“To Philemon...to Apphia...to Archippus...and to the church, which is in your house.”
Philemon was a believer living in Colossae, and he was a co-worker of the apostle Paul. The church in Colossae met in his house; consequently, the phrase “to the church, which is in your house,” indicates the church in Colossae. This is history.
Theotorian (?) said that until the fifth century, whenever visitors toured Colossae, they would visit the house of Philemon as a historical site. It was a place tourists could not miss in Colossae. This was due to the fact that the church in Colossae met in that particular house.
The church in the house of Philemon was the church in Colossae, for the church in Colossae met in the house of Philemon. Therefore, the churches in the Bible all take locality as the unit-the house can never be the unit for the church.
We have seen that the New Testament speaks of the church in a house four times. What do all these actually mean? We must see whether or not the house is the unit for the jurisdiction of a church by examining this matter from another angle. I do not know whether or not you understand what a “unit of jurisdiction” means. For example, when we weigh things, we use the pound as the unit of measurement; thus, the pound is the “unit of weight.” When we measure things, we use a foot as the unit. Thus, a foot is the “unit of length.” A pound is a unit of weight, and a foot is a unit of length. Is a house the unit of jurisdiction for the church? As I have said before in other places, the unit of jurisdiction for the church is a city, or a locality. This is based upon God’s teaching.
Why is it that a city, or a locality, is the unit? It is because Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea were all localities, and only one church stood in each locality. If God did not take locality as the basic unit of church jurisdiction, there would not have been seven churches in these seven localities. There would have been instead one church for all seven localities. In other words, although one can say that there are seven localities, he cannot call the seven congregations in the seven localities seven churches (presuming that a church is not based on locality). But in the Bible, God told us that there were seven localities and there were also seven churches! They were seven churches in Asia, not the church in Asia; they were churches, not the church; they were the ekklesiae, not the ekklesia. Not only were there seven different churches on this earth, but there were also seven lampstands in the holy place before the Lord-there were seven, not one. It is undoubtedly evident that what men should obey is what God has shown us, that the locality should be the unit of jurisdiction for a church.
This is to say that a church takes a locality as its unit. When we add more than one unit together, we do not have just one unit; we must have two or more churches. Therefore, we have “the churches...in Judea [a province]” (1 Thes. 2:14) and “the churches of Galatia [a province]” (1 Cor. 16:1). Because a province is made up of many localities and the basic unit of the church is a locality, once there are many localities, there are also many churches.
Again, may I ask, Can the house become the unit for the church? To answer this question, we must have a very clear mind; otherwise, we will make mistakes. We have to understand the difference between the house mentioned in the Bible and the house mentioned by those who advocate house churches today. The house that is spoken of in the Bible is the place where the church in that locality met. Therefore, the church in a certain person’s house is also the church in that locality. The church in the house of Aquila was the church in Rome, the church in the house of Nymphas was the church in Laodicea, and the church in the house of Philemon was the church in Colossae.
What about today? Some people teach that although Rome is one locality, there can be two churches in Rome-one on a street and one in a house. They say that in Colossae there can be three churches-one on a street and two in different houses. They teach that the church in a house is a church that is smaller than the jurisdiction of a locality, and in the same locality there can be many churches. They utilize the word house in the Bible to assume that the church unit in the Scriptures is not limited or bound to a locality but to a house. You must take note that the house spoken of in the Bible and the house proposed by some people are entirely different.
Now the question is: In the Bible, is there a unit smaller than the locality for the boundary, the jurisdiction, of the church? Man says there is; God says there is not.
This question is very easy to answer. We have seen that there was only one church in Rome, one church in Colossae, and one church in Laodicea. Clearly, the book of Revelation shows us that the church in Laodicea was singular in number, which also corresponds to the one golden lampstand in the heavens.
The most obvious example was the church in Jerusalem, which at that time was the church with the greatest number of members. All those who study the Bible know that the meetings of the church in Jerusalem were held in different homes. The Bible says, “In the temple and...from house to house” (Acts 2:46). The word house here is not merely one house. Acts 5:42 also records, “...in the temple and from house to house.” Here again it is not merely one house. Later, when Peter came out of prison, he went to the “house of Mary” (12:12), which was one among many of the houses. Now the question is whether this kind of house can be the unit of jurisdiction for the church. History shows us that among all the other churches, Jerusalem had the greatest number of members and the greatest number of home meetings. If God had any intention to take the house as the church unit, then Jerusalem would have been the most qualified locality and the best church to be a pattern to others. If in Jerusalem, where there were many members and many houses, God did not use the house to be the sphere, the jurisdiction of the church, then we know it is not likely to find any factual basis for taking a house as the sphere of the church elsewhere in the Bible.
What then is the fact? There were many houses in Jerusalem, but God had only one church in Jerusalem. Every time the Holy Spirit speaks of the church in Jerusalem, He consistently uses the word church in the singular, never churches in the plural. The Bible only uses the term the church in Jerusalem, never the churches in Jerusalem. It never says, “Every church in every house in Jerusalem.” There may have been many houses for meetings, but there was still one church in Jerusalem. Any thought of taking the house as the unit of the church is a human concept, not the teaching of the Bible. Just this one phrase “the church which was in Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1) is enough to make it impossible for anyone to establish an isolated, independent, individual, and solitary church in a house.
We also can compare Acts 14:23 with Titus 1:5: “...appointed elders for them in every church” and “...appoint elders in every city.” These two verses correspond and agree with each other. “Every church” is in “every city.” It is in every city, not in every house. The house may be used as a meeting place, and the church may be called the church in a certain person’s house. However, the church in Nymphas’s house was still the church in Laodicea. The city or the locality, not the house, is the proper designation of a church; it is the proper boundary of the church and the proper unit of the church.
Home | First | Prev | Next