WHEAT, GRAIN AND MEAL WERE VITAL COMPONENTS TO THE ECONOMY OF 1st CENTURY PALESTINE

*This was my paper presented to my Palestinian Roman class. Hope you enjoy and that it helps you understand the culture in which Jesus lived*

            Many factors composed and held together the society of first century Palestine. Kinship was of great importance at this time. Sons normally followed after their fathers when it came to work. Daughters were normally married to second cousins or wealthy suitors to help sustain the family’s wealth.[1] The cities were very much interdependent[2] and inter-relational, as the shop owners of similar trades would work together in close circles to help keep each other economically afloat.[3] There were tax collectors who would collect monies for Rome in order to keep the government stable. There would be rulers over all of the major cities such as Herod the Great and Herod Antipas who ruled for the Roman Empire over Jerusalem, Sepphoris, and other provinces.  Thus kinship, business, the political landscape, and many other factors were essential to the economy of first century Palestine. But this paper will not focus on any of the previous factors mentioned.  Instead, the focus of this paper will be upon the agriculture, specifically the production of wheat, grain, and meal and their essential nature to the economy of first century Palestine.

            First century Palestine was not a culture of industries like the modern world; many people had to work as farmers either in a small sense just for their household or in a bigger sense at a farmhouse.[4] One author makes the claim that “80 to 90 percent of the populace in Jesus’ day regularly engaged in agricultural work.”[5] Thus, Palestine was self-sustained economically.[6] Grain was a prominent crop that was produced among the farmers. Grain then was a sustaining factor in first century Palestine’s economy. But how can this statement be proven? This paper sets out to prove the previous statement, to show that first century Palestine’s economy was held together by their self-production of grain[7]. One might think that this could not be proven because the remains of seeds, grains and weeds might no longer be evidenced due to their perishable nature.[8] Yet, the significance of wheat to the first century Palestine’s economy will be proven by the examination of many factors, both archaeological and historical.

 First this paper will examine the parables of Jesus of Nazareth, which were spoken to the common man of first century Palestine. Then the sizable presence of farms, both big and small, will be examined. Thirdly, the landscapes and archaeological evidence will be looked at in order to bolster the claim that “‘wheat was grown in all regions of Palestine’…except for times of drought and famine, Galilee in particular and Palestine in general supplied itself with grain.”[9]  Fourthly, the taxation of the villages to the cities’ storehouses will be examined to shed further light on their economy. Then, the historical evidence found in reliable works will be examined. Finally, there will be an examination of the evidenced eating habits, which make wheat a multi-purposed necessity for the first century person in Palestine. All of these factors will be combined to shows how the economy of first century Palestine was dependent upon seeds, wheat, grain, and meal.

Why should Jesus of Nazareth be used to point out the significance of agriculture in first century Palestine? It is key to note that when Jesus spoke to the peoples of Palestine, he did not just speak these parables to a specific social group. The New Testament says, “That great crowds gathered about him.”[10] (Matt. 13:2) This was not just one group of people but instead was multiple groups that many times included the Pharisees (Matt. 12:2). Jesus’ parables should be examined for many reasons. First off, it must be noted that the Gospels are one of the most significant helps that one has to understand first century Palestine due to their details of this era.[11] Secondly, Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth was about four miles from the important city of Sepphoris, and it was south of the rich agricultural land of Bet Netofa Valley.[12] Thus, Jesus was very much acquainted with the agricultural areas. Finally, Jesus was a carpenter thus making him well acquainted with farmers who were on the same level as him socially and economically.[13]

During Jesus’ presentation of the “Parable of the Sowers” it is important to note that he was in Nazareth his hometown (Matt. 13:53-54). One can deduce that in this case agriculture was a well-known, essential part of the economy in Nazareth. The use of agriculture by Jesus was not a mistake because Jesus often used things that were common to the people in his parables.[14] For example, look at the “Parable of the Net” (Matt. 13:47-50) or the “Parable of Salt and Light” (Matt. 5:13-16).[15] These are just a few references that point to Jesus’ use of common things in his parables. Thus, the things that Jesus references in his parables can then be seen as things which were common to the first century people of Palestine and in turn show that seeds, grain, wheat, and meal were common to these peoples.[16] 

Jesus then used his keen observation skills using what was common to the peoples in his public proclamations. There are some key things that one can observe from his parables in order to further understand how essential and common seeds, grain, and wheat were to these peoples. First, notice the disciple’s confused reaction to Jesus’ “Parable of the Sower” (Matt. 13:1-9). Jesus presented a farmer who cast seed in four places: the path, the rocky ground, the thorns, and the good soil. The fact that people sow seeds was a common thing to the people, yet casting seed so randomly seems leaves the people with confusion. The proper way to sow seeds was common to these people. This points out that these disciples, from various jobs, did not just have a passing understanding of how to plant seeds but a proper understanding. It is also to be noted by Jesus’ response concerning the people’s lack of understanding that the common people were also confused, as the disciple had been (Matt. 13:11-13)[17]. Thus, the conclusions made by some that most peoples of the first century Palestine were involved in agriculture, specifically wheat, seem to be true of these “great crowds” that came out to hear Jesus speak.

         Based off of an article, by Yizhar Hirschfield a former Israeli archaeologist, entitled “Farms and villages in Byzantine Palestine,” one can see traces of the agriculture economy of the first century Palestine, which carried over into the Byzantine period. Even Hirschfield himself admits in the beginning of his article that “the economic prosperity of the villages in the eastern provinces, which had begun to take root in the Hellenistic period, continued throughout the Byzantine period.”[18] A lot of Hirschfield’s observations concerning farms in the Byzantine period are based off of the facts of farms in the Roman period. He goes onto explain how proper excavations and dating has concluded that the housings and farms were “diverse, ranging from large or small single farms, to groups of farms combined to form small villages or hamlets, to medium- and large-sized villages scattered throughout the country”[19] The appearance of this mass amount of farms seems to indicate the agrarian nature of the first century Palestinian economy.

         Hirschfield then goes on to trace archaeological findings concerning farmhouses. This is significant because he shows that farms and agriculture were found in a variety of locations in Roman Palestine. Though, in this article his primary focus is upon the Byzantine period. He also mentions some Roman farms because these two time periods over lap in dating of farms and lay out of farms. Often the farms of the Byzantine period had been built in the earlier periods.[20]  The first farm, which had a large plot of farmland, was excavated on the southern bank of Nahal Govta.[21] He even shows how some villages were formed around farmhouses in Horvat Din’ila.  In Ramat Hanadiv a farmhouse was exposed which was much like a Roman villa rustica.  These are just a few examples of Roman/Byzantine farms. Hirschfeld continues to trace farmhouse from the coastal plains, Samria, Judea, the Negev Desert, Northern, Western, central Negev, and the Negev highlands.[22] This agriculturally based society was not just found in a few regions in Palestine but is found throughout the land of first century Palestine.

         Another archaeologist has found farmhouses throughout the Caesarea. One archaeologist says, “Farmhouses, were found dispersed in the countryside of Caesarea, and in the Samaria Hills.”[23]  Thus, along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea and the hills of Samaria there is archaeological backing for Hirschfield’s previous claims of the prevalence of farms in Palestine. It is also important to note that warehouses and granaries were “found next to urban palatial mansions.”[24] This storage of grain is seen as so prominent that it reaches the shore, city, plains, and hills.[25] This evidence concerning farmhouses paints the land of Palestine as actively engaged in agriculture.

         These farmhouses are not only found in all of the previous areas mentioned by Hirschfeld but are also found in and around ancient Jerusalem.[26]  There was a specific group of archaeologists who examined the whole area of Jerusalem finding “literally hundreds of carefully planned farm units and many other remains scattered around Jerusalem.”[27] The conclusions of these archaeologists are very important to the investigation of the agrarian nature of the first century Palestine.  They found two types of farms. The first one covered around four and a half acres of land and was built between the eight and sixth centuries B.C. Though this farm was built during the Iron Age, there was evidence of its usage during the first century. The elements that characterize this first farm are a house at the center, agricultural installations, and an enclosed area for the animals. [28] The second farm had a wine manufacturing installation. [29] This farm was also built in Iron Age and continued in use throughout first century A.D. Yet, it was not primarily a wine press because there was much evidence of the milling of grain found throughout this farm. This farm was built on a slope with a great irrigation system to water the grain and grapes.[30] These farms were primarily focused upon grain and grapes providing crops for Jerusalem.

In examining the landscape of Palestine there is much archaeological evidence, which sheds light upon the claims that first century Palestine was an agrarian based society. Some modern researchers, when examining the soil, have seen the previous agricultural prosperity.[31] One archaeologist points out concerning the soil of Upper Galilee,

In the coastal plain and the smaller valleys, the main soil types are basically alluvial, particularly suitable for field crops and especially for cereals grown without irrigation…Although the vast majority of these fields were not cultivated in 1945, this evidence shows that almost all the land except for the steepest slopes was cultivated at sometime in the past.[32]

Thus, from examination of present day soil and landscaping, archeologists can see the presence of the past agricultural society.[33] This author goes onto to show that there is evidence that shows dividing stonewalls in the fields that might signify farmland, which would point to sheep grazing and the production of produce, which most likely included grain.[34] This further points out the claims others have made concerning the citizens and land of Palestine pointing to their necessity of grain and wheat production.

         To add onto the previous thought, some archaeologists have noticed the presence of this agrarian based society saying that from c.a. 7000 B.C. to c.a. 400 A.C. there was “an active agricultural population.”[35] These archeologists have also based these claims off of the examination of soil and landscaping, seeing remains of this agricultural engagement throughout the land.  They also claim that there was a “prosperous agriculture during the Roman occupation.”[36]  Thus, they have seen evidences of agriculture being an essential part of the first century Palestinian economy and that agriculture continued to grow into the Christian time period. Concerning the area called the Lod (Lydda) Basin one archaeologist notices fertile nature of the soil and also claims that many grains were grown in this area.[37] With these conclusions set in place, by archaeologist examining the soil and landscape, it is clear that the economy of first century Palestine had the fertility to sustain a great amount of cultivation.[38] All of these claims by archaeologists concerning the soil of Palestine coincide claims made by Josephus in the first century that (B.J. 3.42) “the land everywhere is so rich in soil.”[39] The claims of first century Palestine being an agrarian society are not just claims made by past historians but are claims confirmed by modern archaeologists.

         Reflecting upon and examining the lands throughout Palestine, many field archaeologists have noticed much about their agrarian culture. For instance, Yizhar Hirschfield concerning the Ein Gedi noticed “the terraces and irrigation system indicated that these people were engaged in agriculture.”[40] It is not only the soil that leads archaeologists to conclude that the land was ripe for agriculture, but it was also the irrigation system. In the same archaeological exploration of Israel, one archaeologist found “a concentration of cereal grains” in Atlit-Yam.[41]  During this same exploration in different areas they also found grains and other aspects of agriculture that would leave one more convinced that first century Palestine was rich in grain and agricultural cultivation.

         Concerning soil in the land of Palestine, some archaeologists have found some interesting things in the Judean wilderness. On the outside, the Judean wilderness might appear barren and have no chance of farming; yet with a more throughout examination one will find the opposite is true. These archaeologists discovered desert farms that previously provided food for the security garrisons.  These farms were used from the Iron Age into the Byzantine period. These archaeologists began to examine the area of these farms, that were uniquely u-shaped, to find out how the soil was able to produce any crops at all. They found that the water that flowed down towards the Dead Sea would be collected where the farms dwelt. The reason these farms would collect the water was due to the fact that they dwelt in a basin. Not only did the location of these farms help them flourish but also the architects developed a unique system to help retain the water for their crops. Thus, the natural flooding and the skill of these farmers helped to cultivate this wilderness. [42]  These archaeologists “found the botanical remains of wheat and barley, probably grown on the farm.”[43] Agriculture and the production of grain was so essential to the peoples of Palestine that they even cultivated areas that others would think were impossible to cultivated.

         The people of the villages of first century Palestine, specifically Galilee, had a culture of subsistence, which means they primarily produced goods for themselves and not for trade. There was no such thing as a market in the village economy. No archaeological evidence has been found concerning a specific market building in the village, yet the villages did have extra produce that was given to the tax collectors. This tax had previous been paid to the temple because the people were required to give forth their first fruits or one-fourth of their produce. But, when Rome took over Palestine, their leaders just adopted this system of taxation for their government and also required the villages to pay a tribute to Rome. This is shown in Josephus (Ant. 14.209), “[The Judeans] shall pay tithes to Hyrcanus and his sons, just as they paid their forefathers.”[44]  The villages then had heavy burdens place upon them by the Herodian officers who were the collectors of produce for Rome. This type of taxing by Herod “was a system of state monopoly or of tax-farming.”[45] The produce redistribution by the cities from the towns shows that “the grain supply was at the very center of the ‘politics’ of the polis!”[46] In Caesarea the collector of taxed grain for the cities was called “grain buyer (sitonos).”[47] Thus the village’s produce was essential to the economy of the Roman cities because it was taxed to help with army supplies and help the local aristocrats run a better economy.[48]

         Another evidence of the city’s dependence upon the villages, which shows further evidence for this taxation and redistribution, comes from Josephus. In a discourse where Josephus is giving defense of Galilee for the Romans from John of Gischala, Josephus says (Vita 71-73), “The imperial grain stored in the villages of Upper Galilee.” Even though Josephus mentions this as a passing reason for his defense of Galilee it is a significant point. First off, these grain storehouses were so essential to the economy of Palestine that Josephus was willing to defend it by force. Secondly, that this stored grain was actually in existence in Upper Galilee proves the existence of redistribution and taxation of grain by the Romans. Finally, that Josephus was in some way responsible for this grain, showing the importance the village grain had to the Roman cities. This mention by Josephus only further solidifies the claim that grain was essential to the Roman economy.[49]

         Many archaeologists working throughout the land of Palestine have found the existence of granaries and warehouses, which were mentioned previously by Josephus. Excavations have uncovered inside and to the south of Caesarea the storage of grain in underground granaries. These storages areas, which were mainly next to urban villas, took up an altogether twenty-five percent of the area.[50] Thus, this archaeological evidence coincides with Jeffers who says, “Storage pits were dug into the floor to hold grain.”[51] Numerous storage rooms were also found throughout Masada. Many of these storerooms in Masada were specifically used for wheat and grain storage.[52] These storehouses and granaries are found throughout the land of first century Palestine.

         Concerning many of the agricultural recourses in Palestine, historically, Caesarea was a great source of wealth for Herod the Great’s Kingdom.[53] One of the main reasons that Caesarea was a great source of wealth was due to the fact that it possessed the Sharon Plain, which was renown “as a land of wheat.”[54] The Sharon Plain’s wheat was imported throughout the kingdom by their five trade roots, which went in all directions to the surrounding regions.[55] There is also much historical evidence concerning the grain, which was evidently essential to Jerusalem. Historically there are many mentions of “‘fields’… ‘landed property’…threshing[floors]”[56] in and around Jerusalem that provided grain for the city. In Jerusalem grain, flour, and bread went for a higher price due to the fact that much of it was imported from the villages.[57]  In times of famine Jerusalem would first lack grain. This is due to fact Jerusalem had poor soil and was unable to provide its own grain.  But the fact that grain was the first crop to diminish during a famine also points to its essential nature to Jerusalem. The prevalence of grain is also seen in the fact that one of the names of the cities that was within eleven miles was made up of the word ‘wheat.’[58] The fine flour that was received by the temple in Jerusalem was imported from Judea. Grain suppliers brought this fine flour from Michmash, Zanoah, and Ephriam.[59]  Even though Judea provided this flour for the temple, the primary source of imported grain for Jerusalem was from Transjordan. Thus, when it came to Jerusalem, the historical records point to grain being primarily imported from all over the land of Palestine. [60]

         Many of the tools that were used to harvest and work grain have been found in archaeological digs.[61] Yet, before the tools are mentioned, it is important to note that in Caesarea they found an amulet with a man holding back a sickle to thresh produce. If someone was willing to wear an amulet inscribed with a farmer, it is clearly evident that farming was a prevalent and cherished activity.[62] Inside of the city of Caesarea there were basalt millstones found.[63] These millstones were heavy stones used to grind grain for baking and cooking uses.[64] Caesarea was not the only city with millstones; the Ein Yalu farm outside of Jerusalem had varies milling stone scattered throughout their farm. These millstones were made from the hard limestone found in the local quarries.[65] The primary tools for farming were then the sickle noted in the amulet picture and the millstone, which would grind the grain into flour.

Grain, wheat, and meal will now go from simple produce to actualization in the life of the first century Palestinian. Grain had multiple uses within first century Palestine. Yet, there is a primary use of wheat and grain that was used daily by the first century Palestinians. Bread was this primary staple of the first century Palestine citizen’s diet.[66] Bread was not normally made without wheat, grain, or meal. Bread is so essential to the common diet that it was how the devil tempted Jesus (Matt. 4:3-4). It is also what Jesus multiplies, along with fish, to feed the five thousand (Matt. 15:32-39). It is also what Jesus and his disciples eat during the Passover when Jesus institutes the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:14-23). These are just a few examples from the bible that show the prominence of bread, in essence the prominence of grain, among the first century Palestinians.

         The preeminence of bread in the first century Palestinian’s diet was not only seen in the bible but is also seen in other sources.[67] When it comes to housing layout most of the archaeological evidence show bread ovens being found inside and outside of houses. This shows how essential bread was to these people that they would have a specific oven for bread cooking. This bread cooking would be done on a weekly basis. The people of this time would use a millstone to grind their grain or buy ground grain to make their own bread weekly.[68] Yet, it is important to note that some people would take a specific apprenticeship to learn how to cook five hundred recipes, which would require five years of apprenticeship.[69] Josephus mentioned that during a time of famine there were specialized bakers of bread in first century Jerusalem.[70] A loaf of bread in Jerusalem was sold for a twelfth of a denarius. From this price it has been deduced that the price of grain or flour in Jerusalem was “one denarius for each S^e’ah (about thirteen liters or three gallon)”[71] The prominence of bread in the daily diet of all of the people throughout the land of Palestine is clearly evidenced.

         In conclusion, Jesus speaks to the common man’s environment when he speaks in parables about wheat and seeds. The overwhelming archaeological evidence proves this. Throughout the landscape of Palestine many have found fertile soil, remains of previous agricultural usage, and a massive amount of farms. These farms are dated from the first century and are found predominantly throughout the land of Palestine. Yet, these farms’ primary crop was wheat. This is evidenced from the massive amounts of granaries, millstone, and bread ovens found throughout them. This agriculture of wheat is also seen in the storehouses found historically in Josephus and archaeologically in many cities throughout the land. This wheat and grain was used throughout the daily meals of the first century Palestine. Thus, first century Palestine’s economy was very much dependent upon their self-production of wheat and grain.

Bibliography

Albright, W.F., The Archaeology of Palestine, Hardmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1951.

Casto, E. Ray, Geography of Palestine: Economic Geography, Vol. 13, No. 3, (Clark University, July, 1937) (accessed on JSTOR on 2/18/2012)

Dalman, Gustaf, Grinding in Ancient and Modern Palestine: The Biblical World , Vol. 19, No. 1 (Jan., 1902), pp. 9-18 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3137192 (Access date 2/18/2012)

Edelstein, Gershon and Shimon Gibson, Ancient Jerusalem’s Rural Food Basket: The “new” archaeology looks for an urban center’s agricultural base, (Biblical Archaeology Society Online Archive, Jul/Aug 1982) (Access date: April 14, 2012)

Frankel, Rafael, Nimrod Getzov, Mordechai Aviam, Avi Degani, Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee, Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority, 2001.

Galling, Kurt, Die syrisch-palastinsche Kutste nach der Beshreibung bei Pseudo-Skylax, ZDPV, 1938.

Hanson, K.C. & Douglas E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structure and Social Conflicts; Second Edition, Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1998.

Harland, Phillip A., Originally published in Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches, edited by Anthony J. Blasi, Jean Duhaime and Paul-Andre Turcotte, pp. 511-527. (Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Reprinted here with approval from Altamira Press. Copyright Philip A. Harland 2002)

Hirschfeld, Yizhar, Farms and Villages in Byzantine Palestine, Dumbarton Oaks Papers Vol. 51, (1997), pp. 33-71, Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291761 (Access date: 2/18/2012), 33.

_________, Early Manor Houses in Judea and the Site of Khirbet Qumran, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 57, No. 3(Jul. 1998), pp.161-189 (The University of Chicago Press, http://www.jstor.org/stable/545860) (Accessed: 2/18-2012) 

Horsley, Richard A., Archaeology History and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis, U.S.A., Trinity Press International, 1996

Jeffers, James S., Greco-Roman World of The New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Jeremias, Jaochim, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1969.

Josephus, Antiquitates.

 Levine, Lee I., Caesarea Under Roman Rule, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1975.

 Liebowitz, Harold, Robert L. Folk Journal of Field Archaeology , Vol. 7, No. 1 (Spring, 1980), pp.18 Published by: Boston University Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/529580, (Access date: April 6, 2012)

Masterman, E. W. G., Agricultural Life in Palestine, The Biblical World , Vol. 15, No. 3 (Mar., 1900), pp. 185-192 (Published by: The University of Chicago Press Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3137064) (Acessed: 2/18/2012)

Patrich, Joseph, Studies in Archaeology and History of Caesarea Maritima: Caput Judaeae, Metropolis Palaestinae, Leiden, Brill, 2011.

Schwartz, Joshua J., Lod (Lydda), Israel: From its Origins through the Byzantine Period: 5600 B.C.E.-640 C.E., Oxford, BAR International Series 571, 1991.

Smith, G.A., Jerusalem: The Topography, Economics and History from the Earliest Times to AD 10, 2 vols. London, 1908.

Stager, Lawrence E., An excerpt from “Farming in the Judean Desert During the Iron Age”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 221, February 1976, p. 145. Found in Biblical Archaeology Society Online, (accessed April 16, 2012)

Strahorn, A.T., Agriculture and Soils of Palestine, Vol. 19, No. 4 (American Geographical Society, Oct. 1929) (Accessed by JSTOR on 2/18/2012)

Yadin, Y. The Excavation of Masada, Jerusalem, Israel Exploration society, 1965.

Wolff, Samuel R., Archaeology in Israel, American Journal of Archaeology , Vol. 97, No. 1 (Jan., 1993), pp. 135-163 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/505843, (Access date: April 7, 2012)

Weiss, Ehud, Mordechai E. Kislev, Weeds & Seeds: What Archaebotany can teach us, (Biblical Archaeology Review, Nov/Dec 2004) (Accessed 4/14/2012)

---

[1]K.C. Hanson & Douglas E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structure and Social Conflicts; Second Edition, (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1998) 30-47.

[2]It is also important to note that not only were the cities interdependent, but the farms and cities of Jerusalem were interdependent upon each other. One archaeologist notes, “In many ways the urban hub and the surrounding rural areas were interdependent. The rural areas were dependent on Jerusalem commercially and politically Jerusalem, on the other hand, depended on the surrounding farms for a steady supply of agricultural produce. This mutual dependency assumed an urban center that was politically stable and economically sound. The urban center, on the other hand, could expand and develop only if an adequate food supply from the surrounding areas was assured. In short, the population of an urban center was related to food available from the rural areas that surround it.”- Gershon Edelstein and Shimon Gibson, Ancient Jerusalem’s Rural Food Basket: The “new” archaeology looks for an urban center’s agricultural base, (Biblical Archaeology Society Online Archive, Jul/Aug 1982) (Access date: April 14, 2012)

[3]James S. Jeffers, Greco-Roman World of The New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity, (Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999) 54.

[4]“Compared with modern industrial agriculture, ancient agriculture was not very productive. Ancients could expect at best a yield of 10 to 15 times the grain seed sown; modern grain production, with the aids of tractors and chemical fertilizers, often yields forty times or better…Basic agricultural operations were undertaken by families of peasants…living in villages” Hanson, 98

[5]Hanson, 97.

[6] Phillip A. Harland Originally published in Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches, edited by Anthony J. Blasi, Jean Duhaime and Paul-Andre Turcotte, pp. 511-527. (Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Reprinted here with approval from Altamira Press. Copyright Philip A. Harland 2002) 518.

[7]For all intensive purposes grain, wheat, seed and meal will be used interchangeable within this paper since they are so closely related.

[8]It is also interesting to see the research of some self proclaimed “Archaeobotanists.” These people have found remains of seeds and grains from early B.C. Thus, it is highly possible that there could also be some remains of grain found in pottery from the 1^st century Palestine. Ehud Weiss, Mordechai E. Kislev, Weeds & Seeds: What Archaebotany can teach us, (Biblical Archaeology Review, Nov/Dec 2004) (Accessed 4/14/2012)

[9]“…as well as wine and oil” Richard A. Horsley, Archaeology History and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis, (U.S.A., Trinity Press International, 1996) 74.

[10]ESV

[11]W. F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine, (Hardmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1951) 146.

[12]Hanson, 97.

[13]This is true for Hanson says, “The elite 5 percent of the population-rulers…did not regularly do agricultural work.” 97. Hanson then puts most of the rest of the population as agricultural workers. Thus Jesus was well acquainted with agriculture even though He didn’t farm for a living.

[14] Hanson, 97.

[15]For more examples see Jesus’ parables of fruit trees in Matt. 7:15-20; 12:33-36, house building in Matt. 7:24-27, the use of Jonah in Matt. 12:39-42, the parable of the lost sheep in Matt. 18:10-14, and many other references which could be proven historically.

[16]It is also important to note that bread was also a common staple of the first century Palestine citizens’ diet. Bread was not normally made without wheat, grain, or meal. Bread is so essential to the common diet that it is what Jesus is tempted with by Satan (Matt. 4:3-4). It is also what Jesus multiples along with fish to feed the five thousand (Matt. 15:32-39). It is also what Jesus and his disciples eat during the Passover when Jesus institutes the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:14-23).

[17]Though this passage is probably referring to true belief in Jesus by understanding the parables, it is key to note that they didn’t understand the parable. They were confused in some manner, and I believe that part of this was due to the usual way in which the sower was sowing.

[18]Yizhar Hirschfeld, Farms and Villages in Byzantine Palestine, Dumbarton Oaks Papers Vol. 51, (1997), pp. 33-71, Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291761 (Access date: 2/18/2012), 33.

[19] ibid, 36.

[20]This evidence was found by Archaeologists who dated many farms around Jerusalem. Edelstein, ibid.

[21]Hirschfeld, 40. He has a layout of this farmhouse and other pictures of the actual building.

[22]Ibid, 39-60.

[23]Joseph Patrich, Studies in Archaeology and History of Caesarea Maritima: Caput Judaeae, Metropolis Palaestinae, (Leiden, Brill, 2011) 135.

[24] Hirschfeld, 40.

[25]It should also be noted that not only in houses and farmhouses were grain productions found, but there was much found in a Qumran shop. “Others connected to bread making, such as baking ovens, grinding stones, and silos for grain storage, were found in the southern part of the western complex.”- Yizhar Hirschfeld, Early Manor Houses in Judea and the Site of Khirbet Qumran, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 57, No. 3(Jul. 1998), pp.161-189 (The University of Chicago Press, http://www.jstor.org/stable/545860) (Accessed: 2/18-2012) 

[26]Concerning these farms in Jerusalem Edelstein says, “Our interest in farms outside ancient Jerusalem was first aroused in 1977 during salvage excavations at Mevasseret Yerushalayim, four miles west of Jerusalem in the Judaean hills” Edelstein, ibid.

[27]Ibid.

[28]This example is taken from a specific farm at Khirbet er-Ras. Ibid.

[29]This second farm is taken from an example in Ein Yalu. Ibid.

[30]Yet there were many other crops grown at this farm, “The crops grown on the terraces varied widely and included almonds, figs, olives, grapes, and grains. Vegetables could be grown only on terraces irrigated with spring water, such as the one we examined at Ein Yalu.” Ibid.

[31]And desire for the future agriculture to be the as prosperous. A. T. Strahorn, Agriculture and Soils of Palestine, Vol. 19, No. 4 (American Geographical Society, Oct. 1929) (Accessed by JSTOR on 2/18/2012) 581-602.

[32] In between these two quotes resides more helpful information concerning the soil of Palestine, “In the mountain areas and the hills the most common types are brown soils, but in many cases the steep slopes and shallow soil require terracing to permit cultivation. The mountain areas are particularly suitable for vineyards and olive groves, although cereals were also grown there. Examination of air photographs taken by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) in 1945, before the intensive afforestation and development of the last half of the century when the region was still largely bare of vegetation as a result of intensive grazing, makes it possible to trace ancient stone field divisions, terraces, and piles of stone amassed during stone clearing.”  Rafael Frankel, Nimrod Getzov, Mordechai Aviam, Avi Degani, Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee, (Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority, 2001) 2-3.

[33]It is also interesting to note that present day farms still have a relatively average wheat based culture. “About 70 per cent of the cultivated area is suitable for wheat culture, the soils being of the heavy type.  The soils used for wheat are generally deficient in nitrogen and available phosphoric acid. The fertility of these soils is best maintained by use of stable manure.” E. Ray Casto, Geography of Palestine: Economic Geography, Vol. 13, No. 3, (Clark University, July, 1937) (accessed on JSTOR on 2/18/2012) 238.

[34]It is also important to notice that the previous book mentions the finds of several farmsteads during the Roman Period. Ibid, 111.

[35]Harold Liebowitz and Robert L. Folk Journal of Field Archaeology , Vol. 7, No. 1 (Spring, 1980), pp.18 Published by: Boston University Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/529580, (Access date April 6, 2012) 41.

[36] ibid, 20. The author goes onto to say that, “Shores of the Sea of Galilee during Christian times boasted nine substantial cities and beautiful farms and gardens with a population of 50,000-150,000 people”

[37]Joshua J. Schwartz, Lod (Lydda), Israel: From its Origins through the Byzantine Period: 5600 B.C.E.-640 C.E., (Oxford, BAR International Series 571, 1991) 20.

[38]“In other words, the entire first century diet-and in ways, much more than that-rested on what you could make from those fields of grain”- Scott Korb, Life in year one: What the world was like in first Century Palestine, (Riverhead books, New York, 2010) 11.

[39]Though this might be an overstatement by Josephus it still points to a present reality that a lot of the soil in Upper Galilee was able to be farmed.

[40]Samuel R. Wolff, Archaeology in Israel, American Journal of Archaeology , Vol. 97, No. 1 (Jan., 1993), pp. 135-163 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/505843, (Access date: April 7, 2012) 796.

[41]Ibid, 763.

[42]Lawrence E. Stager, An excerpt from “Farming in the Judean Desert During the Iron Age”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 221, February 1976, p. 145. Found in Biblical Archaeology Society Online, (accessed April 16, 2012).

[43]Stager, 145.

[44]Horsley, 73-85.

[45] Jeremias, 125. He then goes onto say as a result of these taxes that “bitter was the popular outcry against the abuse of the whole common wealth because of despotism…against the squandering of money that had been wrung from the people’s very life blood.”

[46]Ibid, 210. Footnote 44 has some good supporting evidence.

[47]Patrich, 134.

[48]Ibid, 84-85. “That is, some or much of what passed through the agora (city-square or “market-place”) in Sepphoris or Tiberias, as supervised by the agoranomos (supply officer or market supervisor) of the respective cities, must have been taxes paid in kind by the household producer in the village of Galilee.”

[49]It is also important to note that Tyre, due to the lack of land, was dependent by trade on the agriculture from Rome’s storehouses. Acts 12:20 says, “Because their [Tyre] country depended on the king’s country for food.” It was brought to them by caravans, which were mentioned in rabbinic writing. This is found in Horsley, 86.

[50]Patrich, 134.

[51]Jeffers, 68.

[52]Y. Yadin, The Excavation of Masada, (Jerusalem, Israel Exploration society, 1965) 37-49.

[53]Lee I. Levine, Caesarea Under Roman Rule, (Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1975) 15.

[54]Kurt Galling, Die syrisch-palastinsche Kutste nach der Beshreibung bei Pseudo-Skylax, (ZDPV, 1938) 90.

[55]Patrich, 117.

[56]Jeremias, 39.

[57]Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1969) 39, 120.

[58]G.A. Smith, Jerusalem: The Topography, Economics and History from the Earliest Times to AD 10, 2 vols. (London, 1908) 298.

[59]Jeremias, 40.  The first two areas mentioned were from Judea.

[60]Ibid, 39-41. In this book there many more historical records concerning the importation of grain.

[61] Though I could not find much when it came to the variety of agricultural tools found in Palestine there are many tools that one author recognizes as being used in the first century to farm. Some of those tools include a plow, a hoe, a shovel, and other tools. E. W. G. Masterman Agricultural Life in Palestine, The Biblical World , Vol. 15, No. 3 (Mar., 1900), pp. 185-192 (Published by: The University of Chicago Press Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3137064) (Acessed: 2/18/2012)

[62]These amulets were worn so that the gods would have favor on the peoples produce and make them prosper.

[63]As one author says, “The hand-mill is one of the most primitive utensils found in the world.” They go onto explain in detail the different types of grindstones and many of the processes, which were used to produce bread from grain. Gustaf Dalman, Grinding in Ancient and Modern Palestine: The Biblical World , Vol. 19, No. 1 (Jan., 1902), pp. 9-18 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3137192 (Access date 2/18/2012)

[64]Ibid, 134.

[65]Edelstein, ibid.

[66] “The peasant’s diet consisted mainly of bread and salt, along with olives, oil, onions, and perhaps some grapes.” Phillip A. Harland Originally published in Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches, edited by Anthony J. Blasi, Jean Duhaime and Paul-Andre Turcotte, pp. 511-527. (Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Reprinted here with approval from Altamira Press. Copyright Philip A. Harland 2002) 515.

[67]This prominence of bread as the Palestinians diet still exists today among the Arabs. As one writers says, “In Palestine bread is the chief food, especially of the Arab, and considerable wheat is consumed in forms other than bread” Casto, 238.

[68]Jeffers, 68.

[69]Patrich, 119.

[70]Josephus, Antiquitates, 15.309.  Also he speaks of a hurricane in 64 BC that had destroyed the entire harvest, “So that a modius of wheat was bought for eleven drachmas” in Ant. 14.28.

[71]Jeremias, 122. There are calculations concerning their bread and grain prices and ratios. Also, there is evidence of this link with famine and evidence showing the significance of grain in Jerusalem.

House Church

*This was a paper I wrote for my models of church planting class. I hope you guys enjoy.

House Church

The house church model is a model of church that has been around since to beginning of the church shown in the book of Acts.[1] Church buildings did not come into existence until 232 A.D.[2] Thus, prior to 232 A.D., Christians meet in homes.[3] House churches are often organically grown and primarily relational in ministry. The reason for this comes from the fact that it is a church meeting in a house. In a house, a church has the propensity to become much like a family or a household where each person takes part and helps. The house church model is then unique from all other models due to the specification of their meeting location. All other models are concerned primarily with how the church functions; while house churches focus upon their location and build their functions around that location. Yet, there is a structure and there are specific functions to the house church model. This paper then will examine the structure and functions of the house church, compare it to the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000(BFM) and show the positive aspects as well as the negative aspects of the house church.

Finding the structure and functions of the house church is sometimes difficult because both structure and function vary from church to church. This flexibility concerning house churches functions and structures are often led by either theology beliefs or by pragmatic choices. For instance, some house churches make choices based upon the availability of leaders, houses, or resources. Then, on the flip side, there are churches that are driven by theological conviction taking a more active approach through prayer and service to enact what they believe God desires of them. Thus, as this paper moves on into deeper understanding of the house church, one must keep in mind that there are a variety of options concerning structure and function of the house church.

Though in the introduction the common denominator of the house church model was that they meet in homes, this is not the case in all house churches. For instance, some of these churches meet in businesses and coffee shops. Location then is not the primary belief that connects all house churches. Instead the true common denominator among house churches is a de-emphasis upon the building as the church and an emphasis on the biblical idea of the people as the church. Thus one house church leader says the house church should be properly called, “simple church, organic church, or even relational [church].”[4] This emphasis clarifies the focus of house churches, which is about the people as the church and not the building.

On average a house church ranges from “seven to twelve”[5] people per house. Yet this amount also depends on the space allotted to the church. Thus, typically the size of a house church is much smaller than an average traditional church. This emphasis upon size is not the only factor that goes into the definition of a house church, for one house church leader defined the church as, “the presence of Jesus among his people called out as a spiritual family to pursue His mission on this planet.”[6] Thus a house church is a church, which is on mission. All of these factors combined make a house church, a church that places emphasis upon the people meeting in a small group with the mission of Christ in focus.

House churches have three different possible structures. First, the house church can be one where each house is it’s own independent church. This option lines up with the BFM’s view of the church as, “an autonomous local congregation”[7]. Secondly, a house church could be linked in a “network” with other house churches, which all meet together on a monthly basis.[8] The third structure views all of the house churches in a region as one church. Thus when one moves to another region they come into a new church. These last two church structures could coincide with BFM depending upon whether or not you consider each house it’s own church. All three of these options are viable structures that planters have used and developed among the house churches. All of these house church structures are an attempt to return to the New Testament church[9] or a rejection of the “Mega-Churches” impersonal structure.

These house church models have many different types of leadership and these leaders often vary in the amount of oversight that they have in the churches. Some of these house churches have a more traditional view of leadership putting qualified elders in place to teach and minister to the people, along with qualified deacons who serve the physical needs of their church. These elders will exercise a certain amount of oversight depending upon which structure they belong to. For instance, in the house churches linked by a network the elders will most likely work together with one goal possibly pooling their monies together to achieve more effective ministry in their region. But independent house churches will have elders who lead each of them on mission with differing community focuses. Those proposing the elder form of leadership will then vary in their elder’s oversight based upon the church structure they adhere to.

The type of leadership among house churches is not limited to elders. Some simply split the leadership into two groups “Stayers” and “Goers”. The first groups are those who stay behind to lead the church (Elder/Pastor, Deacon etc.). The second groups are those who are more apostolic in nature such (Prophet, Church-planter, etc.).[10] This view could lead churches to have members who were unofficial leaders due to their gifting as evangelists or prophets. There are also some house churches which have seen a, “fivefold ministries (apostle, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers) circulating ‘from house to house’.”[11] They base their leadership structure off of Ephesians 4:11-12[12], where the Apostle Paul says God gave these five gifted persons for the equipping of the church. Thus these leaders are not “Stayers” and “Goers”, but all of the fivefold ministers are equippers of the church. Then there are some house church networks that do not give a formal structure to their leadership instead desire to put laity in place off professional ministers. They see the church to be run by the body. This in essence places the responsibility back upon every Christian to fulfill the work of the ministry. [13] Thus there are a variety of leadership positions among the house churches. Contrary to the last three views of leadership, the BFM states that there are two, “scriptural officers…pastors and deacons”[14]. Thus the first view of leadership would then be the only structure of leadership that matches up with the BFM.

This explanation of the differing views of leadership brings to light some possible weaknesses found in the house church model. If the leaders do not have proper oversight among their peoples then it is highly possible that false teachers could easily fool these house churches. The reason that house churches could be more susceptible to deception by false teachers is due to their personal nature. A house church is a tight knit group trusting each other. Thus, if a false teacher could gain the trust of the church then it is possible that he could sway the whole group. This deception is especially possible if each house was considered its own church without a network or if there were only lay-leaders and not official elders. Yet, if the elders were properly trained and if these houses were all in a network, which meet regularly then the chances of false teachers slipping in highly decreases.

When it comes to the two church ordinances Baptism and the Lord Supper most house churches practice these. Baptism usually occurs in a variety of places such as a hot tub, a barrel, a river etc. Yet, when it comes to the Lord Supper some house church people are adamant that the Lord Supper should actually be a meal rather than just a small piece of bread and some wine. This thrust comes from both scripture and the their view of house churches being very family-like thus they would have a meal together.[15] Concerning these ordinances most house churches line up with thee BFM because in the BFM there are no specifics concerning a meal or who administers it. Thus, the BFM lines up with the house church model concerning the ordinances.

Concerning churches the BFM states that they are, “associated by covenant in the faith an fellowship of the gospel”[16]. House churches have two huge advantages when it comes to covenanting together believer, for many reasons. The first advantage is found in families and small groups. As one writer recognizes, “one thing all house churches have in common is a covenant.”[17] What the author is referencing is the unwritten code of rules, which exists amongst any family or small group. This unwritten code acts as a sort of covenant binding socially the individuals to on another. Since house churches can be qualified as families or small groups this unwritten code then applies to them. Thus the house church would be able to have a stronger unwritten covenant in comparison to other models, which are driven towards big church. Visitors then do not causally come to a house church because a house church is an intentional group of people. These visitors instead see these church members as covenanted together in relational commitment and desire to examine it more. Secondly, many of the house churches have a physical covenant which they sign in order to be part of the church. This covenant gives guidelines both scriptural and cultural which all of the believers must adhere to. Thus the house church model once again fits the BFM mold of church polity concerning a church covenant, which is quoted above.

Concerning churches, ministries/missions and finances are dependent upon each other thus they will be addressed together. For without financing, missions will be somewhat limited, at least overseas mission work. While it may be true that house churches are not be able to provide for overseas missions as well as a big traditional church, it is also true that a house church does not have to worry about taking care of a building.[18] The traditional church is bond to a building and thus their finances go into building projects. While a house church only has to pay their pastor and can put the rest of their finances go into ministries and missions.[19] The house church then is limited when it comes to the mass of funds yet they are not limited concerning building costs.

Concerning children’s ministries or childcare many house churches have them.[20] House churches that do not have childcare incorporate their children into the service. This once again reiterates the family like nature, which exists in the house church setting. It is also interesting to note that, “When the Sunday school [for children] was started in England, it was for children without parents who cared for their spiritual upbringing.”[21] Thus the house church places the spiritual responsibility back upon the parents. Yet still some house churches have appoint a “child worker” (much like the program driven churches) who helps take care of and plan events for the children. Thus house churches can either have children’s ministers or lay the responsibility of children’s ministry upon the parents.

A great strength to house churches is their emphasis upon missions. Missions are often an emphasis among people of the house church because the neighborhood where the church meets is their primary mission field. Thus the burden for their neighbors is always before them. Another factor is that the church meets in a member’s house. This is important because this brings church into the personal realm of the homeowner forcing them to see the needs around them. Another reason for this emphasis is that, “The church is a people, not a place.”[22] This then often draws the people of the church into the necessity for missional action as they see the needs of the people around them. As they begin to love those around them it will give them a heart for those in the community who have needs.[23] This is in contrast to a church where people go to a building, which is not personal, to sit in a service where they can hide their true hurts, among a peoples who they can just pass by. Thus when one goes to a house church they intimately meet with people who have needs and in turn have love for people rather than a sacred place. This missional heart then could potentially be easier to obtain in a house church.

Yet, one could see if a house church became just like another meeting how this love for others could not occur. It is also possible if the leader of the house church only wanted to have another social club then the house church could become nothing more than a social club. This missions emphasis then is not dependent upon a location, a method, or model but instead upon love being given from God. For it is highly possible that a family can lack love for each other and God. Yet if the family in the house church starts out with a God focus and is continually empowered by God then they will have a missions focus.

Since the house church is personal and small in nature it can practice most effectively the congregational polity. Due to the small nature of a house church it is often hard to hide church related decisions. Thus this small group can easily discuss and decide what to do when issues arise. It is also important to note that since a house church is so close and intimate it makes congregational polity almost a given.[24] For the people are by nature involved in each other’s lives due the churches small size. The house church is perhaps the most effective implementer of the congregational polity due to the simple fact that it is a small group. For when the church gets bigger it is often harder to get everyone in agreement. Yet, if a house church has been a house church for a substantial time period they will most likely be in agreement on most things. Thus when it comes to the BFM the house church seems to meet the congregational aspect almost perfectly.

When it comes to church discipline in a house church it could go one of two ways. Either the house church could get comfortable with sin[25] or since they are an intimate family the people would tend towards love and actually enact true church discipline. The house church seems to be the most effective model for doing church discipline for many reasons.[26] First off, it is most likely to properly enact church discipline because helping the sinning brother is always to be done out of love (Matt. 18:10-14)[27]. Since this group is like a family they are most likely to form true love based relationships and desire for their fellow Christians to live in obedience. Secondly, they could easily know the sinning church member and have others to go with them to confront the sinning brother, due to the personal nature of house churches (Matt. 18:15-16). Then it would also be easy to bring the unrepentant brother before the church due to the small and personal nature of house church (Matt. 18:17). As it has been shown, house churches are able to be in agreement due to the small nature of the group this also means that they can easily agree in the nature of the restoration of the unrepentant brother (Matt. 18:18-20). Thus the small intimate nature of the house church can be it’s greatest strength if the church desires to be obedient to Christ.[28]

The house church model is very flexible among those who propose to hold it. They all have an emphasis upon the people rather than the building. Thus their leadership can vary from lay leaders, elders as leaders, or a fivefold team of leadership. Across the lines all of these house churches practice the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord Supper. These groups either have an unwritten covenant or a written one, which binds them all together. Of course with a tight group like this, the house church has involvement of the entire congregation. This relational, personal model of church has the potentiality for a great missional mindset and a purity of their church through church discipline. The house church then is a small group of believers who intimately know each other and live on mission with Jesus.

---

[1] Rom. 16:3, 1 Cor. 16:19, Col. 4:15, Philemon 1-2.

[2] Robert Fitts, The Church in the House a return to simplicity, (Salem, Preparing The Way Publishing, 2001) 15.

[3] “It is notable that the most explosive period of Church growth in history…took place during those early years” ibid, 16.

[4] Greg Hubbard, Simple Churches: in Church Planting from the ground up, edited by Tom Jones, (Joplin, College Press Publishing Company, 2004) 55.

[5] Lois Barrett, Building the House Church, (Waterloo, Herald Press, 1986) 19.

[6] Neil Cole and Paul Kaak, The Organic Church Planter’s Greenhouse Intensive Training Event Participants Notes, (Signal Hill, Church Multiplication Associates, 2003) 1-2.

[7] The Baptist Faith and Message of 2000, 13.

[8] Hubbard, 58-59.

[9] Rad Zdero, The Global House Church Movement, (Pasadena, William Carey Library, 2004) 4.

[10] Ibid, 60-61.

[11] Wolfgang Simson, Houses That Change The World: The Return Of The House Churches, (U.K., OM Publishing, 1998) xviii.

[12] “And he [Jesus] gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds, and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of the ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ”-Eph. 4:11-12. ESV.

[13] W. Milton Adams, Developing, Planting, and Multiplying and Adventist House Church Using Principles of Missiology in the Florida Conference of Seventh- Day Adventist, (A Dissertation for Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Oct. 2009) 10-11. It is also important to note that though this group has some help views concerning House Churches that they are a heretical cult. For more information look at their beliefs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church and check them with Ron Rhodes book, The challenge of the cults and new religions.

[14] BFM, 13.

[15] Simson, xxii.

[16] Baptist Faith and Message of 2000, 13.

[17] Barrett, 29.

[18] The host homeowners may have to take care of their how more. Yet this cost is minimal in comparison to the cost of maintenance to a building.

[19] Fitts, 20.

[20] William Tenny-Brittian, House Church Manual, (St. Louis, Chalice Press, 2004) 22-23.

[21] Barrett, 67.

[22] Barrett,19.

[23] Zdero, 2.

[24] Ibid, 2.

[25] As seen in 1 Cor. 5 when the church got comfortable with a man living in open sin.

[26] Del Birkey, The House Church: A Model For Renewing the Church, (Kitchener, Herald Press, 1988) 80-81.

[27] Before talking about confronting a sinning brother Jesus talks about the loving shepherd who finds the lost sheep. Thus he is using this parable to set up the fact that confrontation of a sinning brother should always come out of a desire to see him come back in right fellowship with God.

[28] Bonnie Niswander edited by Arthur L. Foster, Rebuilding a Congregation Through the House Church: in The House Church Evolving, (Chicago, Exploration Press, 1976) 87.

My Fears Concerning Kony 2012

My heart races on edge, and my stomach turns every time I hear about the Invisible Children of Africa. It races for the possibility of justice, for the people of Africa who have been deeply wounded and brutally hurt but the LRA. Yet, my stomach turns as I hear about all of the pain and horrible things that have and do occur.

“Cursed is the one who perverts justice for the resident foreigner, the orphan, and the widow.”- Deut. 27:19

The Invisible Children have been on my heart for many years now. As I watched this video it reminded me of the others they had put out. When I was a senior in high school I attempted to get an Invisible Children presentation at my school but was denied by the principal because of the already full schedule of events for the school.

Yet, with all this said, I have some fears concerning the whole situation.

I fear that the LRA will continue to grow and that when Kony is taken out another man will rise to take his place. This is a sad thought but a true reality when you examine history concerning movements like the LRA.

But one thing I do not fear is that Kony will be brought to justice. I do not fear this because of what the Bible says, “So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.” Also, it says that “we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.” Thus, Kony will be judged by God for his crimes and will pay in hell, unless he comes to Christ.

What I do fear is that Kony will, by many of us, get placed in the evil category while the rest of us get placed in the good category. Yet, what makes Kony different than us Americans who have slaughtered millions of babies via abortion? Or at which level do you become evil? Are murder and rape the only things considered evil? What about lying? Or stealing? Or sleeping around? Or hating? Or tearing others’ reputations down with gossip? The list could go on and on.

My fear is that some will believe that if we get rid of Kony that everything will be better (thought it will bring much good). And think that they can sit comfortably resting upon their achievements in helping bring him to justice. While they neglect a proper examination on themselves.

Now I do understand that some things are more evil than others in respect to their effects, but I believe that Kony is a reflection of the man’s true heart. He shows us evil in our hearts.

Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not murder,’ and ‘whoever murders will be subjected to judgment.’ But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and whoever says ‘Fool’ will be sent to fiery hell.”

Thus, I fear that when many pitch in to this great quest to get rid of the evil that Kony is committing that they will not see the evil in their own hearts. I fear that many will stand before God and say, “I am good because I got rid of Kony, that evil man.” Yet, they will fail to see their own sin and need of a Savior.

The good new is that though we are sinners and haters of God, He came and died to redeem us that we could have relationship with Him and be his very own people.