Since the church did not meet in church buildings or temples, it is often assumed that the reason is only due to socio-economic stress or that they were restrained from outside pressures. As already noted earlier, there is no evidence for this conclusion and given the nature of the ekklesia, there is no reason to assume that they preferred a “church building” if they could have one. People have made a similar assumption that if a church didn’t have at least a piano, they must not have been able to afford one. Once again, because we have inherited this institutional mindset, success is measured by such things as church buildings, and modern amenities. Yet, the very thought behind these things is so abnormal to all N.T. teaching.
When brethren met together, their homes were open for this meeting. It was the most natural place to convey the idea of God’s “family” or His “household.” And in a context where believers were described as adopted sons (Rom 8:15-17) or as servants and stewards (1 Pt 4:10), the
description of the called-out as the household of God (cf. Eph 2:19) or household of faith (Galatians 6:10) is hardly surprising. Thus, the use of the figure of speech, being such a prominent image of that day, was very fitting to describe the interaction of saints. Once a relationship was established in Christ, as Lydia compelled Paul to come to her house, brethren often shared their meals and the protection of their homes.
Brethren would also share their possessions. This is not to advance the idea that the church in Jerusalem was a social network of individuals purposely formed to feed the poor saints. Nor do the events of Jerusalem in those early days support modern-day communism. Several factors would lead to this conclusion, but the two most glaring reasons is the context of persecution and famine. The poor condition of those displaced from their homes, the uprising against the disciples because of their growth, and famine would certainly give cause for such sharing. In addition, they shared their physical needs because they shared a much greater relationship and a common faith in Christ.
Others have suggested that they were committed to the same spiritual goals because of the physical aid they received and shared with each other. Such an attack on their motives might be a common reaction if the same circumstances were duplicated today. However, the text describes a number of newsworthy events that would have made the paper of every town in America and abroad. Jerusalem had never seen such miraculous displays of power performed by the apostles of our Lord. The excitement was at an all-time high. Instead of returning home, the new Jewish disciples remained in the city, not because they would have food and protection from the Sanhedrin. If they were motivated for selfish reasons, they would have left the city, along with the persecutions, and rationing of food.
After all that they had witnessed, heard, they committed themselves to Jesus Christ as Lord (cf. Acts 2:37-41) and continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and prayer. This was stated before any mention of persecution or physical needs. Evidence of the spiritual interests that bound them together continued beyond Jerusalem. The proposal that brethren met in homes because it was best suited to meet brethren’s physical needs implies that if those physical needs were not present, they would not have met from house to house. It is more reasonable to conclude that the spiritual needs served the greater purpose of their togetherness.
One of the complaints hurled against me and the view of the ekklesia not describing a local church organization is the lack of fellowship. This is so far from the truth. Instead, it increases togetherness to the point where most modern Americans would be inconvenienced. Today, it’s convenient to go to a church building when we please and leave at a predetermined time. We do not feel obligated to bring the saints with us or meet somewhere else with them. We have “done church,” met at the “appointed time”, and afterward, it is over. The church building cuts out the inconvenience of someone interfering with our private time at home. For this reason, it is likely that church buildings have not contributed to fellowship, but to our failures to share with one another. Romans 12:4-18 is not being fulfilled during our “church times.” Being devoted to one another in brotherly love, given to hospitality, weeping and rejoicing with each other, and associating with others are descriptions of people who are sharing their lives together. This is very different from putting “church” in a box limited to three events a week, while hoping someone from the community will visit us. This is an example of substituting only three times a week for a daily lifestyle. Today, brethren should be eating together, “visiting” the sick that would involve meeting the needs of those not in-hospital care or confirming our concern in-hospital care, studying together, praying together, writing cards of encouragement, admonishing one another, and being involved in each other’s lives. It involves spending our energies and resources and taking risks to break down the barriers that separate us and love each other as brethren!
Compare common practice to the pattern in the New Testament. When preaching the gospel, brethren who traveled away from home would be lodged by fellow-workers who extended their hospitality (cf. 2 & 3 John). Unlike the Synagogue and temple as places to meet, togetherness was expedited much easier by participating in each other’s daily lives. What better way to do this than meeting where people live. The home became the arena of activity. While Luke records that saints in Jerusalem met in the Temple, we understand that the temple provided a public forum for teaching as Jesus demonstrated in His last days here on earth. In the evening, he retired to a house in Bethany. Peter and John, who were also Jews, went to the temple during the hour of prayer (Acts 4). That this was not the same as “going to church” to check off the list of duties in the religious compartment of life is clear. Since the temple area was the center of religious activity for the Jewish people, we would only expect Christians to go where the opportunities existed to teach. This is exactly what occurred. This corresponds to Paul teaching the Ephesians “publically” in addition to “house to house” (Acts 20:20). In their homes, the doors were always open for brethren to meet for prayer and mutual encouragement. Again, what better forum to fulfill the needs of our family (Romans 12:4-16).