[OBW]

If the “whole assembly” is intended to mean, in a somewhat prescriptive manner, the presumed collection of all the believers within some artificial boundary, like a city, then aron is right to suggest that it would be a disaster. He mentions Pittsburg as an example. In Dallas alone, there are enough believers in just a few large congregations to fill the largest single meeting place in the metroplex, the new Cowboys stadium at about 100,000. There would be a lot left out. Even using the floor would probably not do the trick. And forget about anything approaching speaking in tongues or having popcorn testimonies, or even opening the microphone for just a few who would make the trek to the designated place.

No, I’ve got to believe that when Paul referred to the “whole assembly” with respect to the Corinthians, he was simply noting that sometimes they met in smaller groups and sometimes they all got together. But who is “all”? Is it that the practicalities of one actual assembly was large enough that the existing number of believers could meet practically in one place (and at that time they actually did so), or was it spoken as a net to capture some artificial set of people? Lee and the LC presume the latter. I’m more inclined to believe the former. I think that YP is trying to get at something that puts meat on something or establishes it is an undefined.

To me, the question really is: Is it more important with whom you actually meet, or that you meet? I think the most important thing is to meet. And I think it is relevant that if 2 or 3 was not considered to be the church, then it is possible that while 2 or 3 does have Christ’s presence, it is not “church.” That would suggest that the wandering few who meet with their spouse every Sunday morning might actually be avoiding meeting together (as is the habit of some). If I am right or wrong is irrelevant. How is the conscience with God — that is the key. If it is good, I have nothing to say against it.