Some Necessary ConsequencesRev. Brian M Abshire

The Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20 is often summarized as the Lord Jesus’ final marching orders to His church. In one of the last specific commandments given to the Disciples, He recapitulates the Dominion Mandate of Genesis 1:26, demonstrating that the Gospel is the means by which the earth is to be subdued as the nations are discipled. The Book of Acts continues the ministry of the Lord Jesus through His Holy Spirit in His church and as such has much to say about HOW He intends to fulfill His Great Commission to disciple the nations.

The issue of “how” is significant. Granted, the Apostles were given miraculous powers such as healing, prophecy and even the ability to raise the dead as a means of authenticating their message. And indeed, God raised up powerful evangelists such as Peter, Paul, Stephen, Philip, and others who proclaimed the message. True, God specifically entrusted certain duties in the church to Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists and Pastor/Teachers. But an examination of Acts reveals that there was more going on, under the surface so to speak that illustrates the phenomenal evangelistic growth that turned the ancient world upside down.

In addition to the normal evangelistic endeavors of the Apostles and their associates, one of the primary methods of early evangelism in the early church was through household ministry; i.e., through individual families sharing the gospel of Christ with friends, families and neighbors. While the book of Acts itself concentrates on the evangelistic efforts of the Apostles, household ministry can be shown to be a necessary consequence of their ministry, undergirding and supporting it. In fact, it is likely that the majority of converts to faith in Christ, were not the direct result of Apostolic evangelism itself, but rather as a “snow-ball” effect; i.e., the Apostles reached certain people, who then reached others, who reached others, etc. Several lines of evidence will be used to support this proposition.

House-churches and Evangelism:
It is unlikely that the ancient church was structured exactly as ours are today. In the first century, the initial outreach of the gospel was within the synagogues. As Christians were driven out of the synagogues, they usually met in homes with wealthy families opening their homes for worship (e.g., Rms 16:1, Col 4:14, Phlm 2. etc.). There is no good evidence that the first century Church engaged in building meeting facilities. Especially during times of persecution, church buildings would have been primary targets for assault. Hence, in a particular city, Christians would meet together in various homes. The size of a home necessarily limits the number of people who could have been present at any one meeting. Sheer limits on facility space meant that in any given city, there would have been little opportunity for ALL the Christians to meet in the same place at the same time.

Now this does NOT mean that there was not ONE church in a particular city. It is clear from Acts 4:36-37 that the Church Jerusalem for example recognized some sort of unity. Land was sold and given to the Church for the ministry of the widows. Obviously therefore there was some sort of over-arching sense of community. However, though there was ONE church, that church would have had to meet in a variety of locations. This is clear from Acts 5:42, “and every day in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ. (Acts 5:42)” Now it is possible that the Apostles here were just doing door to door evangelism. It is possible that they were doing what we call “pastoral visitation.” But neither option best fits the context. The Apostles were preaching. It is hard to imagine that they thought that door to door evangelism was the most effective use of their time, when people were crowding around them to touch them, be healed, etc. In the same way, pastoral visitation, a necessary and important function, is not essentially “preaching.”

Instead, it would seem likely that the Church was spread out through the city likely because there was no one place that the entire church could meet. Therefore, as a part of their ministry, it is possible that the Apostles ministered in various smaller house churches as a part of their larger ministry to the entire church.

Hence, already in place in Jerusalem, within just a few weeks of Pentecost, there was both ONE church, yet meeting in a variety of locations. Households in the ancient world were much larger than modern ones. Families were larger, and wealthier ones had servants who also had children. It is therefore likely that two or three households in the first century would have as many members as the average size evangelical church in America today (about 75). Thus, it certainly would have been worth the Apostle’s time and trouble to minister to these “house” churches throughout the city, some being larger, some smaller. It is also likely that people became associated with a congregation that was within a Sabbath day’s walk of their own home (a necessary consequence of living in first century Israel).

Now, to be fair, these house “churches” did not operate like modern churches. For example, there is no evidence that initially each house church had its own pastor, or deacons, etc. In Acts chapter six, seven men are chosen for the entire church, which easily numbered in the thousands. Yet, it is significant that at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, both Apostles and Elders of the church meet to consider the issue of whether or not gentile converts had to be circumcised (Acts 15:2). By this time in the church’s development, there were operational elders exercising leadership in the church. It is not a stretch to think that just as Moses had ordered Israel by placing an elder over every ten households, that the church in Jerusalem might have eventually been arranged in the same way. One church, many locations.

But our point here is that with thousands of members, the church had a very small “staff.” Seven men had responsibility to take care of the widows, but initially (at least until Acts 15) no pastors. There were only twelve apostles who were restricted by facility space and distance by how many people they could minister to at any given time (remember Jesus had to preach in the mountains to get enough space for his sermons). Now granted, Jerusalem in New Testament times was not a great modern metropolis. It probably measured less than fifteen hundred meters by a thousand meters in the city center. It was not impossible for the Apostles to travel about preaching at various locations. But it is also clear that the church lacked the kind of organization most people take for granted today. Apart from the diaconal work for widows, it would appear that individual households had to have taken personal responsibility to minister to people. Granted, at this point we can say no more than those households may have invited their friends, neighbors and family to come hear Peter, John, etc., preach. But the premise is laid out; small congregations scattered throughout a community with a limited ecclesiastical structure.

Furthermore, Jerusalem was a special situation. Until persecution drove them out, the early church lived in a hothouse environment. Jerusalem in the first few years of the church must have appeared to be a little like heaven. Here were the Apostles who knew the Lord Jesus personally and could talk about Him (what would we give to know more intimate details about the Lord Jesus). Here were probably gathered in one place the most powerful preachers in history! What they did not know by training, they might have learned through special revelation! But this situation was temporary and unique (as noted by their decision to hold everything in common. The Apostles were undoubtedly warned Jerusalem Christians that God was going to destroy the city. Therefore, they had to sell up their property before God destroyed it all anyway).

Antioch and Beyond
A more “normal” church situation would have been found in other cities. For example, three thousand people were converted at Pentecost. Many of these people came from cities all over the Empire. A significant number of these people would have stayed in Jerusalem as long as possible. But an even greater number would have been forced by finances and domestic responsibilities to return home. Hence, the first great wave of evangelism after Pentecost (fulfilling Acts 1:8) going into the Roman world would have been through these converts returning home with the gospel. Thus one finds a growing, dynamic and flourishing church in Antioch but NO mention of the Apostle who founded it. How did the gospel get from Jerusalem to Antioch in such a short time? Granted, many of the Christians at Antioch might have been refugees from Jerusalem when persecution broke out. But more likely, Nicholas one of the original seven deacons, was a proselyte from Antioch. Nicholas was likely a gentile convert to Judaism who then realized that Jesus was the promised Messiah when he heard the gospel at Pentecost. He may have settled in Jerusalem, but he undoubtedly had contacts back in Antioch, friends and families with whom he would have shared. Thus, the ground may have been already broken quite early.

However, we know from Acts 11 exactly how the church in Antioch started. “Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. 20And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. 22Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch…”

Notice what happened here. A general persecution begins after Stephen is executed. Who was scattered here might be open to question (was it just Christians in general, or the Apostles and church leaders?). But the “who” is not so important as the “how.” The gospel was preached to just the Jews initially. But some of those Jews were from Phoenicia and Cyprus, who in turned, shared the gospel with the Grecians at Antioch. There is no mention of the Apostles here, or evangelists. It was average, run of the mill type folks, who shared one with another. We know that this was NOT an Apostolic enterprise because when the church in Jerusalem heard about Antioch, they sent Barnabus to investigate. If they had started the work, why send someone up to see what was going on? This passage is crucial because it demonstrates a powerful evangelistic dynamic; it was NOT just Apostolic preaching, or associated evangelists who spread the gospel, but rather individual Christians sharing their faith whenever and where-ever they found opportunity.

Thus sharing the gospel was not being purely the purview of the church leadership, i.e., pastors, evangelists, deacons, etc. Clearly individual Christians were taking personal responsibility to spread the Word, and God was richly blessing their activities. While the Apostles stayed cooped up in Jerusalem, the Great Commission was being fulfilled through God’s people. In other words, what we conjectured might be happening in Jerusalem (individual believers sharing their faith and thus adding to the church) we now know DID happen in Antioch. The church in Antioch was begun, maintained, and grew through individual households sharing the gospel. Now granted, the Christians in Antioch were not to be left to their own devices; that’s why the church in Jerusalem sent Barnabus. He and others ministered to them, taught them, instructed them, etc. Not for a moment are we trying to undermine church authority or the need for sound preaching. We are simply showing that evangelism came, not just by the ministries of certain gifted men, but to the contrary, outside of Jerusalem, PRIMARILY through individual Christian households.

Therefore, since we see this dynamic so clearly in Antioch, it is not unreasonable to assume that this same principle was at work with all the Christians at Pentecost who returned home. Antioch might have been the most successful, but in every place where Christians returned, it is likely that they shared their new faith whenever and whereever possible. Hence, as important as the Apostolic witness and the work of various evangelists were, they would have found the way prepared before hand by laymen.

Paul and Beyond
The Apostle Paul is normally considered the “Apostle to the Gentiles” for his work in bringing the gospel to Asia Minor and Greece. Yet, his most famous book, “Romans” was written to Christians in the Imperial City, Christians he had never met. There was a growing, dynamic church in Rome to whom Paul wrote in preparation for his intended missionary work in Spain. Question; who started the church in Rome? Roman Catholic prejudices aside, there was already a church there when Peter arrived. The gospel had already penetrated to Caesar’s own guard! The simple answer is that the Roman church was founded by converts from Pentecost who returned home, shared the gospel and laid the foundation for Peter and Paul’s work later on.

In fact, think about this; Paul travels to various cities and preaches the gospel. Depending upon the circumstances, some believe, some don’t. Paul then leaves to go to another city. How did the gospel penetrate those cities? There were initially no trained elders or pastors. Sometimes a city might just have a few households professing faith in Christ. Yet, the church grew and thrived. All of Paul’s letters are written to churches (several of them in individual houses such as Philemon’s). Who did the work of evangelism when there were no pastors? The only answer is that the house churches were established, similar to the structure in Jerusalem. The same limits on facility space and transportation apply here. But the difference was that unlike Jerusalem, there was no council of Apostles that preached and taught on a regular basis. Obviously, traveling ministers would have visited occasionally, but this would have been the exception, rather than the rule. The only way for the church to have functioned, grown, thrived and flourished is if individual households had opened their doors and shared the gospel and ministered to people in their communities.

Granted, Paul spent two years teaching in Ephesus, and it is likely that in that time, he trained a number of men for the ministry. Furthermore, these men then would have traveled to various places teaching and preaching. But most of the New Testament records itinerant ministers, as opposed to what we might call today “residential” ministers; i.e., there was a critical shortage of pastors throughout the first century. Every pastor had to travel to various churches. By the time the New Testament was being finished, Paul has Timothy and Titus appointing elders in various cities; but the church had already grown enough in this time to support such men (cf. 1 Tim 5:17ff). How did the church grow without full time pastors? The only way would have been through individual households taking personal responsibility to share with their neighbors.

Church History after the First Century
Though space is limited, it is worth mentioning that Church history records that the national conversions occurring during the decline of the Roman Empire, especially after the fall was often due to Christians being taken as slaves in barbarian raids. Granted, there were great evangelists like Patrick who evangelized England, but he himself BEGAN his ministry as a slave. Historical documents also recognize the significant influence English Christian slaves had on evangelizing the Norse. Granted, there were national conversions as powerful evangelists won individual kings and then those kings in turn converted their entire kingdoms to the Faith. But from the fifth through tenth centuries, evangelism spread through the pagan world in large part through the evangelistic efforts of slaves. As one household embraced the gospel, brought to it by a Christian slave, that household would then reach out to others.

Conclusions and Applications
Though admittedly this is a brief and over-generalized view of evangelism in the first few centuries of the church, and at best, only a first attempt, it is intended to help clarify the means by which God uses the power of the gospel to transform not only individuals, but nations as well. There is no doubt that in the VAST majority of conversions recorded in the book of Acts, it was not just individuals who were reached but entire households. Limited facility space and the lack of mass transportation limited the distance one could travel necessitated small house churches. The lack of ministers continued right up to the close of the New Testament. The existence of functioning churches, growing and thriving without direct Apostolic ministry or a strong ecclesiastical bureaucracy all build a strong circumstantial case that the incredible rapid expansion of the church in first three decades was due not just to a few evangelists, but rather the entire people of God taking personal responsibility to share the gospel.

We know that modern sociological research indicates that almost 90% of those who come to faith in Christ and join a local church do so through the witness of a friend, relative or neighbor. This statistic is certainly consistent with what we know about early evangelism. In no way does such recognition denigrate the work of the pastor or the evangelist. To the contrary, the two ministries are interdependent. The pastor preaches and teaches the truth, but the individual household takes that truth and applies it in every area of life, including reaching out to others with the gospel.

There is a tendency amongst all people to shove off responsibilities on others. If the church has the belief that evangelism is primarily the duty of the pastor and elders, then they will not evangelize themselves. But if they are taught that household evangelism is not only acceptable, but a normal part of the Christian life, they will be encouraged and motivated to open their homes and reach out to the lost. Household evangelism thus cannot but help the church in an anti-Christian age.

It is true that the Great Commission is given to the church. But the Church is more than her institutions and bureaucracies. The ekklesia is the entire called people of God in all their work and ministry for the Kingdom. It is time to start seeing the broader aspects of the Church outside of narrow, institutional grounds. The Faith belongs to all, layman and clergy alike. And a Church that disciples the nations must use all her assets in extending the Kingdom of God.