-
The
famous Heidelberg professor of New Testament is saying that if one
does not recognize the joy that permeated the life of the earliest
believers he will fail to grasp the true character of the primitive
church. Prof. Weiss sees their jubilant happiness as that which set
them apart from the old community of Judaism, but it could also be
said that it was their joyous faith that distinguished them from all
the religions of the world, both before and after their time. The
secret of their power was their “peace and joy in the Holy
Spirit.” It was not that they had found a new system of
doctrine superior to all others, but they had discovered a new life
in a Person whom they believed to be the risen Christ. No other
religion, however rich in age and tradition, could offer such joyful
hope. They might proffer wisdom but not jubilation.
-
-
Their
shared life was thus a life of joy. It was a fellowship of joy, and
that is really what fellowship means, the
shared
life.
Some
versions, such as
The
New English Bible,
do
not even use the word fellowship at all. Whereas the KJV renders
Acts 2:42 “They continued steadfastly in the apostles’
doc trine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers,”
the NEB has it ,”They met constantly to hear the apostles
teach, and to share the common life, to break bread, and to pray.”
Rather than saying “we have fellowship one with another”
in 1 Jn. I:7, the NEB says, “we share together a common life.”
-
-
If
our people could come to understand that fellowship is the sharing
of life in Jesus rather than some kind of doctrinal approval, it
would go a long way toward healing our divisions. We are in
fellowship, or we share a common life, not because we agree on
certain points of doctrine and practice, but because we have a
common relationship with Jesus. Just as with your earthly brothers
and sisters: you are kinfolk, not because you agree on everything,
which you don’t, but because you have the same parentage. I am
the seventh of eight children, and I am six years older than the
baby of the family, so I was old enough at the time of his birth to
know something was up. They sent me to grandma’s to spend the
night. The next morning I was introduced to my baby brother. I was
not asked whether I approved or if I would accept him. There he was
in the family and I was stuck with him. We were brothers because we
had been begotten of the same father and born of the same mother.
All these years we have a “shared life” in the Garrett
family, not because we see things alike, which we don’t, but
because of our common heritage.
-
-
In
our search for the ancient order, therefore, we are to recognize
that the earliest believers were a
community,
bound
together by a common relationship. That relationship was of such
sublime magnitude, transcending anything ever before experienced by
man, that it was a jubilant community. Their joy was real for they
knew they were “an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy
nation, a people for God’s own possession” (l Pet. 2:9).
They had a confidence that knew no doubt, for they lived in and for
him “who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20).
Who
can separate us from the love of Christ?
had
but one answer and this was the source of their jubilation. They
knew that all the evil forces around them could not touch them,
whether tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril
—not even the sword.
In
all things we are more than conquerors.
This
accounts for their triumphant joy.
-
-
As
one reads through the first chapters of Acts she is made aware not
only of the emerging community, but of a joyful community. They were
not simply church members or part of an institution: they were a
community in celebration. Acts 2:46 says of them, “And they,
continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread
from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness
of heart.” This serves as a brief summary of their shared
life. As a part of the old community they attended the temple
services, especially the hours of prayer, and now as believers they
did not forsake the custom of their fathers. But this probably
refers to the teaching they did in many small gatherings throughout
the temple grounds as well as to the prayers, as Acts 5:42
states: “And every day in the temple and at home they did not
cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.” The rapid
growth of the community — 3,000 to 5,000 to multitudes —
can be accounted for only on the ground of their jubilant faith in
the risen Messiah. It was contagious, not because of their
technique, but because of their message. A message of joy, good
news.
-
-
They
also met “at home,” which probably refers to gatherings
in many homes rather than house to house by the same group, for the
community was too large for that. There is also evidence that they
carried their message to the hundreds of synagogues throughout
Jerusalem. A rabbinic tradition says there were 480 synagogues,
while Josephus refers to 600, and since they were open to any
brother who had a word of exhortation these provided many
opportunities to witness to the faith. Stephen, the community’s
first martyr, was a hero in preaching Christ in the synagogues.
-
-
The
reference to breaking bread at home almost certainly means more than
simply eating together. This practice, described as “the
breaking of bread” in Acts 2:42, did not have any Jewish
counterpart. A Christian, eating in a Jewish home, would never call
it “the breaking of bread,” for it meant more than
eating to a believer. In some special way Jesus broke and blessed
the bread at the last supper, and it must have been this unique
practice that caused him to be recognized by the two disciples after
his resurrection: “When he was at the table with them, he took
the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their
eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of
their sight” (Lk. 24:30). He had done similarly in feeding the
multitudes: “And taking the five loaves and the two fish he
looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke the loaves, and gave
them to the disciples to set before the people” (Mk. 6:41). He
did the same thing at the second feeding of the crowd (Mk. 8:6).
-
-
Our
Lord did not only thank the Father for the bread, but he also broke
the loaves, apparently one by one, before them all. He did not
bother to cut the fish, and he certainly did not break the loaves
for distribution purposes, for the loaves went on to multiply and
multiply. When it was all over they took up twelve baskets of
broken
pieces!
So it must have had some ceremonial value, perhaps a symbol of their
common relationship to the Father. He thanked God and broke the
loaves. He must have done that which they had never seen before, and
it may have become a means of recognizing him later on.
-
-
There
is not yet any wine associated with “the breaking of bread,”
which we have in the Lord’s Supper. Jesus combines the wine
and the bread in the upper room, and we see this as our Lord’s
Supper, and Paul couples the “cup of blessing which we bless”
with the “bread which we break,” and this too is our
Supper. But there must have been a symbolic “the breaking of
bread” apart from the Supper. We cannot be sure that “the
breaking of bread” in Acts 2:42 refers to the Lord’s
Supper. It might rather refer to this
daily
practice
of gathering in a multitude of homes and celebrating their faith
“with unaffected joy,” as the NEB renders “with
gladness and singleness of heart.” That verse, Acts 2:4 7,
mentions
both
“breaking
bread” and “partaking of food with gladness and
singleness of heart.” Does this not indicate that beside a
common meal there was “the breaking of bread” that had
special significance to them? They did it because Jesus had done it
with them.
-
-
We
would do well to employ some of these pregnant symbols of the
primitive saints. Since our family was all to be together on
Christmas, I asked Ouida to prepare a small loaf of bread (not
unleavened necessarily, just bread) for “the breaking of
bread” before our feast together. Like Jesus, I thanked God
for the loaf and broke it, and passed it around the table, each
partaking of a portion, mindful of God’s blessings and of our
oneness both as a family and as friends in Christ. While I believe
that the Supper itself is for the assembled community on Lord’s
day, and not a family or individual celebration, this is not true of
“the breaking of bread,” which the earliest Christians
did every day in their homes and which Jesus did either with a
multitude or with just two others, and at any time. We found our
breaking of bread to be meaningful, and I plan to do it more often,
especially on special occasions when believers call at our home.
-
-
We
could also make a meaningful practice of making the sign of the
cross in our prayers and meditations, especially when we pray alone.
If it bothers you that “the Catholics do it,” then you
are to be informed that ancient Christians (maybe not as early as
first century) crossed themselves in honor of “the cross”
long before any Roman Catholics ever came along. We should not do it
(or anything else) “In the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost,” for that is anti-scriptural. I baptize
people, as the Lord instructed.
“into
the
name, etc., but not
“in
the
name”. The difference is very important.
-
-
This
is what I mean about making the sign of the cross. You are praying
about glorying only in the cross of Christ—not in a party or a
church or in being right or in Social Security or in your
position—but only in the cross of Christ. As you pray that
way, cross yourself. You will find it meaningful. If you can wear a
cross around your neck, you can surely mark off one over your heart.
It gives you something to do as a kind of overt commitment to what
you have prayed. Try it. It is in your roots.
-
-
So,
we have seen that the primitive believers were a joyous, jubilant
community, gathering in the temple, in synagogues, and in homes, not
only preaching and teaching the faith, but rejoicing and praising
God in their homes-and breaking bread in a ritual celebration
daily,
along
with eating together. This evolved into what came to be known as the
love feast,
agape,
which
again was more than a meal, for it symbolized their oneness and
their love and acceptance of each other.
-
-
But
there is much, much more, and we’ll be looking into various
aspects of their shared life (fellowship). They were a praying
community, and on one occasion the house shook when they prayed. If
we do not get results like that, maybe it is because we don’t
pray like they did. They were a united community, holding all things
in common. They shared their goods, selling property and dividing
the spoils, “as every man had need.” Even though poverty
stalked their culture, there is that remarkable line describing
them: “There was not a needy person among them” (Acts
4:34). And they were a community looked up to by the people, which
may seem contradictory since they were the followers of an executed
criminal. But we are to remember that it was the authorities, not
the common people, who conspired in the rejection of Jesus,
deceiving
some
of
the people into going along. But eventually persecution did come and
they were scattered, the blood of the saints becoming the seed of
the kingdom.
-
-
Our
search for the ancient order does not imply, I presume, that we
today are to do exactly as they did. It is better to say that we are
to do for our generation what they did for theirs. The record does
not read as if it were intended as a blueprint for all ages to come.
No exact pattern emerges. True, they sold their land and made a
communal distribution, as each had need. That may not mean that we
must
do
the same, but it means that we might. At least we are to show the
same concern for each other. I would not say that we should
ceremoniously break bread every day in our homes, but since it meant
so much to them, we should give it careful consideration in our
search.
-
-
But
still there is a pattern for us. The norms emerge as to what the
Church of Christ upon earth is to be, what is
really
important.
We too are to be a loving, jubilant community, praising God and
witnessing joyfully to our faith. Their order (techniques, methods,
procedures) was expressive of their inward joy in the Spirit. They
did nothing arbitrarily. If they were united with all their
problems, why can’t we be? Their experiences provide clues, as
well as instructions, on how we are to do it. The scriptures they
gave us out of their experiences are our authority, but the
scriptures have to be interpreted in the light of their own
situation as over against ours. We may decide we can buy and own
property even though they sold theirs! And yet who knows but what if
we sold our church real estate and gave the money to the hungry
world, and started meeting in homes like they did, we might move
closer to their “victorious, jubilant happiness and
confidence.” —the
Editor