The Church is comprised of BOTH home cell groups and corporate gatherings in buildings and has been so since the book of Acts.
The church is never ever referred to as a man made building of brick and mortar that Jesus is building. The many many people that have referred to it as such are in error.
In scripture we see such clear correction to this we read of,
“Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.”(Colossians 4:15)
I really only need that one verse.
Obviously the word "
church" meaning "a called out assembly", in this case means the people of God . The assembly meets in the house. So the house is not called the church or any building they may meet in either.
Jesus used a word taken from the Greeks "
ekklēsia". The Greek ecclesia is not what Jesus is building. Jesus said he would build His church. This is similar to the word "temple" the word temple is taken from the pagan word and yet Jesus calls his body the the temple, and in the New testament all believers are the temple of God. If we take the Greek word to literally we are a pagan temple. But no this is not what is meant.
The Greek
ekklēsia is used a number of ways.
The part that has NOT been mentioned is Strongs reference:
ἐκκλησία, ἐκκλεσιας, ἡ (from ἔκκλητος called out or forth, and this from ἐκκαλέω); properly, a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly; so used
1. among the Greeks from Thucydides (cf. Herodotus 3, 142) down, an assembly of the people convened at the public place of council for the purpose of deliberating:
Acts 19:39.
We see clearly that Jesus is not building the Greek
ekklēsia, even though he used the Greek word "
ekklēsia"
the meaning is this
"from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):--assembly"
but even if we use your definition "
a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly; so used"
the place the believers gathered in was a house. as we already saw,
"the church which is in his house.”(Colossians 4:15).
The community would know whose house the gatherings were in. But the most important part is that the word use in Colossians 4 for "church" is "ekklēsia". Showing clearly that the assembly of believers is meant.
The scriptures define how Jesus used the word "church". Clearly he always referred to the church as his body the believers. Yet why do so many drive by a man made building of brick and mortar where no people are in at the time they drive by and say "there is my church?". This error is often often spouted by many pastors as well. They will often say well meet at the church tomorrow or we are cleaning the church Saturday, or the church needs a new paint job etc. All this displaces the true church and the function of the true church and creates an error that seeps into the entire function of the gatherings/
Additional:
Acts 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
This did not happen in a home church - it was the church - the center of activity where the presiding apostles and elders were.
Are you trying to say, (as it seems here) that the word "church"refers to a church as "
the center of activity where the presiding apostles and elders
were."?
This would be very wrong to say so. I already mentioned in another post that if believers can meet in a home that is the best wisest guidance for a body to function and have a meal, but if they can have mutual edification and face each other and body ministry with a meal in a larger place where the function can happen and God's order is free, then that can also be good. But the verses you bring don't give all the info you are implying. You are desperately trying to justify the large castle like structures of today where all face forward and see the back of each others heads to the one man pastor or priest on a altar with steps leading up to it. This is wrong and unbiblical. We see no such thing in the order of God in the New testament.
You sait
"
it was the church - the center of activity where the presiding apostles and elders were."
No "it" was not the church. I marvel at how simple this is and yet some miss it. I have had disagreements before with some in person who tried hard to prove that their man made religious temple was the church. I marvel.
also you say that the church in the gathering in Acts 15 was a large building as you call the churhc.
But in Acts 15 we see that
"
they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question...And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them."
The believers in Jerusalem did meet in homes as we see in Acts 2 from house to house and they also met in the temple. The temple meaning Solomon's porch as scripture speaks of. We don;t have evidence that they met in Solomon's Porch. But if they did this was a large area attached to the Temple where they would do miracles and evangelize and talk of Jesus. This was not for the meal together and mutual edification. The Jewish believers were still attached to the temple, and they did animal sacrifices and kept the law zealously at this time and so to try and use the temple or Solomon's Porch as a example for all believers to follow is not right. But we don't know where they met exactly. So your argument is from silence. We do know that wen Paul went again to Jerusalem in Acts 21 we read,
"And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present."(Acts 21:18)
It says they went in unto James. Does that mean they went to James house? Either way if they met in a larger court of a large house or at Solomon's Porch, we don't have evidence. Some can meet for matters in a larger area at times. But this is not the regular mutual edification of one another with a meal and ministry.
It is interesting to note that in Acts 15, we see all are free to minister not just one man over all called "the pastor" or "president" etc. We see Paul James, Peter, certain believing pharisees, Barnabas, and many elders, all speaking.Not just one man over all.
I have visited other home meetings where they came together to discuss matters, this was for a certain reason to help the other meetings as well to understand better things. If a home meting has an issue which is difficult to understand or come to peace about. They can meet with other homes to discuss this.
we also read
"we came to Ptolemais, and saluted the brethren, and abode with them one day. 8 And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. 9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. 10 And as we tarried there many days,.."*Acts 21:7-10)
Here we see that Paul went to stay with the brethren in one place, no doubt a home, and then he went to another home gatherings where there was a meeting and we see daughters prophesying . Prophecy is part of the body ministry to edify the church.
"...
but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."(1 Co.r 14:4)
This was the norm for them all over.
The church (singular) at Ephesus and Corinth met in large building - not private homes. It is evidenced both in scripture and in archeology. The historicity of these buildings is proven and not disputed.
You have proven nothing and not given the exact dates. I have researched some of the wealthy homes in Corinth were very large and some had large court areas and big spaces. You are assuming the church of those days was like todays 15 thousand people in an arena. No I don't see that in scripture of history. Show your evidence and dates and writings about the man made buildings you speak of.
I have been in the Church at Corinth. For it not to be the building called the church hundreds of years of archaeology and scientific proof - including some of the inscriptions on the building itself would have to be false.
What? Again you make such a error by calling a man made building "the church". Unbelievable, You are the one who is speaking in error here.
and show your proof of such and exact dates and writings about this. Either way the church is the body of Christ and if they are free to edify each other and face one another having a meal and ministry to "one another" as commanded in scripture, then the place is not the main issue. But they should and not be hindered by a one man over all called the pastor. If he controls all things and all activities and they are not free to be led by the Spirit.
for you to say again,
"I have been in the Church at Corinth"
This is great error. The church Jesus is building is made up of the people of God He is the head and we are the body,*Ephesians 4:15,16, Colossians 2:9) He is also building His church with living Stones as scripture shows.
“Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:” (Colossians 1:24)
"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, ..." (1 Peter 2:5)
"...ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building." ( 1 Cor. 3:9)
“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.” ( 1 Timithy 3:15)
So obviously when Paul speaks to the Ephesians he would never call a man made building "the church". As you do unfortunately.
Should we have pastors who get treated like kings? Absolutely not.
Yet soo many are today, even if some are the most humble men and have good fruits, in their exalted position over all they are in danger and should beware of the temptation of the Devil.
