Clint Arnold points out in his Acts commentary that the early community of believers in Acts 2L42-47 was characterized by four types of activities. Acts 2:42 says that the believers were devoted to these four activities. In Acts 4:43-5:16, Luke describes the community as sharing all their possessions. The verb translatioend “devoted themselves” in Acts 2:42 (προσκαρτερέω) has the idea of being busy with something, or even “to persist” (BDAG). The word appears twice in this paragraph, in verse 46, the community is daily worshiping in the temple and sharing meals together.
First, they devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles (διδαχή). This instruction is for new converts who may not have heard Jesus teach. The apostles are witnesses who pass along the things they have seen and heard. It is entirely possible that the apostles had a common set of instructions that they regularly passed along to new converts. If this is the case, then there was a basic body of tradition within months of Jesus’s death that could be called the “teaching of the apostles.”
Second, they devoted themselves to fellowship (κοινωνία). Since this word conveys the idea of sharing in common, this is likely an allusion to the communal life described in the next verses (Fitzmyer, Acts, 269). At the very least, this includes alms and care for the poor. I would suggest that many of those who needed assistance were Diaspora pilgrims who accepted the message of Jesus and remained in Jerusalem rather than return home after Pentecost.
Third, they devoted themselves to “breaking of bread.” While this phrase can be used to share a meal together, it is likely that Luke is describing the community as celebrating some form of communion. In Luke 21:19, the same words are used as Jesus takes the bread and breaks it. In Luke 24:35, it is used to describe the resurrected Jesus breaking bread, as two disciples realized who he was. I think that Jesus’ practice of common meals was the foundation for this practice — they all ate and drank together as one group.
Fourth, they devoted themselves to prayers. Since the Greek is plural, this is plausibly a reference to daily prayers in the Temple. It was not unusual for Jewish men to go to the Temple several times a day to pray, so the community continued to worship there regularly. In fact, Acts 2:46 indicates that the disciples met in both private homes and in the Temple. This likely put them into contact with other observant Jews who would then be introduced to Jesus as the Messiah.
Since a major interest in this series of studies is how to “apply” the book of Acts, it is critical to ask if Luke is describing an ideal Christian community or the specific community in Jerusalem. While it is easy to see these four elements as generic components of Christian community everywhere, other elements in this paragraph do not seem to be found elsewhere. I will come back to this later, but for now, note that the community sold property, pooled resources, and distributed these funds to the poor. Giving to the poor is a standard description of the Christian community, but “living in common” only appears here in Acts 2. There is nothing that makes me think the Antioch church was pooling resources, nor does Paul give any such instruction to his churches.
The fact that these earliest believers are devoted to these activities daily is also unique in the apostolic period. There is no other group of believers who appear to have left their jobs to devote themselves to spiritual activity. In 1-2 Thessalonians, Paul seems to instruct the members of the church not to retire from daily life and to be constantly devoted to ministry. 2 Thess 3:11-12 specifically tells people to go out and get jobs so that they are not a burden.
What is the reason Christians are quick to apply Acts 2:42 but not Acts 2:43 (miracles) or 2:44-45 (communal living)? What is the difference between what is happening in Acts 2 and 2 Thessalonians 3?
As you point out, there seems to be a ‘break’ of some kind between the earliest primitive period of the Church and the Pauline period. The question I’ve asked myself is, “Why?” I don’t have an answer, other than perhaps the need for that particular function of body ministry wasn’t present. But, it puzzles me.
Great post.
http://cdnclipper.wordpress.com
I believe that God created the Bible to transcend time and culture, to apply today the same as it applied to the original church. That could mean a lot of things. I like the statement posed by Mr. Long, “It is critical to ask if Luke is describing an ideal Christian community, or the specific community in Jerusalem.” This is really critical to ask about everything in the Bible. Are we to greet one another with a holy kiss? Or are we to greet on another with love, and a holy kiss was equivalent to our modern handshake? I imagine that the original church was on a significant emotional high. Everything was new and nothing had yet been established beyond the teachings of Jesus. Communal living in modern America would creep people out and probably do more damage than good to God’s message. However, each of these four activities seems important to the church at their core. Teaching new converts, fellowship of any sort, communion, and prayer seem like good building blocks for the church from any perspective.
The Holy Kiss is a good point, although it comes from one of Paul’s letters. However, what does it matter if communal living creeps out Americans if that is the best way to “be the Church”? I happen to think it is not the best way, but creeping out Americans (while a great deal of fun) is not the best measure of correct behavior.
I understand what you say. My point is more about the logic of it. It seems like pulling Christians out of society to form an enclosed group is counter-productive to the spreading of the message. It seems to me that the Bible encourages self-sustaining Christian individuals over clique-like groups. Communal living just doesn’t seem to make sense in any society relative to the entire new testament teaching.
“Communal living just doesn’t seem to make sense in any society relative to the entire new testament teaching.”
I agree, Joe, and it appears no where else in the NT. The problem (for me) is why it even appears here in the first few chapters of Acts? Is this the “pure form” of Christianity? Or is there something apocalyptic going on?
It’s hard to really expound on what all Joe has said about these factors of the early church. I think that this goes back to the discussion we had last posting about the heart of the early church. Teaching, preaching, breaking bread, and prayer are simple actions of the church that are modeled by Christ along with the early church. Like Joe was saying, the others aspects like living in community, a kiss greeting, etc are more of a cultural thing. The modern church needs to find ways to incorporate the 4 basic principles of the early church into modern, cultural standards. Whether or not these others things are included, aren’t important. Again, it’s the heart of the church that really matters, and the four principles line up with that.
It is always tough to really pick out exactly what a church should do but i believe that the bible is where we have to find our model of what the church should look like. The four principles of teaching, preaching, breaking bread and prayer, are essensial for the church to be like the church found in acts and like david said, these four principles are going to look differently in today’s culture then in the time of acts. The important thing to do now is figure out how to implement these four principles.
I agree with you David that we should not have to take on the cultural aspects of the early church, but to continue to use the teachings that Jesus gave His body to practice. I do think that our church is lacking and is thirsty for more of the routine once a month communion, and the others… I think that the Jewish culture did these things in a great way because it was a community practice and it reached into the daily lives of these new believers. I feel like along with the four basic principles we need to make an effort to live in a closer community with fellow believers, so that we will not become bored or complacent with just the Sunday morning stuff, but that we will push each other, keep each other more accountable in the deeper things that are happening in our everyday lives and with this community becoming stronger in doing all of these things, it or we would grow even thirstier for the Word, God, that we would dink so much we would have to spit, puke out this truth on the surrounding communities!
I believe that quite often churches tend to focus to misinterpret things such as the four devotions mentioned. Fellowship has turned into casual juice and cookies after a Sunday sermon. Communion has unfortunately become juice and crackers. I feel that we as Christians have the duty to remember the point of things. We need to understand that we pray to grow closer to and talk with our father. The apostles had the privilege to study directly under Jesus’ teachings and since we could not, we were given the Bible as a source. Dave is right when he says we need to find a way to incorporate these basic devotions into our everyday lives and in our churches.
Unfortunately communion has turned into just juice and crackers for some people and no longer realize or think about the true meaning. But don’t get me wrong there are still a lot of people that truly take it seriously. I almost feel as if some of these things have almost turned into a routine and is treated as something that we are supposed to do but not what we want to do.
True Bryce – communion is certainly ritualized away from the original feast, sharing with the poor, etc. But is that really a bad thing? What happens in communion seems like a spiritual act of worship, a time of self reflection and confession, etc. Is that what these people were doing in Acts 2:42?
This entire topic is one that is very dear to my heart, partly because of the cultural and social contrasts to modern churches (which is very interesting), but also because I have always been taught traditional “Acts 2 dispensational theology”–though my baptist church would shudder at the phrase. Realizing that traditional influences may not be sturdy evidence for solid thought processes, I am beginning to understand the subtle complexity and overwhelming simplicity of the church.
However, there is no doubt that this gathering of believers was different than any community before experienced by Jews. Sacrifices were through, priests were beginning to be done away with and traditions were slowly morphing into what would soon become new tradition. The answer to the question kiss greetings and communal living seem to be lingering effects from first-century society and, simply with developments in culture have started to fade. This is not to say that they are either commanded or wrong, but rather that the important aspects seem to have a more resonating tone with believers (Last supper, fellowship, etc) and the lesser “traditions” (holy kisses, communal living… and even baptism) become secondary to the overall cause of the Church (local and universal):
God’s glory.
Do you think that this initial wave of thousands immediately stopped sacrificing in the Temple? I really do see the community in Acts 2 to be a Jewish Reform Movement at this point in the history.
Cappon I always find your comments extremely thought provoking. In regards to your “significant emotional high” and “nothing was established”, if I am not mistaken the twelve still acted like Jews and kept the law. They just believed Jesus was the Messiah that others were waiting for, Paul and Peter later have an argument over keeping of the law. My personal opinion is the whole communal living came out of the fact that all the Jews were now moving to Jerusalem to await the gathering of Israel as P Long stated in his other blog.
Its kind of funny to look at how today’s modern church looks at the four activities that Arnold talks about in his Acts commentary. I think in many ways we have lost site of what true fellowship is and what it is meant to be or look like. Sadly, it has come down to coffee and cookies in the fellowshipp hall and everyone gathers around their favofrite table around their favorite people. That is taking the idea of fellowship way out of context of what God wants it to be. COmmunion is almost a joke sometimes because all it is is a scripture reading and we eat bread or crackers and drink grape juice. Prayer is suppose to be for the whole idea of growing closer to God and deepening our relationship with him on so many level.
I am not trying to bash any churches here in the least. I am merely saying that sometimes as a church in today’s society.. we tend to loose focus on these things
The only thing that strikes me is a few chapters later on, Ananias and Sapphira are struck down for not being communal. First of all, does this not fit with the rest of Scripture wherein God no longer punishes for their sins but forgives and redeems? Secondly, if indeed God was punishing them, then wouldn’t that mean that we are REQUIRED to live in a communal type way? From a commenter: “Communal living in modern America would creep people out and probably do more damage than good to God’s message” – So culture dictates the Word of God? I’ve been told the reason we don’t follow exactly the teachings about women is because that was the culture then, this is the culture now. But that doesn’t make sense, because our culture for a very long time oppressed women in the name of Jesus (also not in the name of Jesus, but thats another story for another time), and I was also told slavery was part of that culture. Now, we have homosexuals fighting for rights, and people are saying the BIble says it is wrong. Technically, it does, but if I’m going by Christian logic, why shouldn’t I just say culture’s changing, and now the verses about homosexuality no longer apply to today? See, this is where I get confused, we want to defend the Bible, but what if Jesus was here today? Do you think he would still tell us to sell all we have? I don’t consider myself wealthy compared to most other Americans, I have a tiny room for rent, and by most American standards, I would be high lower class or lower middle class, and I still feel I can help people in some areas such as paying for a meal or something. I still recognize that I am fully capable of purchasing non-necessities, or more or less conveniences that our society has deemed as necessities (such as cars). If you really think about it, if everyone sold their car who works within distance of walking or taking a bus, how much money could we actually save? Just a rambling thought, but I digress.
Hi, this weekend is good in favor of me, as this point in time i
am reading this impressive informative article here at my residence.
My spouse and I stumbled over here different website and thought I might
as well check things out. I like what I see so now i’m following you.
Look forward to going over your web page for a second time.
I agree with your 4 points, with some further elaboration.
.1) The teaching of the Apostles meant the 12 True Apostles, who knew Jesus personally for 3 1/2 years, were appointed and recognized – The Eleven plus Matthias. (They were not reading the letters of Paul the Pharisee.)
.2) Fellowship, yes.
.3) Breaking of bread was a common meal together, like a dinner party with extensive discussion, and yes that WAS communion – not a tiny piece of dry cracker and a tiny thimble of grape juice drunk hastily, cleanly, quietly, in social isolation while in the midst of a huge crowd of people in a huge meeting room.
.4) Prayer, yes. Not sharing prayer requests for an hour and then praying for 5 minutes at a “prayer meeting”, or holding a “Pentecost meeting” with lectures for 2 hours, and a 20 second “blessing” prayed at the end…..
Prayer, yes.
Don’t you think the teaching was Jesus’ words and deeds?
QUESTION? DO YOU THINK YOU CAN DEEPEN YOUR WALK BY
BEING IN A SMALL GROUP THAT SHARES AND COMES TOGETHER AN EXTENDED FAMILY?
Yes, small church groups can be very good for spiritual growth and development. Most large churches looks for ways to integrate people into smaller groups for prayer, Bible study and fellowship, even mutual exhortation and support.
My understanding of answering the last question (Acts 2 vs 2 Thessalonians 3):
Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
Acts 2:44-47 NKJV
But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us. For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good. And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
II Thessalonians 3:6-15 NKJV
My understanding of this:
In the early church, the rich sold their possessions and shared their wealth with the needy (Acts 2:42). Some needy people took advantage of this, they became dependant on the generosity of those that work, and didn’t feel the need to work as they were being taken care of. Paul wasn’t happy with this. He told the believers to admonish [reprimand & encourage] those not working to work.
These people that don’t work end up being busybodies [meddling in other people’s businesses – amplified]. It can be assumed that sin, such as gossiping/slandering arises from this. Also Peter lists being a busybody as a sin next to murder (But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters.
I Peter 4:15 NKJV). Paul says the following should happen to these busybodies: They should eat their own bread; a step further the believers should not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed [amplified adds “and repent”].
Evidence that the Thessalonians were living in community: A busybody that finds work should eat his own bread. Paul had to specify this because everyone else was probably sharing bread (like in Acts 2:46). If someone doesn’t obey this Epistle, the other believers shouldn’t keep company with him so that he may be ashamed. This person would only be ashamed if everyone else was regularly keeping company with one another (I.e. in community). In 2 Thessalonians 3:6,7 Paul talks about “tradition which he received from us”, “follow us”. Paul knew the apostles personally, and they lived in community with one another, so it makes sense for Paul to teach the Thessalonians about living in community (like in Acts 2), if they weren’t already doing so.
NKJV says “if anyone will not work”. Amplified says “if anyone is not willing to work”. So does this mean that if they are unable to find work, they should continue to be supported by the community? On the other hand it says “we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work”. So is it just as simple as commanding someone in the Name of Jesus to work, and they’ll find work? Maybe unemployment wasn’t such a big issue then?
What I learn from this:
We need to be in community with fellow believers regularly, yet still work hard.
We need to be in community with poor (needy) believers, and support them (yes with food and money), and then help them find work.
God is able to do all thing if we believe in He’s power; and I pray that God’ll give you more wisdom to do more for those who want to know more.
hard to fellowship at present
Have to get creative…
Acts 2:42 and 46 have found its way onto wall hangings and the like. I have yet to see Acts 2:45 prominently displayed on a fireplace mantel in someone’s living room.
This eagerness is at least partly due to a tendency to view the early church through our own modern perspective. As we discussed in class, it is important to take the time to learn and understand the setting of the early church in its historical context.
Of course, it’s also just easier to get excited about breaking bread together than it is to sell all their belongings.
Context is also crucial to understanding 2 Thessalonians 3 and the instructions that are seemingly contrary to this pattern in Acts. In 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Paul warns the believers against laziness. This seems to be referring to both spiritually and physically. Verse 7 specifically addresses physical laziness. Paul tells them to follow his example – he did not depend on others to provide for him while not contributing to the community himself. In addition to telling them not to be idle, Paul tells the readers to keep doing good and now grow weary doing so.
In Acts, the believers are continuing to carry out the lifestyle initiated during Jesus’s ministry. In this particular case many of them had left their jobs and old lifestyles to follow Jesus. This shared community seems to be a natural continuation of such. 2 Thessalonians is addressed to a different group of people, in a different time and context.
The principle remains the same, those in the community should not be idle but contribute to it.
Acts 2:43 references the acts of miracles. God performed miracles throughout the New and Old Testaments, miracles were widely popular throughout Bible times. However, in today’s society, we don’t place as high a value on miracles or we don’t believe they happen as much. Our modern-day medicine and technology have rapidly increased since Bible times so many things that can be seen as miracles are accredited to the work of modern-day medicine and technology instead of the Lord. John Polhill notes in the ESVSB that, “the church experienced reverent fear in response to miracles, which served as signs of the Spirit’s power and presence among them” (Acts 2:43). Nowadays people like to have an answer or reason to anything and the simple terms ‘miracle’ does not count as a real answer to them. They discredit God’s work but accrediting it to modern-day advancements, so simply believing in the act of miracles has become a struggle in itself. While it is much easier to devote ourselves to the teachings in God’s word because the four activities mentioned in Acts 2:42 are essential for living a healthy spiritual life. We must know God’s scripture in our hearts, we need a community of believers around us to get through the times of temptation, we need to pour into those who are struggling and we need to be in constant communication with God. All of these are necessities for a healthy spiritual life.
Every book of the Bible is written to a specific audience in a specific stage of life. Acts is written by Luke to share acts of the Holy Spirit and empower believers to bear witness of the good news of Jesus and establish the Church. While Paul was the author of 2 Thessalonians and in this book was written to strengthen the Thessalonians in the face of unremitting persecution, to reassure those frightened by the thought that the day of the Lord had come, and to handle the issue of some of the church members not earning their living. Two completely different audiences, in different stages of life.
The group in Acts 2 practiced four activities, as noted by Clint Arnold, that characterized the early community of believers. Firstly, the community was devoted to following the teachings of the apostles. This emphasis was primarily for new believers who may not have heard Jesus’s teachings first hand, allowing the apostles to teach and speak on events they witnessed and heard. It is possible, though not proven, that the apostles had a set standard of instruction and teaching of Jesus Christ. If this is the case, then we can assert that early traditions arose only months after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Secondly, the community devoted themselves to fellowship, which manifested in the common sharing displayed in Acts 2:45. As Long notes, this was probably directed primarily towards Diaspora pilgrims, who once they accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ, decided to stay in Jerusalem instead of returning home from Pentecost. Thirdly, the community was dedicated to the “breaking of bread”, which probably was a description of an act of communion. This was probably based on the foundation of Jesus’s practice of communal eating and drinking together as a group, as the same word is used in Luke 21:19 and 24:35.
Lastly, the fourth practice is that of devoting themselves to prayer, which is a possible reference to the daily prayers that took place in the temple. This would not be an uncommon practice for the ancient culture, often people went to the temple multiple times a day to pray. Once examining Acts 2:46, it seems to indicate prayer took place at the temple and private homes. This would allow for not only the fellowship of believers but also the opportunity to introduce Jews to the message of Jesus Christ.
The book of Acts is surrounded by questions of how the modern church and believer should incorporate the actions of the early church into our practices, or if it is even important too at all. If the reader only investigates the passage of Acts 2, then it might seem as if the common practices of the early believers in Jerusalem were ideal for all current and future practices of believers. Yet, when understood in light of other New Testament passages, it becomes apparent that these practices were only common to the believers of Jerusalem and not enforced for all communities. For example, in 1-2 Thessalonians, Paul urges believers and members of the church not to leave their jobs and become uninvolved in daily life. Furthermore, in 2 Thessalonians 3:11-12, Paul teaches people to go out and find jobs to work so one would not become a burden to others. Clearly, these communal practices were restricted to the apostolic period of the early church and not required or taught to be applicable to current or future church practices. While these practices are positive and beneficial to the helping of the poor and extending the kingdom of God, this lifestyle is not enforced as the standard for each community of believers.
I believe the reason Christians in todays world struggle so much with living out these parts of scripture is due to many different reasons. The most common reason I think people struggle with is what you mentioned in the post, which is their work life. People are too busy with their work schedule that when they go home from work they are too drained and cant get into living out the scriptures teachings. Another reason I believe is stopping this from happening is because its easier for someone to say they are a follower when they just read the bible. But when it comes to the things mentioned in 2:43-45 it causes people to actually live out these beliefs. And most people are not willing to sacrifice that much of their lives. And the biggest differences between the two pieces of scripture would be that in Acts 2 they are teaching how to follow Gods word and in 2 Thessalonians 3 they are teaching what to do when you see others not living out these rules.
I SOMETIMES THINK THAT WHAT HAPPENED I ACTS 2 STOPPED BECAUSE PEOPLE COULD NOT GET ALONG TOGETHER AND THAT IS WHY CHURCHES HAVE A HARD TIME WITH SMALL GROUP MINISTRY
Would love to return to those days
they weren’t struck down for the lack of communal living…they were struck down because they attempted to LIE to the Holy Spirit. Acts 2 is not commanding communal living, but rather radical love for our brothers & sisters in Christ rather than in possessions. The fact that they ACTED on the command to help those who needed it by selling “their” possessions which they understood was God’s mercy and blessing in the first place. This is not a socialist or communal text, this is a text of what mattered the most to early Christians…which was not to be just hearers of the Word but doers as well! Too many people read into this text this way, but rather it is so much more and deeper than that. These people were willing to sell ALL they had in order that others who were in despair could be helped. They shared in order to fulfill the royal law – to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength AND the second commandment that is a part of that which is to love your neighbor as yourself. They lived that out in its fullness. They weren’t perfect, and later there would be issues within the early church, but they strove to live out those two commands in a very real way.
There are various sub-groups under the Anabaptist Christians who are still living in community and having their possessions in common today.
thank you, I appreciate this reminder.
It is an interesting point to consider why the church today is “quick to apply” the directions of Acts 2:42, but why other elements discussed in this passage—specifically miracles mentioned in verse 43 or communal living mentioned in verses 44-45—are not considered to be “applicable” or more simply “for” believers today (Long).
In simplest terms, I would say it is because the elements of verse 42 are reiterated throughout Paul’s epistles. In particular if we are examining the book of Acts from a dispensational perspective, the question becomes “are the principles mentioned in Acts 2 reiterated later on in Paul’s epistles,” which we recognize as being written “for” us.
The elements of Acts 2:42—devoting oneself to the teaching of the apostles (Romans 15:4), fellowship (Hebrew 10:25, Galatians 6:2), “breaking of bread” or communion (1 Corinthians 11:25-28), and prayer (2 Corinthians 1:10-11)—are all reiterated throughout Paul’s epistles as beneficial for not only the Jews at Pentecost but for all believers. This indicates that these elements are not vertical truths (meant for a specific group at a specific time) but rather could be considered horizontal truths (truths which are applicable and beneficial in our present age).
In contrast, the element of verse 43 (miracles) appears to be a command that does not extend throughout the rest of Paul’s epistles. Throughout the book of Acts we slowly see the presence of miracles dwindle, and this is supported by Paul who says in 1 Corinthians 13:8-19 that “they [prophesies] will cease, they [tongues] will be stilled…. but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears” (NIV).
Paul’s warning in 2 Thessalonians 3 is not a warning against communal living in and of itself, but rather against those who would take advantage of it—who take but don’t give, who reap the benefits of living in community but don’t follow the Apostles’ teachings. I think if believers today chose to partake in communal living *as was established* in Acts 2, where “there is a voluntary generosity in sharing possessions,” it would be commendable, and could be a way to honor God if they so chose (ESVSB 2086).
The reason Christians are so quick to apply Acts 2:42 but not Acts 2:43 could be a plethora of reasons. Reasons such as the coffee mug use that each one of these verses play a role in. It could be because as people having a human nature, we tend to only do what we want. There could also be many more reasons, however, my main focus will be on these two reasons.
Acts 2:42 is often seen and quoted on many everyday items and is also a passage pastors seem to speak on more. Before communion, pastors normally mention something about the “Breaking of the Bread” (Polhill, 2008, 2085). Therefore hearing it spoken and seeing it more, resonates with people to a different extent and makes people practice it more without even realizing it. The next reason is that it is a matter of being human and having a sinful nature and doing what we want more than the action God would take. Being in fellowship with people while eating and sharing a meal with the body of a church is way easier to do than giving away all of your possessions just as everyone else is just as they do in Acts 2:45. With being in fellowship and eating a meal by “Breaking the Bread” with one another, one gets more out of it than not having the reciprocity in the giving of their possessions. At church potlucks nowadays, a person brings a dish to pass and so do other people, so in the end you have a whole meal to eat instead of only one side to eat for that meal.
As for the next question what is happening in Acts 2 and 2 Thessalonians 3? When it says in, “2 Thess. 3:11-12 to specifically go out and get jobs so that they are not a burden,” I suppose it is alluding not having a job distracts from the mission of people who are trying to listen to the apostles during that time in which one would normally be working (Long). The more people there are trying to work with the spiritual activity, the harder it will be to focus on the mission ahead. Or maybe in Acts, 2 people are told to devote themselves fully to spiritual activities because they truly thought that Christ or the Messiah was coming back very soon and did not see a reason to keep laboring the land. Once again, there could be many different reasons, but these two make the most sense in my mind.
Communal living is only mentioned once in the Bible. Here in Acts , as a lesson not to do this , because the long term result was poverty and is why the Apostle Paul spend time raising money from other churches to help Jerusalem saints.. All other churches did not practice the liquidation, 7 days church, prayers and meal time together.
This blog post raises the question of why modern-day Christians pick and choose certain practices of the early church to apply to modern day life but not others. It is interesting that one of the regular occurrences in the early church were “wonders and signs” which is mentioned in Acts 2:43. I think in modern day there is a lot of controversy around miracles partly for theological reasons and partly because of people who claim to experience miracles when really, they just seem sort of like they are insane. I know when I think of miracles happening in modern times one of my first thoughts is of videos online of churches where everyone is rolling around on the floor crying and acting like they are possessed, saying they are filled with “the Holy Spirit” and they bring in a guy who has autism and “heal” him. I think those people make the idea of miracles in modern times seem less tangible and, in an effort, to distance themselves from those types of churches other churches avoid the idea of miracles entirely. One suggestion I’ve heard about why real modern-day miracles are not very common is that God often allowed miracles to happen to people who had no other option for healing. In modern day America where we have some of the best hospitals and medical care in the world there isn’t really a need for God to perform miracles. From my mostly uninformed perspective it seems like miracles are reported a lot more in poorer areas of the world and they seem a lot more realistic. Whether or not they are true is another matter, but it certainly would make more sense to me if this was how God worked in regard to miracles in modern times. A good book that gave me some perspective on this was The Insanity of God by Nik Ripken.
As for communal living, I thought it was interesting that Polhill (p. 2085) mentioned that people will often use this verse to justify communism, even though the Christians in this passage were voluntary in their communal living and their giving. In modern America we tend to be very individualistic and even the mention of communism will get a lot of people riled up. It doesn’t seem surprising that in our individualistic society communal living is not something that people are striving to do. This individualistic mindset could be harmful, especially when interacting with people from other cultures where being communal and sharing resources is the norm. I remember learning in Christian Mission with Kyle Vegh that often Americans go to other countries as missionaries, but they still bring a “bubble” of America with them so that they don’t have to fully live with the people they are going to serve with. This can be something that ends up offending the people they are trying to help or work with. Even though we may prefer living individualistically I think as Christians we need to have open minds and flexible boundaries that don’t hinder our work as representatives of Christ.
Examining the contrasts between the two early communities of believers provides an interesting look at what both Paul and Peter required of their congregations in terms of personal conduct. If we assume a difference between the two churches in Acts 2 and 2 Thessalonians 3 based on the fact that Paul encourages the believers of his church to not retire from their jobs while those in Peter’s community of Christ followers appeared to have done so, I think we incorrectly assume a major difference between these churches that isn’t necessarily true. First off, although those in the Jerusalem church shared “all things in common”, it doesn’t seem likely that they left their jobs as Polhill (2008) acknowledges that many of them still owned homes and private property as believers continued to meet in these places. He continues by showing that Peter warns Ananias and Sapphira that they are not required to sell any of their personal possessions to give to those in need (p. 2085). Also as Acts 2:42-47 is a summary of the state of the church at that point, it seems that this is more of a description of this specific church rather than a prescriptive command. If anyone did quite their job it was likely not at the command or encouragement of Peter. Secondly, in the case of 2 Thessalonians 3, Nicholl (2008) shows how the world translated idle comes from the Greek word periergazomenous meaning ‘to meddle’ or a ‘busybody’ (p. 2319). Paul saw what happened when someone had too much time on their hands. They turned into meddlers who got caught up in other peoples’ business. Therefore, if they weren’t going to use their free time to be spiritually productive, they might as well work so they can contribute to the giving of the church and not agitate those around them in their idleness. With this in mind, it is likely that there was no difference in teaching between the churches of Acts 2 and 2 Thessalonians 3, but rather a difference in audience.
Thinking about the setting and time period, it makes sense why they would be focused on the teachings of the apostles. If someone was not around to directly hear Jesus teach, they were not able to search up his latest sermon on YouTube. New converts were devoted to the teachings of Christ that were passed down from specifically the apostles (Polhill, 2008, 2085). The apostles directly heard and seen Christ’s teachings and were the closest to Him. It would make sense that people would adhere to their words. The apostles’ teachings were directly from Christ, and were taught out of the Holy Spirit working. So it was a good thing to adhere strongly to their teachings, they were not random or full of ill intent. Acts is not the first time we see this idea of following the apostles. 1 Corinthians 11:1 speaks on this as well as Paul directs believers to do as he does because he is doing what Christ did. It is not uncommon to see early believers watching and seeing the apostles as representatives of Christ. People would follow their actions and words and it would lead them to Christ. Early believers had no other access other than the apostles teachings, again, because of the time. They had nothing else to go off of. It reminds me of how certain small native languages are dying off and only a select few people know it. We can only go to certain people for the teaching, because we were not there to experience the language first hand and learn it. There was only one resource to get to Christ, and it was via the apostles teachings. The apostles being witnesses and passing down what they experienced gave new believers the torch to have their own experience with Christ and to be their own witness to Him.
Polhill, John. (2008).The Book of Acts. Pages 2073-2145 In ESV Study Bible. Wheaton: Crossway.
After reading through Acts 2 and then the blog post it is interesting to see how these four activities shaped the early church community and many years after as well. The first activity is teaching of the apostles, this is cool because it shows the devotion that the early church community had for preserving and transmitting the messages of Jesus. These apostles were eyewitnesses so they weren’t just passing down random teachings but instead teachings and real things they had seen from Jesus. The second activity was that they devoted themselves to fellowship. Before coming to Grace I had no clue what the word fellowship meant, it’s cool to see how fellowship happened in the early church and how it still goes on today. It can be more than just social gatherings but sharing a life which involves care, support and responsibilities. The third activity they devoted themselves to “breaking of the bread”. I think this implies communion, taking the bread which resembles Jesus’ body and drinking the wine which resembles his blood in remembrance of what he did. Honorable activity brings community through the church and allows us all to connect on a holy level. It allows Christians to call out to God unifying us in our neediness for Him. The last activity is being devoted to prayer, they devoted time for prayer at the temple. However it was more normal for Jewish men to go to the temple instead of women or gentiles. Overall these activities are still practiced today and it brings unity and community to the church.
The early believers were a connected community that relied on one another. They listened and followed the teachings of the apostles (Acts 2:42). This would have included what Jesus taught the disciples and his followers (Polhill, 2008, p. 2085). They devoted themselves to fellowship as well and lived communally. They cared for one another’s needs which was commanded by Jesus in Matthew 6. This is an example for the church today, and how members of the church should care for one another in their time of need or struggle. The early church also gathered together for meals within their homes (Acts 2:46). This is similar to Sunday lunch and dinner where friends and family gather for a meal. Church potlucks are also common which resemble Jesus sharing meals with his disciples and listeners as well as early believers gathering together. The early church shows many practical applications and ideas that the church can use today. It is not something that must be strictly adhered to, but rather a guideline that they can follow. It is not a strict model as they lived in a different culture and time in history, but there are useful insights that can be applied to today.