From The Archives: Is Acts 2:42 A Pattern For The Church?

[This post if from January 29, 2009.  I think it is very relevant to the things we have been discussing on this blog.  I still very much believe that fellowship is the pattern of the Church and our local assemblies are not the point]

Many people in the history of the church have looked to Acts 2:42 (to the end of the chapter) as a pattern for the church but none of them saw deep enough to see what “pattern” might actually be there. People read this passage and think that their duty as Christians is to devote themselves to:

1. The apostles teaching

2. Fellowship

3. Breaking of bread

4. Prayer

They say that these four things must be done by the church and that these should be the main purposes of the assembly. Some in my heritage of churches of Christ have actually attempted to model their worship services after this supposed “pattern” thinking that it would make their worship services Scriptural. Trying to take Luke’s description of the first Christians and develop it into a pattern for the church is a big mistake if viewed through the eyes of legalism.

Should we take this description of the first Christians and try to emulate it?

In a way, I think so. But not in the way you think.

First of all, “teaching” and “fellowship” are not two different things in this narrative as we have often thought. It should be “they dedicated themselves to the Apostles teaching and fellowship” (as it is in the English Standard Version and others). It is saying that they dedicated themselves to the Apostles teaching AND the Apostle’s fellowship. This means that they followed the Apostles in a similar way to how the Apostles had followed Jesus in His ministry. They were under His guidance and these new Christians were under the Apostles guidance and spent much time with them living the life that Jesus had taught them all to live.

Secondly, the debate about the meaning of breaking of bread is really quite unnecessary. Many claim it refers to the Lord’s Supper and others think it refers to a fellowship meal. In the early church their was so little difference between these two that no variance in terms would be needed. The Lord’s Supper was done in the context of a fellowship meal, so no distinction need be made. The “breaking of bread” and the Lord’s Supper are one and the same.

Lastly, the “prayers” should not be translated “prayer” as it is in many translations. The Greek is clearly plural. The reason the “prayer” translation is often used is because some Christians have a tough time figuring out what “the prayers” were. I think I can answer that and I will below.

The verses to the end of the chapter describe in more detail the things stated in v.42. It works like this:

Apostles teaching & fellowship

– Great signs and wonders done through the Apostles

– They were together and had all things in common

– They sold their possessions and gave to any who had need.

Breaking of bread

– Met in homes to break bread (possibly daily)

Prayers

– Met in the temple courts daily

Some may be confused by me relating their meeting in the temple courts with “the prayers” but you shouldn’t be if you continue reading into Acts 3. Where are Peter and John going? To the 3 o’clock prayer service at the temple. Yes, these were “the prayers” they were continually dedicated to. This is the only meaning of “the prayers” that makes any sense in the narrative. Reading the ESV in this passage can clear a lot of this up.

So in what way does this narrative contain a pattern for the church?

It does this by showing the fellowship that we are supposed to have outside of the rigid religious system that we have trapped ourselves in. Fellowship is supposed to be the foundation of the church and how church is done. The teaching was done in the context of fellowship. The breaking of bread was done in the context of fellowship. Even the things they did as a matter of being Jewish (the prayers and even synagogue attendance) were done in the context of fellowship. We (as Gentile Christians) have no need or opportunity to participate is some of these practice (the temple was destroyed and we are not under the Law of Moses and never were), but we do have the same need for fellowship that they had. You see, fellowship is the true pattern of the church and everything we do should flow from it

They had free fellowship with one another, teaching one another in the context of life. Breaking bread with one another, praising God, and giving thanks for all the Father had given to them. We should be doing the same.

Do I Need No “church” or Just Less

I’ve been thinking about this today.

Do I need to be part of an institutional church that is less organized and more open (like a house church or other simple church) or do I need to go non-institutional altogether?

I was part of a house church for two years and I was very happy there.  I would likely still be there except that I needed to move to another city many miles away.  I had great fellowship with the brothers and sisters in the house church and enjoyed the teaching very much.  I liked the simple, open meetings and the fact that funds were distributed to the needy and to missions exclusively (no building, maintenance, or staff costs).  I liked that we met less frequently to allow us to work in the world.  We met once a week and I felt that was sufficient.  It was not perfect, but it was much better than anything I had found at a traditional institution.

I also think I might do well to go totally organic.  Why do I need an institution at all.  In fact, I know I don’t really need one at all.  I can evangelize and support other evangelists without an organization.  I can teach others and learn from others without it as well.  I have fellowship with other Christians all the time (ones in organizations and ones that are not) and will continue to do so.  I have an active prayer life without the institution helping one bit.  I could take communion with other Christians on any number of occasions and I see no Scriptural reason why I couldn’t.  I could also help the needy without any help from the organization (most organizations don’t help the needy much anyway).  In short, I could be just as Christian outside an institution as I could be inside of one.  The institutions are expedients. We created them to make doing the working of Christ easier.  I’m not sure they do.

So, what would you do if you were me? 

Try to find a simple organization to help me carry out the work of Christ or go organic completely?

Is Acts 2:42 A Pattern For The Church?

Many people in the history of the church have looked to Acts 2:42 (to the end of the chapter) as a pattern for the church but none of them saw deep enough to see what “pattern” might actually be there. People read this passage and think that their duty as Christians is to devote themselves to:

1. The apostles teaching

2. Fellowship

3. Breaking of bread

4. Prayer

They say that these four things must be done by the church and that these should be the main purposes of the assembly. Some in my heritage of churches of Christ have actually attempted to model their worship services after this supposed “pattern” thinking that it would make their worship services Scriptural. Trying to take Luke’s description of the first Christians and develop it into a pattern for the church is a big mistake if viewed through the eyes of legalism.

Should we take this description of the first Christians and try to emulate it?

In a way, I think so. But not in the way you think.

First of all, “teaching” and “fellowship” are not two different things in this narrative as we have often thought. It should be “they dedicated themselves to the Apostles teaching and fellowship” (as it is in the English Standard Version and others). It is saying that they dedicated themselves to the Apostles teaching AND the Apostle’s fellowship. This means that they followed the Apostles in a similar way to how the Apostles had followed Jesus in His ministry. They were under His guidance and these new Christians were under the Apostles guidance and spent much time with them living the life that Jesus had taught them all to live.

Secondly, the debate about the meaning of breaking of bread is really quite unnecessary. Many claim it refers to the Lord’s Supper and others think it refers to a fellowship meal. In the early church their was so little difference between these two that no variance in terms would be needed. The Lord’s Supper was done in the context of a fellowship meal, so no distinction need be made. The “breaking of bread” and the Lord’s Supper are one and the same.

Lastly, the “prayers” should not be translated “prayer” as it is in many translations. The Greek is clearly plural. The reason the “prayer” translation is often used is because some Christians have a tough time figuring out what “the prayers” were. I think I can answer that and I will below.

The verses to the end of the chapter describe in more detail the things stated in v.42. It works like this:

Apostles teaching & fellowship

– Great signs and wonders done through the Apostles

– They were together and had all things in common

– They sold their possessions and gave to any who had need.

Breaking of bread

– Met in homes to break bread (possibly daily)

Prayers

– Met in the temple courts daily

Some may be confused by me relating their meeting in the temple courts with “the prayers” but you shouldn’t be if you continue reading into Acts 3. Where are Peter and John going? To the 3 o’clock prayer service at the temple. Yes, these were “the prayers” they were continually dedicated to. This is the only meaning of “the prayers” that makes any sense in the narrative. Reading the ESV in this passage can clear a lot of this up.

So in what way does this narrative contain a pattern for the church?

It does this by showing the fellowship that we are supposed to have outside of the rigid religious system that we have trapped ourselves in. Fellowship is supposed to be the foundation of the church and how church is done. The teaching was done in the context of fellowship. The breaking of bread was done in the context of fellowship. Even the things they did as a matter of being Jewish (the prayers and even synagogue attendance) were done in the context of fellowship. We (as Gentile Christians) have no need or opportunity to participate is some of these practice (the temple was destroyed and we are not under the Law of Moses and never were), but we do have the same need for fellowship that they had. You see, fellowship is the true pattern of the church and everything we do should flow from it

They had free fellowship with one another, teaching one another in the context of life. Breaking bread with one another, praising God, and giving thanks for all the Father had given to them. We should be doing the same.

 

How to “choose a church”

I recently moved for work and now I’m in the process of choosing a church.  I don’t really like the concept of “choosing” where to worship but in this city their are over 10 churches within my theological tradition (acappella churches of Christ) so the choice is inevitable.  The first one that I have looked at (since it was the closest to my house) is a 250 member church that is fairly contemporary for my tribe.  I came from a house church of 20 and this transistion has been very difficult for me.  I’m not sure if this will work out and I’m not sure how to get back in the swing of being a part of a traditional church.  I’m not even sure I want to be.

In the last two years (the time I was with the house church) I have grown accustomed to a few things that I’m not finding in traditional churches of my tribe:

Meeting only once a week

Teaching that allows me to participate in the discussion

Close Christian fellowship

The ability to help make the church’s business decisions

The ability to change the worship order in a moment

Authenticity

I don’t think that another house church will be springing up soon (I don’t really feel like God is calling me to do this either) and it wasn’t perfect either.  It had its problems but this transition has been tough on me.  I grew up in churches like this new one but I have changed a lot since then. 

If you thought from the title of this post that I would tell you how to choose a church I’m not.  I don’t know how in this complicated world of many choices.  I’m just going to try to follow Christ and I know I will end up where I should be.  Hope this helps if you are in the same boat as me.  Thanks for listening.