portico "the number of men" added was about 5,000. "And the Lord added daily to the church," when it was practically unknown outside the city of Jerusalem. The Temple belonged to the Jews—who were bitter enemies of Christ and His church. The apostles and others were allowed to speak in the outer court, where an open forum was conducted. But the Communion of the Lord’s body and blood which was (and is) a memorialization of a redemption to which the Jews (as a people) were (and are) alien. They would not have allowed that institution observed in the Temple. It is not probable that any building large enough to hold all that vast multitude of Christians could have been found in Jerusalem, even if it had been sought. But the Communion was instituted in connection with the vanishing Passover supper, which was always observed in small companies in private houses. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the Communion was so observed, for a time at least, until the customs, etc., had changed. So it is said of the 3120 disciples in Jerusalem that they "were continually attending to the Apostles’ doctrine (Gr., didachee, to speak in a public assembly; not didaskalia, the thing taught) and to the contribution (for so the word koinoonia (lit. fellowship) is used in Rom. 15:26; Heb. 13:16, etc.) and to the breaking of the loaf and to the prayers" (Acts 2:42); and in verse 46 it is said that, while "they continued daily with one accord in the (outer court of) the Temple," yet they observed "the breaking of bread from house to house." "The breaking of bread" is placed, in verse 42, along with and conjoined by the conjunction "and" to "the teaching," "the fellowship" or contribution, and "the prayers"; thus showing that it, too, is an item of the worship. It means the Communion. Verse 46 says it was observed "from house to house."

A very valuable work has recently fallen into my hands entitled "The New Testament in Modern Speech," translated by "Richard Francis Weymouth, M.A., D. Lit." and on Acts 2:46 he makes this sensible remark.

"In private houses) No doubt the upper rooms in the large houses of the wealthier Christians were used for this purpose, and so we get here our first glimpse of the ‘Church in the house’ (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philem. 2) .... It would suggest that the Breaking of the Bread took place in the house of every individual believer. ‘From house to house’ is a possible rendering."

Much has been said about the imaginary large assembly in Antioch. But they should not be so sure of that. Weymouth renders Acts 13 :1, thus: "Now there were in the Church there (at Antioch)—as Prophets and Teachers—Barnabas, ‘Symeon, etc."; and says in a marginal note

"In the Church) Lit. ‘throughout the Church’ (cp. 11:1), an easily intelligible expression if we suppose the ‘Church’ to signify the entire body of believers in the city, and that they were wont to meet for worship in private houses in distinct and scattered congregations, each probably with its own leader."

The church at Rome has been supposed by many to have been a large group all meeting in one place or building. But "what saith the Scriptures?" Paul, writing to all brethren in Rome, says "likewise greet the church that is in their (Priscilla and Acquilla’s house" (Rom. 16:5). On this verse Weymouth remarks:

"The Church etc.,) The trade that Aquilla and. Priscilla and Paul followed no doubt necessitated their occupation, if not a large house, at any rate of a house that contained one large room, probably the entire top story. We have not similar information concerning Nymphas (Col. 4:15), or Philemon (Philem. 2). See also Acts 2:46."

The supposed large congregation at Corinth is not consistent with Paul’s allowing that "all (male members, cf. vv. 34, 35) may prophesy, one by one" (1 Cor. 14:31) ; nor with his "to all that in every place" (no doubt implying that there were various places of meeting in Corinth); see 1 Cor.1 :1, 2.

Some speak (ignorantly) of "the big church at Laodicea. But Paul says to the Colossians, "Salute the brethren which are at Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house" (Col. 4 :15) On this point Weymouth quotes Lightfoot as follows:

"There is no clear example of a separate building set apart for Christian worship within the limits of the Roman Empire before the third century, though apartments in private houses might be specially devoted to this purpose."

Colosse is thought by some to have contained a big church. But it is well known that Philemon lived there. Paul writes "To Philemon our dearly beloved, . . . and to the church in thy house (Philem. 1, 2). Weymouth says

"Church in your house) i. e. accustomed to hold its meetings in Philemon’s house, ‘your’ being singular here, as it is, for the most part, throughout the Letter."

Having examined the Bible evidence we now turn to profane history. While these statements are not inspired (as are those from the Bible), they are worthy of consideration. The advocates of large assemblies, it must be remembered, have nothing to base their claims upon but their assumption, while we have both history (though it be uninspired) and the Bible (which is "Godbreathed" or inspired) to uphold our contention

Early European History by Webster: "Every city had a congregation of Christian worshippers. They met, not in the synagogues, as did the Jews, but in private houses. (The meeting of each was called ecclesia from the Greek word for assembly). They met, not in the synagogues, as did the Jews, the Holy Scriptures, and partook of a meal in memory of the Last Supper of Jesus with His disciples."

Mace and Tanner (History for W. Va. Schools, p. 125): "At the beginning the Roman Emperors cared little about the Christians. But when their number increased, trouble came. The Christians were suspected of forming a dangerous secret organization. When they met privately to observe the Lord’s Supper, it was thought that they plotted against Caesar."

Neander’s Church History (Vol. 1, p. 402): "The places of Christian assembly were at first rooms in private houses. In large towns, where such a place of assembly could not accommodate all, it became necessary that smaller portions of the community dwelling at a distance, should choose other places for their meetings on Sunday."

Schaff-Herzog (article "Altar"): "The oldest meeting-places of Christian worship were rooms in ordinary dwellings."

From the foregoing it is seen that each assembly in Apostolic times could use but "one loaf" (1 Cor. 10:17) and one cup "a cup’," as the American Version reads (Matt. 26:27, etc.).

James 2:2 is the only possible reference to a meeting for worship apart from the residence of a brother or sister in Christ. "If any man comes into your assembly, etc." The Greek word for ‘‘assembly’’ here is the one elsewhere rendered "synagogue." It is likely, therefore, that the Christians from among "the twelve tribes (of Israel) which are scattered abroad" (James 1 :1) worshipped in synagogues, similar to those used by the other Jews (those who did not believe) for the reading of the law and’ the prophets, etc.