I watched and listened to a sermon you delivered in Athens, Georgia [August 2023, available here]. I enjoyed it very much… and thought you were sensitive to your audience. I could not help but jot down some questions for you, if you’re happy to address them:

  1. You presented Acts 2:42 as prescriptive and not descriptive. I see it as descriptive than prescriptive. These practices were not recorded to have happened in Samaria, in the Gentile cities Paul planted the church in, and in Rome.
  2. You said that Sunday gatherings did not constitute the church and that church houses were the real gatherings. Didn't the first Christians initially meet at the Solomon's colonnade at the temple?
  3. You seem to have been advocating a stop to the use of the word “disciples.” Did you? That was my takeaway. Doesn't the term “disciple”—mαθητής appear many times in the three synoptic gospels? I agree with you that “brothers” and “sisters,” “saints,” etc. are also relevant terms.

Thank you. — H. E.

Sure, I’m happy to respond.

  1. Yes, of course Luke is describing. There is no imperative in Acts 2:42. Yet descriptive sometimes is also prescriptive. Look at how these four focuses reappear in Luke's work (Acts, but also Luke). The distinction between “root” and “fruit” is an important one. I still think the tail is trying to wag the dog. And it isn't working.
  2. The Colonnade was an open public space where anyone could walk. The Christians would naturally gather there, and in other locations. I don't see how this would be a “church service.” Even if it were, that would be a non-regular event, unlikely for 1000s of Christians (around 3000 males in 2:41 and 5000 males in 4:4). Yet I don’t believe I said that Sunday gatherings aren't church, only that the nitty-gritty of Christianity happens in one-another relationships, in smaller units. That's the overwhelming evidence of the NT.
  3. Yes, disciple is a good word, and it’s still in my vocabulary. However, wouldn’t it be better to translate it as students? Disciple is only a transliteration of the Latin discipulus, which translates mathētés. So why is it never found referring to Christians outside Acts and 1 Pet 4? I'm not saying don't use it, but why use it to the near-exclusion of all the other terms for his followers, given their considerable frequency?