!

!
!
Applying Acts 2:42 Today.!
!
!
How Luke’s description of the life of the early church can be
applied to the contemporary situation with special reference to
the Open Brethren in the UK and Faroe Islands. !
!
By!

Student 100!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
A dissertation submitted to Trinity College and the University of Bristol in
accordance with the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts by advanced
study in Biblical Studies in the Faculty of Arts.
!
!
!
!
Trinity College/Arts Faculty
September 2012
!
!
!
!
!
Word count: 14 996
(text and footnotes only, excluding preliminary pages and bibliography)
Abstract!
The purpose of this dissertation was firstly to discuss the way in which Acts 2:42
has been interpreted by the Open Brethren in the United Kingdom and the
Faroe Islands and then to consider how Acts 2:42 can be applied to
contemporary church life. !

A brief sketch of the traditional Brethren view of the verse was conducted. This
was followed by an exegesis of the verse in question and a discussion of some
of the relevant issues concerning Luke’s authorship of Acts and his purpose in
writing. !

Contemporary Brethren interpretation of the verse was then explored. This

concentrated on the work of F. F. Bruce and three other books. Two of these
were written from different ends of the conservative/progressive Open Brethren
spectrum in the United Kingdom: Church Doctrine and Practice and Church
Leaders Handbook. The third book was Samkoman, written concerning church
life in the Faroe Islands.!

The final section considered how far Luke’s description of the activity of the
early church should be seen as prescriptive for contemporary church practice.
The conclusion was that there are principles any church needs to adhere to but
that practices are open to interpretation within the specific context. It was also
concluded that while this occurs amongst the progressive Brethren to some
extent, it is lacking on the conservative side. The most pressing conclusion was
that across the spectrum, more work needs to be done on what it means to
manifest true fellowship.

Contents!
!
Introduction! 1!
Traditional Brethren Application! 3!
Acts 2:42 - Some Exegetical Issues! 9!
τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων0 100
τῇ κοινωνίᾳ0 120
τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου0 150
ταῖς προσευχαῖς0 180
Summary0 200
Hermeneutical Issues! 21!
Authorship0 210
Reliability0 210
Purpose0 230
Contemporary Brethren Interpretation! 26!
F. F. Bruce0 260
τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων0 260
τῇ κοινωνίᾳ0 270
τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου0 280
ταῖς προσευχαῖς0 280
Other Interpretation0 290
The Apostles’ Teaching0 320
Fellowship0 350
Breaking of Bread0 410
Prayer0 440
Conclusion0 460
Applying Acts 2:42 Today! 47!
Genre and Importance0 470
Description or Prescription0 510
Bibliography! 54!
!
Introduction!
Andrew Borland refers to Acts 2:42 as a verse which “describes the fourfold

purpose for which those early Christians assembled.”1 Jógvan Zachariassen,  

writing nearly sixty years later, uses the same verse for his comment that, “We

come together for worship, teaching and fellowship.”2 Two Brethren writers from
 

different countries and different times who both see this verse as being

foundational for the activity of the church. Neither of them however, tackles the

question of exactly what it is that Luke refers to when he writes that the very

earliest believers “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the

fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”3 Still less do they discuss
 

just how far, and in what ways, this verse can be seen as prescriptive for the

contemporary church.!

The concentration in this dissertation will be upon the way Brethren writers have

used the passage in question and the way in which this influenced, and

continues to influence, the organisation of church activities. The Brethren have

been known by many names: Plymouth Brethren, Open Brethren, Exclusive

Brethren and Christian Brethren to mention but four. While always being

suspicious of titles as leading to denominationalism,4 insisting that “It is no part

 

of New Testament teaching that Christians in a locality should be divided from

each other for segregation into denominations,”5 the general title of ‘Brethren’
 

has come to be accepted. For the purpose of this essay, the discussions

$ 1 Borland in Watson (1949) 71

$ 2 “Vit koma saman til tilbiðjan, læru og samfelag” Zachariassen (2007) 60 This and other
translations from Faroese books are my own.
$ Unless otherwise stated, all quotations from the Bible come from the New International
3

Version © 1979, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.

$ See for example Darby’s discussion in Darby (undated)
4

$ Edwards, R. C. “New Testament Churches” in Watson (ed) (1949) 28

5

$1
concerning modern practice will be limited to what are commonly termed the

‘Open’ Brethren, though this designation itself needs some clarifying. Since the

1960s there has been a broadening of the movement to create a spectrum of

opinion ranging from a conservative wing on one side to, what has been called,

progressive on the other. Our discussions will include all parts of this spectrum.

References to earlier practices may well be relevant to other strands of the

Brethren as well.!

In this essay, I intend to look briefly at the way in which this verse (and

specifically the four phrases τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων, τῇ κοινωνίᾳ, τῇ

κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου and ταῖς προσευχαῖς6) served to form the basis for the
 

traditional Brethren pattern of meetings, with special reference to the UK and

the Faroe Islands. I will then deal with some of the exegetical questions

surrounding these phrases and what they might have meant in the context of

the early church. Following a discussion of the nature and purpose of Acts, we

will consider some contemporary Brethren interpretation of these verses. The

final section will discuss the issue of how far these phrases should be seen as

prescriptive for future generations or merely descriptive of the practice of the

first Christians. If the latter, whether there are areas the Brethren might need to

look at more carefully in putting principles drawn from these early practices into

practice. 


$ 6 The Greek text used is Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece Edition XXVII (1993)
$2
Traditional Brethren Application!
The traditional Brethren understanding of the local church, and the application

of the verses under discussion, arose primarily out of a general dissatisfaction

or disillusionment with the established denominations (not just the Church of

England). Perhaps the most important of the early leaders of the movement,

John Nelson Darby, refers to this when he writes, “The careful reading of the

Acts afforded me a practical picture of the early Church, which made me feel

deeply the contrast with its actual present state, though still, as ever, beloved of

God.”7 In another letter, on this occasion to a Catholic newspaper in France,

 

Darby returns to the same theme but narrows down the parts of Acts which had

had such an effect on him, “It was easy, reading Acts 2 and 4, to see how far we

had got from what God had set up on earth.”8.!  

The influence of Acts 2, and especially verse 42, on the thought of early

Brethren leaders is also to be seen in Edward Cronin’s comment that the

Church was “made up of the members of the one body of Christ, gathered

together for fellowship, for instruction, for the breaking of bread and for prayer in

local companies.”9 !  

Both Darby’s and Cronin’s comments here show that they saw Acts not only as

a record of the early church, but also, in Darby’s phrase, a “practical picture”

which could be acted upon and, by implication, emulated. In an address from

1862, H. W. Soltau put it in this way, that as the early Brethren “searched the

Bible they looked around them… they saw nothing like what it describes in the

Church of God–they could discover nothing around them like what was depicted

$ 7J. N. Darby in a letter “to Prof. Tholuck about 1857-9” and quoted in Ironside (1942) 181
$ 8“A Letter Written to a French Catholic Newspaper” 1878, in Ironside (1942)190
$ Ironside (1942) 11
9

$3
in the Scriptures… They looked at all the sects, but they saw no fac-simile (sic)

of the description contained in the Epistles.”10 !  

The general, and widespread, belief amongst the early leaders of the Brethren

that the contemporary Church had drifted from the biblical pattern, led them to

two basic positions of relevance to us. Firstly, there was a move away from

using traditional terminology when speaking about the church activities and

buildings. Thus, the individual congregations were never referred to as

‘churches’ but as ‘assemblies’; the gatherings of Christians never as ‘services’

always as ‘meetings’. The buildings where they met as a fellowship were never

referred to as a ‘church’ but simply as a hall or meeting place; the most

common appellation probably being ‘Gospel Hall’. Secondly, it led to the

creation of a specific, and common, pattern of meetings which would be found

wherever an assembly existed.!

This pattern is exemplified by the meetings held by the Brethren in Tunbridge

Wells. While the assembly building in the town was not opened until 1924,11  

people had been meeting together since sometime in the 1890s, although “it is

not possible to say exactly when” this first occurred. From the very start

Sundays were marked by a Breaking of Bread meeting in the morning and a

Gospel meeting in the evening. During the week people would meet for other

meetings of prayer and Bible study.!

We can expand upon the pattern for these meetings a little by referring to the

assembly in which I grew up,12 which was not untypical of assemblies of the
 

$ 10 Soltau (1862) 8
$ 11 Information in this paragraph is taken from a pamphlet written to celebrate the Golden Jubilee
of the building of Culverden Hall Evangelical Church in Tunbridge Wells.
$ 12 Victoria Hall, Folkestone, Kent
$4
time.13 The central meeting was the Sunday morning Breaking of Bread service
 

where there was no set liturgy and no designated service leader. The first part

of the meeting comprised open worship, where contributions through prayer,

choosing a hymn or sharing a brief thought from the Bible were present. All

baptised men (not women) were free, and indeed encouraged, to take an active

part. The climax of the gathering was the breaking of the bread and sharing of

the cup. Following this, would be a time of ministry where teaching from God’s

word would take place. This was not, generally, consecutive teaching and was -

except when there was a visiting brother - carried out by ordinary members of

the assembly. Sunday evening was given over to the Gospel Meeting, where,

as the name suggests, the central aim was the preaching of the gospel. The

prayer and ministry meeting was held mid-week and comprised a time of open

prayer where all men were encouraged to take part once again. This was

followed by Bible teaching, in this case of a more systematic kind.!

These meetings was not just seen as a practical way of following what was

seen as the New Testament pattern. Adherence and faithfulness to them was

also the manner that faithfulness to Scripture was both manifest and judged.

Thus, a description of beginnings of the assembly in Shetland includes the

favourable comment that from the very beginning the believers were faithful in

following the pattern laid down in Acts 2:42.14!  

This pattern was not restricted to UK assemblies, but was replicated in many

respects wherever the Brethren founded assemblies. This can seen by looking

at the founding of the first two assemblies in two other countries, that of the

$ 13 See Stenhouse (1971) 117-18 for a description of the essential features which mark “A
scripturally-gathered assembly”. Grass (2011) 6 gives a similar account of the services held in a
‘typical’ Open Brethren assembly, see also Brown (2003) 35
$ 14 Moar (2004)
$5
Faroe Islands and Barbados. The first Brethren assembly in the Faroe Islands

was founded by a Scottish missionary, William Sloan, in 1879 and the

recognised Brethren pattern of meetings was followed from the very beginning;

Sunday morning saw the Breaking of Bread with an evangelistic meeting in the

evening. Apart from these, “they came together during the week for a ministry

meeting (Bible reading and discussion) and for prayer.”15 The first Brethren
 

assembly in Barbados was founded in 1889, just ten years after that in the

Faroes, as a result of work by English and Canadian missionaries.16 As in the  

Faroes, the same pattern of meetings was established from the very beginning.

Sylvan Catwell, in his book on the growth of the Brethren in Barbados,

describes the practices of the Brethren assemblies and makes the link with Acts

2:42 explicit when he notes the weekly Breaking of Bread service as well as

“Regular united meetings of all the assemblies for prayer, ministry of the Word

and fellowship (Acts 2:42).”17 It can be seen that neither the culture where the
 

assembly was founded nor that of the founding missionary played any serious

part in the pattern of meetings that was established. !

While these examples demonstrate that there was a general consistency in the

pattern of meetings that a ‘typical’ Brethren assembly - in whatever country -

may follow, it would be wrong to suggest that there was a total uniformity of

practice within them. What we find is some variation of practices which takes

cultural and other issues into some consideration, as Harold Rowdon has

pointed out.18 He then goes on to confirm that much of what the Open Brethren
 

$ 15 “komu tey saman í vikuni til uppgyggingarmøti (bíbliufyrilestur og samrøður) og bønamøti.”

Berghamar (1992) 121
$ 16 Catwell (1995) 26-29
$ 17
ibid 83-4
$ 18
See Rowdon (1985) 38-9 where he gives examples of some of the more common variations
found.
$6
have seen as being distinctive of their practice comes from their understanding

of Acts 2:42, but that at the time of his writing much of this distinctiveness has

begun to disappear. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen but the

significance of Acts 2:42 in those distinctive, early Brethren practices remains.19!

 

Acts 2:42 is not the only verse to which Brethren writers turn for inspiration and

biblical precedence concerning the meeting of believers. Other passages such

as 1 Corinthians 11 concerning the Lord’s Supper and the passages on church

government in the Pastoral letters are also important. However, it is the four

main words or phrases from the Acts verse which are referred to often and

which form the basis for the specific pattern of assembly gatherings. This

continues from beyond the early days of the Brethren movement and is

exemplified in a commentary on Acts by John Heading, a writer who was

influential during the 1960s and ’70s, especially in the more traditional

assemblies. Heading describes verse 42 as of “vital importance”20 to assembly

 

life as it shows, “The four phases of assembly activity.”21 Thus, the apostles’
 

teaching is represented by the regular, weekly Bible teaching meeting; ‘breaking

of bread’ by the central meeting of the Brethren on a Sunday morning; prayer by

the weekly prayer meeting. The one word which is less clearly represented in

the weekly meetings is that of ‘fellowship’. Heading describes this as, “the

partaking of kindred interests as members of the one body”22 and as often as

 

not this was seen to be experienced in the coming together of Christians in their

various activities. An important part of this was the monthly or annual

conferences that characterised the movement. This tradition continues in the

$ 19 ibid 7
$ 20 Heading (1975) 85
$ 21 ibid 86
$ 22 ibid 92
$7
Faroe Islands with the annual Samfelagsmøtir (literally ‘fellowship meetings’),

which draw a large majority of Brethren to a weekend of teaching, prayer and

the celebration of Lord’s Supper.!

$8
Acts 2:42 - Some Exegetical Issues!
Before discussing the four specific phrases we are concentrating on, there are

two major aspects to this verse which need to be mentioned and which will have

implications for our later discussion concerning their relevance today. The first

of these is the question of the role of summary passages in Acts. This verse,

and those which immediately follow it, forms part of Luke’s first summary “of the

interior life of the early church.”23 Witherington draws a distinction between

 

summary statements and summary passages, placing verse 42 as the transition

sentence which forms the first part of a summary passage (2:42-47).24 This  

verse, then, might be considered the first summary statement25 that Luke gives 

of the life of the early church, something which perhaps lends it special

significance and which certainly encourages us not to ignore its content.!

The second aspect is the use of προσκαρτεροῦντες at the beginning of the

verse. καρτερεω suggests an activity which is both constant and enduring26  

and the use of the imperfect tense simply serves to heighten the “constant

attention”27 the early church gave to these activities. Peterson argues that this
 

“strong verb… [is used] to stress that the earliest disciples were pre-occupied

with and persevered in the activities [Luke] lists.”28 Luke uses the identical
 

phrase in 1:14 when describing the disciples’ being “constantly

(προσκαρτερήσομεν) in prayer” and in Acts 6:4 where he writes that the

apostles were to “give [their] attention (προσκαρτερήσομεν) to prayer and the

$ 23 Witherington (1998) 156

$ 24 ibid 157f
$ 25 But see the discussion below, p 50, for a more detailed treatment of the sub-genre of Acts
2:42
$ 26 See Mundle (1992) 768
$ 27 Williams (1990) 59
$ 28 Peterson (1998) 390
$9
ministry of the word.” As can be seen from the NIV translations of these verses,

there is a range of meaning in the word that allows us to infer that this summary

is not just Luke’s account of what happened on one occasion but rather of what

was a habit of the church.!

τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων0

The first of the four relevant phrases is τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων, and its

primary position in this short list implies quite strongly that it was of utmost

importance to the life of the early church. This should not come as any surprise

to us. In Ephesians, Paul refers to the apostles as being part of the foundation

of the church. 29
 

Bruce argues that this should be taken, at least partially, as a

reference to their teaching which Paul saw as foundational and authoritative.30 If  

that is the case, then we have a similar situation here in the early days of the

church. We are, thus, justified in seeing the apostles’ teaching as being of the

utmost importance to the early church. However, we need to explore exactly

what that means a little more closely. !

The word διδαχη can mean both the act of teaching, and the subject matter

that is taught.31 If it is the first, then the new believers devoted themselves to
 

listening to the apostles as they taught; if it is the second, their devotion was to

the content of that teaching.!

These two understandings are not mutually exclusive. Indeed Bruce, refers to

the Didache as the basis for arguing the first position32 but also states in his
 

earlier commentary that it was this teaching which “took written shape in the NT

$ 29 Ephesians 2:20
$ 30 Bruce (1990a) 131
$ 31 See Vine (1952) 323
$ 32 Bruce (1990a) 131
$10
scriptures.”33 Whether this shows a change in position on his part or simply a
 

recognition of the interconnectivity of the two positions is moot. It is reasonable

to assume that the content of this teaching - at least at this stage of the church’s

development - centred upon the person of Jesus and the “Gospel tradition”34  

rather than on any defined body of teachings; and that the apostles were

carrying out Jesus’ command to them in Matthew 28:20 to teach future disciples

“to obey everything I have commanded you.”35 Further support for this can
 

perhaps be seen in the selection of Matthias as a replacement for Judas.36 The

 

criterion that Peter mentions for the ‘short list’ of candidates is that they should

have been witnesses of Jesus from the beginning of his ministry, so that they

may continue to be witnesses with the apostles of his resurrection.37 It is this

 

which formed “the primary function of an apostle”38 and which gave them the
 

authority of the risen Lord.!

The argument for understanding τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων as a “specific

body of instruction” is put forward by Williams39 where he contends that the use
 

of the definite article leads us to this conclusion. This position finds further

support from elsewhere in Scripture if we understand Paul’s reference in

Ephesians to the “mystery of Christ, which… has now been revealed by the

Spirit of God’s holy apostles and prophets”40 as being that same “body of
 

instruction” in whatever form it may have taken at the time. Wegenast’s

$ 33 Bruce (1962) 79
$ 34 As Marshall (1988) 49 mentions in his discussion of κήρυγμα.
$ 35 See Bruce (1964) 6
$ Acts 1:12-26
36

$ Acts 1:22
37

$ 38 Williams (1990) 37
$ 39 ibid 59
$ 40 Ephesians 3:4-5
$11
argument,41 that the use of διδαχη to describe a defined body of teachings
 

does not occur until the Pastorals,42 encourages us to be cautious in making

 

such a statement, but does not preclude its use here by Luke in that way.!

Another aspect, which has a lot to commend it, is mentioned by Blue, when he

suggests that at least part of the content of the Apostles’ teaching was

exposition of the Old Testament Scriptures.43 It seems best, therefore, to

 

understand τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων as containing a number of separate but

linked ideas. The early church was taught by the apostles as they were led by

the Holy Spirit. This teaching had, as its foundation, the Old Testament

scriptures and, as its focus, the person and work of Jesus, and is what later

forms the basis of our New Testament. It is perhaps not too fanciful to suggest

that this teaching followed the pattern that they had seen in the life of Jesus

himself and they were thus continuing what Jesus had begun “to do and to

teach until the day he was taken up into heaven.”44!  

τῇ κοινωνίᾳ0

The second of our phrases raises a number of issues. While it is clear that the

term means sharing or participating with someone in a common thing45 its  

precise meaning here needs some closer inspection. Witherington argues that

translating it ‘fellowship’ is to miss the point as “fellowship is the result of

κοινωνια, of sharing in common; it is not the κοινωνια itself.”46 He goes on to 

argue that the expression of the κοινωνια of the early church was in the

$ 41 Wegenast (1992) 770

$ 42 This argument, though, bringing with it questions of the dating and authorship of the
Pastorals, falls outside the scope of this dissertation and of the use of the word in Acts.
$ 43 Blue (1998) 488
$ 44 Acts 1:1-2
$ 45 See Witherington (1998) 160 and Schattenmann (1992) 642
$ 46 Witherington (1998) 160
$12
breaking of bread and in prayer47 and therefore that this verse shows only two
 

basic activities of the church, teaching and κοινωνια. Bruce argues slightly

differently, suggesting that κοινωνια can be “expressed in a number of ways.”48  

The breaking of bread and prayer are two of these but that κοινωνια extends

beyond them to other actions such as the collection of gifts by Paul for the

Jerusalem church.49  

What links these actions for Bruce is that they are

practical.!

Marshall takes a different view in saying that κοινωνια refers to a meal that was

eaten in common.50 He differentiates between this meal and the breaking of

 

bread which he sees in a more eucharistic sense. He therefore disagrees with

Witherington and sees not just two but four distinct activities where κοινωνια

refers to the early church’s eating together - as mentioned in Acts 2:46. !

None of these positions, however, seems really to take full account of the

context in which Luke uses the word. The fact that this summary comes

immediately after Luke’s account of the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost at

least suggests that the word may need to be understood in not just a practical

way but also a spiritual one. As Stott points out, this is the first time the word

κοινωνια is used, and for good reason “for there was no κοινωνια before the

Holy Spirit came.”51 This idea is taken a little further by Williams when he
 

argues that κοινωνια refers to a sharing of the Christians in the new

relationship they enjoyed with God, that they were therefore sharing in none

$ 47 ibid 160
$ 48 Bruce (1962) 79, see also Bruce (1990a) 131-32
$ 49 See eg Romans 15:26
$ 50 Marshall (1980) 127
$ 51 Stott (2007) 97
$13
other than God himself.52 This is an attractive proposition as it seems to do
 

justice to the immediately preceding context. !

This sharing in God through his Spirit brings about a “common bond” which was

the source of their “unanimity and unity”53 and which then manifests itself in
 

various forms of fellowship. These expressions of unity included the breaking of

bread and prayer, but may go further and include the sharing of possessions

(Acts 2:44-5; 4:32-35). This community of possessions was not peculiar to the

early church, other Jewish groups such as the Essenes practised something

similar. 54
 

Some, like Blue, would argue that κοινωνια may not be “lexically

broad enough to include the sharing of property.”55 Whether this is right or not, it
 

is clear that κοινωνια cannot be limited to mean only the sharing of

possessions; rather that this was part of the outward expression of the

κοινωνια the early believers enjoyed.56 In other words, the unity they now knew
 

was expressed in a variety of ways, one of these was the sharing of

possessions – a part of their community life that was so important, Luke felt it

necessary to mention it on more than one occasion.!

Luke’s emphasis on this aspect of κοινωνια perhaps finds an echo in the

importance he attaches to the attitude disciples should have towards

possessions, both in his Gospel and elsewhere in Acts. Marshall57 argues that
 

the story of Zacchaeus shows what this attitude looks like in practice. He also

points out that, how wealth was distributed within the church became such a

$ 52 Williams (1990) 59
$ 53 Schattenmann (1992) 642
$ 54 See e.g. Witherington (1998) 205; Bruce (1964) 7
$ 55 Blue (1998) 489
$ 56 See Bruce (1990a) 131-32
$ 57 Marshall (1988) 206-07
$14
time-consuming issue, that “it had to be passed over to other officers (Acts

6:1-6).”58 This concern for the welfare of other Christians is not limited to Luke,
 

of course, as is evident from Paul’s letters.59 !  

It seems reasonable to argue, therefore, that the main force of κοινωνια is to

be found in the fellowship that the new believers enjoyed with God. This sharing

in God through his Spirit was at the centre of the fellowship that the believers

had with each other – their common bond.60 This spiritual sharing manifests
 

itself in a number of practical ways such as the sharing of possessions or the

collection for the poor.61 There are also what might be called more spiritual
 

expressions of this fellowship, such as the breaking of bread and prayer. In the

specific terms of Acts 2:42, Luke seems to be presenting us, then, with the new

Christian community expressing the reality of their faith in four different, but

linked, ways.62! 

τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου0

There are three possible interpretations of τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου. It could

simply refer to an ordinary meal shared by the Christians, or it could be a

reference to the Lord’s Supper,63 or it could refer to a celebration of the Lord’s

 

Supper within the context of the general, fellowship meal.64 The immediate
 

context of this phrase suggests that there is a difference between τῇ κλάσει

τοῦ ἄρτου and a general meal. However, the possibility that the breaking of

$ 58 ibid 207
$ 59 e.g. Romans 15:26, 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, 2 Corinthians 8-9
$ 60 See Williams (1990) 59
$ 61 See Peterson (1998) 391
$ 62 See Schattenmann (1992) 642
$ 63 See Witherington (1998) 160
$ 64 Bruce (1962) 79 and (1990a) 132
$15
bread took place within the context of a general meal, as Williams suggests,65  

needs to be given serious consideration. Other New Testament evidence seems

to support this understanding. Paul’s instructions concerning the celebration of

the Lord’s Supper in his letter to the church in Corinth66 show that in at least
 

one of the early churches, τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου has this third meaning of the

Lord’s Supper being celebrated as part of a more general meal.67!  

As we have seen, Marshall’s definition of κοινωνια leads to an understanding

of τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου as a celebration of the Lord’s Supper which is

separate from a fellowship meal. Even though we do not totally accept this

position, we can still accept his contention (supported by Williams68) that a

 

specific celebration of the Lord’s Supper is referred to here in Acts 2:42. This is

supported, though not conclusively, by Williams argument concerning the use of

the definite article. Peterson holds a different position, arguing that τῇ κλάσει

τοῦ ἄρτου “cannot be taken to refer to a liturgical celebration.”69 However, he

 

does recognise that the fellowship meals Luke refers to in Acts in general, and

here specifically, did have a special character and significance.!

Thus, while there is some disagreement as to exactly what form, or in what

context, τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου took place and some diffidence about being

categorical,70 there is general agreement that Luke is recording the early

 

church’s meeting together for something more than an ordinary meal. !

There are other reasons for accepting that this reference is to the Lord’s

$ 65 Williams (1990) 61
$ 66 1 Corinthians 11:17-35
$ 67 See also Blue (1998) 489
$ 68 Williams (1990) 60
$ 69 Peterson (1998) 393
$ 70 See also Witherington (1998) 160-61
$16
Supper, the most compelling of which is the way Luke links the breaking of

bread elsewhere with revelation concerning the person of Jesus. There are two

specific occasions that are worth considering briefly. In Luke 9:16, Jesus breaks

bread in order to feed the 5000. It is immediately following this that he records

Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ.71 The second concerns the disciples
 

on the road to Emmaus who only recognise Jesus when he breaks the bread, it

is then that their eyes are opened.72 In both instances, the recognition of who
 

Jesus is follows the breaking of bread and in both instances it is in the context

of a meal.!

A further link between the Emmaus story and Acts 2:42 is to be found in the way

that in both passages, Luke brings together the breaking of bread with teaching.

Before he is revealed to the disciples through the breaking of bread, Jesus has

spent the time on the road teaching them what the Scriptures had to say about

him. Luke seems to want his readers to recognise the links between teaching,

the breaking of bread and the revelation of who Jesus is.73!  

These links seem clear; however there is still a step from this position to

recognising τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου as referring specifically to the eucharist.

Bruce argues,74 that the emphasis that Luke appears to give to this phrase, and
 

the fact that he mentions as a separate event the daily eating together of the

disciples only a sentence or two further on,75 leads one to the reasonable
 

conclusion that the “significant element of the celebration”76 was the sharing of
 

$ 71 Luke 9:18-20
$ 72 Luke 24:31, 35
$ 73 See Marshall (1980) 124-25
$ 74 Bruce (1962) 79; Bruce (1990a) 132
$ 75
Luke 2:46
$ 76
Otto, R. (1943) The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man 315 quoted by Bruce (1962) 79 and
Bruce (1990a) 132
$17
bread and wine in remembrance of the death and resurrection of Jesus. !

Luke’s account of the Last Supper77 becomes relevant to this discussion at this
 

juncture. Jesus and the disciples are together in the context of a general

fellowship meal,78 during which Jesus gives a new meaning and understanding
 

to the bread and the wine.79 It is perhaps not stretching things too far to see a
 

link here with the context in the Corinthian church mentioned above where the

eucharist is celebrated as part of a fellowship meal 80

 

and by extension to an

understanding of Acts 2:42 where the Breaking of Bread was a specific

celebration of the Lord’s Supper within a more general fellowship meal.!

It is noteworthy that Luke makes only one other reference to the Eucharist in

Acts apart from here, and that is in Acts 20:7. This may seem particularly

surprising when we consider that Luke records Jesus as commanding his

disciples to remember him in the Breaking of Bread.81 We are therefore led to

 

the conclusion, with Liefeld, that the Lord’s Supper is to be understood as being

contained within the phrase τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου,82  

and that this

commemorative Lord’s Supper generally took place within the context of a

fellowship meal.83!  

ταῖς προσευχαῖς0

The main question arising from the fourth of the phrases we are considering is

what importance, if any, should be given to Luke’s use of the definite article. Its

use suggests that something other than general prayer of a personal or even

$ 77 Luke 22:14-20
$ 78 For a discussion of exactly what this meal was, see Marshall (1980) 57f
$ 79 See Bruce (1990a) 62
$ 80 See Marshall (1980) 127
$ 81 Luke 22:19
$ 82 Liefeld (1995) 98 see also the discussion in Marshall (1988) 204
$ 83 Bruce (1990a) 62
$18
corporate nature is being referred to; rather that Luke has in mind some kind of

specific prayer. This may be prayer at appointed times, such as the times of

Jewish prayer, or specific types of prayer or simply reference to times of

corporate prayer.84 !
 

Luke’s account of the early church shows the believers at prayer on a number

of occasions,85 to the extent that we can conclude it was part of their “normal
 

activity.”86 Two examples will suffice for us at this point. In Acts 3:1 Peter and
 

John go to the Temple to pray at the appointed time, suggesting that for the

apostles at least, following the Jewish timetable for prayer was not unusual.

Acts 4:24-30 gives an example of a specific prayer offered upon the release of

Peter and John from prison, suggesting that specific events may have given rise

to specific prayers on a more regular basis. In Acts 12:12, the disciples are

described as being together in prayer. The fact that Peter goes to the house

with an expectation of finding Christians there suggests that their coming

together for prayer was a regular occurrence rather than a one-off occasion

brought about by Peter’s imprisonment.87 !  

The most likely meaning of ταῖς προσευχαῖς in this context is that it refers to

regular times of prayer which were a characteristic of the early church, or as

Bruce puts it, “The disciples’ own meetings for prayer are primarily in view, but

participation in the Jewish services of public prayer is not excluded.”88!  

$ 84 See Williams (1990) p 60; Bruce (1990a)132; Bruce (1962) 80

$ 85 See for example Liefeld (1995) 87
$ 86 Marshall (1988) 201 see also Blue (1998) 496
$ 87 See Witherington (1998) 286-87 and Marshall (1988) 201 though Peterson (1998) 394 argues
these are specific times of prayer rather than regular gatherings.
$ 88 Bruce (1990a) 132
$19
Summary0

Luke’s first summary statement of life in the early church gives us a picture of

the disciples devoting themselves consistently to four separate but related

activities:89 the apostles’ teaching about Jesus, the sharing in the spiritual unity
 

they had through the coming of the Spirit, the remembrance of Jesus in the

Lord’s Supper, and regular times of corporate prayer. Blue comments that what

binds these together is that the “primary element of the gathering was the flow

of divine grace.”90!  

!
!

$ 89 See Blue (1998) 488

$ 90 ibid 497
$20
Hermeneutical Issues!
Authorship0

The scope of this dissertation does not allow for a detailed discussion of issues

surrounding questions of authorship, dating, or the historicity of the accounts of

the life of the early church.91 The position taken in this dissertation is that which
 

is "accepted by almost all scholars"92 that Acts was written by the same author
 

as the Gospel of Luke.  The exact identity of the writer may still be a matter of

question, and indeed the work itself is anonymous,93 but he is probably the
 

physician mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament as a companion of

Paul.94 !
 

The identity of the writer relates to the question of the dating of the book. If we

accept that Luke was a companion of Paul then the date of the writing of Acts

must be during the first century. Again there is scholarly disagreement about

this, and while it does not bear overmuch upon this dissertation the position

taken is that the book is a first century document. As Bruce says,

the atmosphere of Acts is "unmistakably that of the first century."95!  

Reliability0

Acceptance of Lucan authorship and a first century date for the writing of Acts

does not, of course, mean that Luke was present at all of the events he

narrates. Indeed, the prologue to Luke  makes it clear that he is reliant upon

both previous narratives and eyewitness reports.96   It is this same prologue

 

$ 91 For these, see the introductions to the commentaries, e.g.: Bruce (1990a) 3-9; Nolland (1989)
xxxiv-xxxvii; Williams (1990) 2-5 and Witherington (1998) 51-60.
$ 92 Nolland (1989) xxxiii
$ 93 See e.g. Bruce (1990a) 7
$ 94 e.g. Colossians 4:14. See e.g. Bruce (1990a) 6-7 and Witherington (1998) 58
$ 95 Bruce (1962) 18; see also Bruce (1990a) 12f
$ 96 Luke 1:1-2
$21
which also clearly shows that Luke was aiming to write history.97 This opens up  

the door to the question of the genre of Acts, a debate which “has taken many

turns in the twentieth century.”98 Witherington’s conclusion to his discussion of

 

this subject99 is that Luke is writing a history which resembled earlier Greek
 

histories and which has similarities with other contemporary historiography.100 It  

is this general conclusion that Luke is writing a history, which is followed

here.101!
 

If Acts is a history, we need to discuss briefly how reliable the history Luke

produces is, especially in terms of the accounts of the early church. If we accept

that the “we” passages are Luke’s accounts of his travels with Paul, a position

which Bruce describes as “the most natural explanation,”102 then Luke was  

Paul’s companion at a later stage in church history and travelled with him to

Jerusalem.103 He was thus able to talk with people who had been present
 

during the days of the early church. His acknowledgment of reliance upon such

eyewitness accounts is clear from his prologue. While his sources may be

somewhat "obscure"104 and  while the results of form and redaction criticism
 

suggest that both Luke and Acts "are extremely poor quarries for bed-rock

tradition"105 in terms of the criteria for ancient historians, "Luke acquits himself
 

very credibly".106 As Bruce says, “he combined into a continuous and coherent
 

whole both the traditions which were preserved in the primitive Christian

$ 97 Bruce (1990a) 28 see discussion below

$ 98 Witherington (1998) 2
$ 99 ibid 2-39
$ 100 ibid 39
$ 101 See also Bruce (1990a) 27-34
$ 102 ibid 4
$ 103 See the discussions in Bruce (1962) 18f; Bruce (1990a) 3f; Witherington (1998) 52f
$ 104 Marshall (1988) 68
$ 105 ibid 17
$ 106 ibid 69, see also Bruce (1990a) 34
$22
community and the information which he himself had acquired by inquiry and

actual participation in the course of events.”107 Thus, while recognising that

 

difficulties and doubts remain on this issue, there seems to be little reason not

to accept Luke's accounts as being firmly based in historical events. Our

continued discussion, then, will leave these to one side and concentrate on

dealing with the text as we have it.!

Purpose0

The question of the purpose that Luke had in writing Acts is clearly tied to the

question of genre but not restricted to it. Having accepted that Luke was writing

history, we need to move on to discuss what the purpose of this history was - or

indeed if history was his sole purpose - in order that we might draw conclusions

as to the relevance of this verse to the contemporary church. In other words, we

need to understand, at least to some extent, what Luke’s agenda was before

asking him to answer questions related to our agenda.108 This is not as easy a
 

task as it might at first seem; as Liefeld puts it, “It is probable that more theories

exist as to the purpose of Acts than for any other New Testament book."109!  

It is, of course, possible for a writer to have more than one purpose in writing;

indeed, to suggest otherwise would be naive as it would obscure or ignore

secondary issues which could be of real importance. In his book, Interpreting

the Book of Acts, Walter Liefeld gives a list of six possible purposes that have

been proposed for Acts and we will use these as the basis for our discussion.110  

They are:!

$ 107 Bruce (1990a) 29

$ 108 See Witherington (1998) 1
$ 109 Liefeld (1995) 21
$ 110 ibid 30
$23
1. Providing the church with a record of its beginnings;!
2. Writing a careful historical account;!
3. Evangelism;!
4. An apology for Christianity;!
5. Theological considerations, for example, who makes up the people of God;!
6. A paradigm for Christian evangelism, mission and church life.!

As Liefeld acknowledges, these are not necessarily mutually exclusive111 and  

numbers one and two are clearly linked. As we have seen above, Luke makes

claims, which seem to be upheld, to writing an historical account both of the life

of Jesus (in Luke) and of the early church. However, it “hardly does justice”112 to  

Luke’s complex work to suggest that history, as a simple recording of events, is

all that Acts is about.!

One aspect to which the historical nature of Luke’s record contributes is the

third of Liefeld’s purposes, that of evangelism. Marshall comes to the clear

conclusion that Luke’s “intention was evangelistic.”113 This may well be the case
 

and ties in with the next category of apologetics.!

The arguments that Acts is a defence of Paul are ones which rely to some

extent at least on a late date for the work, which we have already rejected.114  

That Luke has an apologetic aim, though, can be substantiated. This aim is

clearly stated by Luke in the prologue to his Gospel where he says that he

writes these things ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν.

This is both apologetic and didactic and allows us to agree with Bruce when he

says that Luke “should be recognised as the first Christian apologist.”115 !  

$ 111 ibid 30
$ 112 ibid 30
$ 113 Marshall (1988) 19
$ 114 See above p 21. Liefeld describes these theories as ones which “have faded” Liefeld (1995)
31
$ 115 Bruce (1990a) 22
$24
This didactic element leads us on to Liefeld's fifth category, Luke’s theological

purposes, an aspect which is perhaps emphasised by Bruce. He argues that

Luke’s being a theologian should not be allowed to detract from his reliability as

an historian;116 he is both – writing reliable history which which has a theological

 

and didactic aim.!

Liefeld’s sixth category is the one which is of most relevance to our discussion

and which, importantly, he considers to have the least to be said for it. He

argues that there is no suggestion that what Luke was aiming to do in Acts was

to give a model for later church practice.117 If Acts 2:42 is to have contemporary
 

relevance, then it is to be found in the area of principle not specific practice. !

This brief survey of Liefeld’s categories shows that Acts suggests Luke has

more than one purpose but that the main purpose is an historical one which has

theological, evangelistic and didactic aspects to it. It is the final category, that of

a model for later church practice, which concerns us here and we will now

discuss this in a little more detail.!

We have already seen that the early Brethren writers had no qualms about

turning to Acts 2:42 as part of the basis for their understanding of how a church

should act and what types of meetings should be set up. We may well ask just

how justified they were in doing this, and we will be looking at how we can use

Acts 2:42 in our attempts to decide what a contemporary church may look like.

That, though, is the task for the final section of this dissertation. Before that, we

need to turn to look at some of the ways in which some contemporary Brethren

writers have used the activities mentioned in Acts 2:42.


$ 116 ibid 34, see also Marshall (1988) 18

$ 117 Liefeld (1995) 32
$25
Contemporary Brethren Interpretation!
F. F. Bruce0

While not truly contemporary (F. F. Bruce died in 1990) any discussion on the

way in which Brethren writers have commented upon and understood Acts 2:42

which did not make some reference to his work and writings would be ignoring

one of the most important and influential of all Brethren commentators. Gasque

describes Bruce’s books as “The most important commentary to be written in

English since The Beginnings of Christianity  project.”118 Other commentaries

 

have appeared since Bruce’s but his remain important, all the more so in the

context of this dissertation as Bruce was a member of the Brethren throughout

his life.119 !
 

It would, of course, be absurd to suggest that simply because Bruce was a

member of the Brethren that his exegesis of Acts 2:42 was binding in any way

upon Brethren thought and practice; this is clearly not the case. Indeed, some

parts of the Brethren movement showed a certain amount of suspicion towards

him with, on at least one occasion, his being described as “a spearhead for the

incursion of liberalism.”120 However, as both an important New Testament

 

scholar and prominent member of the Brethren he does hold a central and

influential position in our discussion of how the Brethren have viewed Acts 2:42.

His comments on this verse have been taken into account in our section on the

exegesis of the passage but it is worth our while to return to them briefly now.!

τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων!

For Bruce, the apostles’ teaching is important for two reasons. Firstly, he

$ 118 Gasque (1989) 257

$ 119 see Grass (2011) 9f
$ 120 Ibid 188
$26
emphasises the foundational nature of this teaching, saying that the “apostolic

fellowship [was] constituted on the basis of the apostolic teaching.”121 Secondly,

 

the teaching had an authority for the early church because, for Bruce, it was

“the teaching of the Lord communicated through the apostles.”122 He then  

argues that this teaching is what later became the New Testament. Churches

that wish to claim to be in some sort of apostolic succession from the early

church to the present day, can only do so in so far as they “continue stedfastly

(sic) in the apostle’s teaching.”123 In a related discussion elsewhere,124 Bruce

   

argues that contrary to the Western tendency to draw a sharp distinction

between tradition and scripture, apostolic authority could be conveyed whether

the teaching was written or oral.!

This emphasis on the importance of faithfulness to the Scriptures is a recurring

theme amongst Brethren writers of all times, though what is meant by it can

sometimes mean agreeing with particular interpretations rather than allowing

Scripture to speak inductively for itself. As Grass says, when referring to Bruce’s

comments on the authority of Scripture, “for J. N. Darby submission to the Bible

amounted to submission to his interpretation of it.”125!  

τῇ κοινωνίᾳ!

Bruce sees the fellowship of the early church as being expressed in “a number

of practical ways.”126 In both of his commentaries, he defines these practical

 

expressions of fellowship as being the breaking of bread and prayer, and the

$ 121 Bruce (1962) 79

$ 122 ibid 79; Bruce (1990a) 131 italics original
$ 123 Bruce (1962) 79
$ 124 Bruce (1970) 37
$ 125 Grass (2011) 158
$ 126 Bruce (1962) 79
$27
sharing of possessions mentioned in Acts 2:45.127 What is perhaps notable is
 

the lack of time and space that he devotes to this question and especially to the

theological implications of κοινωνια. This may be a manifestation of what has

been described as a lack of theological depth in his commentaries128 but it does

 

tie in with a general lack of discussion of κοινωνια across the Brethren.

However, elsewhere, he makes it clear that “the apostles’ fellowship carries with

it fellowship ‘with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ’ (l John 1:3)”129 thus
 

recognising that there is a spiritual dimension to fellowship which cannot be

reduced to simply ‘being together’ – a tendency towards which the Brethren

have to some degree or other often been prone.!

τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου!

Bruce sees the breaking of bread as one of the practical manifestations of

κοινωνια. However, he argues that it refers to more than just eating together,

rather it indicates “the regular observance of the Lord’s Supper.”130  

His

argument is that the significance of the phrase being here is to be found in the

fact that in the course of a meal together the early church would remember the

Lord’s death. Thus there was, in other words, a eucharistic element to the

breaking of bread that went beyond simply eating together. He makes no further

comment on the format or content of the breaking of bread, simply

acknowledging its central place in the life of the early church.!

ταῖς προσευχαῖς!

As with the breaking of bread, Bruce sees prayer as one of the practical out-

workings of the fellowship of the early Christians; and that the reference here is

$ 127 ibid 79, 80-81; Bruce(1990) 131-32

$ 128 See e.g. Gasque (1989) 264
$ 129 Bruce (1964) 6
$ 130 Bruce (1962) 79; see also Bruce (1990a) 132 and Bruce (1964) 6
$28
to “appointed seasons for united prayer within the new community.”131 While he
 

argues that this does not rule out participation in the Jewish times of prayer, “the

temple services could not take the place of prayer within their own

community”132 and it is to this prayer that Luke primarily refers.!

 

It is perhaps noteworthy that in his commentaries Bruce spends more time on

the question of the apostles’ teaching than he does on any other aspect of the

early church’s life described in Acts 2:42. He clearly has nothing to say in these

commentaries of how Luke’s description here of the new community’s activities

should be worked out in practical ways in the contemporary church, something

which is exemplified by his somewhat thin treatment of the meaning of

κοινωνια. However, Bruce does seem to give a couple of principles which we

can take through to our final section. Firstly, breaking of bread and prayer are

central to the life of the church, and secondly, that the church needs to be

founded upon and guided by the apostles’ teaching as we have it now in the

form of the New Testament. We may, I think, infer with some confidence from

this that Bruce saw these two principles as being ones which could be taken

from Luke’s record of the early church and applied to the contemporary

situation. In other words, something resembling the early church can be found

where a contemporary church exhibits these characteristics of fellowship. !

Other Interpretation0

In a recent collection of articles on the subject of Church Planting by various

writers from the progressive Brethren, Martin Erwin starts his contribution by

quoting Acts 2:42-47 and asks the following rhetorical question, “That is how we

want the church to be, isn’t it?” He goes on to comment that these verses not

$ 131 Bruce (1962) 80; cf Bruce (1990a) 132

$ 132 Bruce (1964) 6
$29
only show what “THE brand new church” looked like, but they also give “a

helpful model of church life.”133 These verses remain very much at the heart of
 

modern Brethren discussions about what a church should look like.!

Much of the contemporary discussion that has taken place amongst Brethren

writers in the UK on the four aspects of church life that we are considering has

taken place in two magazines and other collections of articles, whether gleaned

from those magazines or written specifically for the occasion by a number of

different authors. The two magazines are Precious Seed and Partnership

Perspectives134 and the relevant collections of articles are Church Doctrine and
 

Practice,135 and Church Leaders’ Handbook.136 While I will refer to other

   

publications, these two are the most important. !

The two magazines represent in many ways the two major contemporary

streams of the Open Brethren mentioned in the introduction of this

dissertation.137 Precious Seed would be considered on the more conservative

 

side of most issues concerning the church, something which is perhaps

exemplified by the book Church Doctrine and Practice. This was first published

in 1970 - but making use of articles which appeared in the Precious Seed

magazine between 1945 and 1970 - and has been reprinted without revision on

numerous occasions since, the latest being in 2011. Partnership Perspectives

represents the progressive Brethren. While often dealing with similar issues to

Precious Seed, writers in Partnership publications have shown themselves to

$ 133
Erwin (2012) 111 emphasis original
$ 134
Precious Seed is published by Precious Seed International: http://www.preciousseed.org/
pastpdfs.cfm. Partnership Perspectives is published by Partnership: http://
www.partnershipuk.org/perspectives.htm.
$ 135 A Precious Seed publication.
$ 136 A Partnership publication
$ 137 See above pp 1-2
$30
be more open to influence and inspiration from writers outside of the Brethren. It

is perhaps of interest that both streams have published books written by a

variety of writers, rather than books written by individual authors.!

An exception to this is to be found in the Faroe Islands. Over the years, much of

the discussion in the islands concerning how the church should manifest the

four characteristics of Acts 2:42 has again taken place in short articles in

magazines, both Faroes and Danish, but with general reference to UK writings

such as Precious Seed. In 2007, though, Jógvan Zachariassen138 published his

 

book Samkoman (The Assembly), which has as it’s sub-title, “Insight into

Christ’s assembly and assembly life in the 21st century.”139 While the majority of
 

assemblies in the Faroes would generally be considered to be on the

conservative side of most issues concerning the church - including those under

discussion - Zachariassen appears influenced by people from the ‘progressive’

stream, and from those outside the Brethren altogether. Thus his bibliography

includes Partnership publications such as the Church Leaders’ Handbook,

along with writings by Bill Hybels, Rick Warren and Jim Cymbala, to mention but

three.!

Having given a brief sketch of the situation, we now need to turn to discuss how

the different streams of the Brethren interpret Acts 2:42 today, or more properly

how ‘the apostles’ teaching’, ‘fellowship’, ‘the breaking of bread’ and ‘prayer’

have been interpreted. We will do this by looking at the four issues separately,

as we have in our exegesis and discussion on F. F. Bruce.!

$ 138 Zachariassen has a BA in Biblical Studies from Emmaus Bible School in Dubuque, Iowa and
a PhD from Dallas Theological Seminary, Texas. He is presently full time elder in Lívdin, an
assembly in Tórshavn the capital of the Faroes, previously having been a lecturer at Tilsley
College in Motherwell.
$ 139 Innlit í samkomu Kristusar og samkomulív í 21. øld.
$31
The Apostles’ Teaching!

There are two areas which we will consider here concerning the role of the

apostles’ teaching in contemporary Brethren thought. The first of these is to

emphasise the importance the Brethren attach to the Bible. This does not, at

first sight, do much more than place them in the mainstream of evangelicalism,

however, Rowdon argues that in fact the Brethren were “distinguished … [by]

the absolute priority which they accorded to the Word of God.”140 The continuing
 

centrality of the Bible as the touchstone of Brethren thought straddles the

conservative/progressive spectrum.!

At the start of his chapter on the Bible in the life of the church, Zachariassen

writes, “The Bible is God’s Word and is therefore foundational to assembly

life.”141 He sees this working itself out in both “respect for and commitment to
 

the Bible” and that these two elements “must characterise an assembly”.142 He  

gives a number of reasons for this which can be summed up in his phrase that

“God reveals himself to us in the Scriptures.”143 Thus, the teaching of the Bible
 

holds an important place in the life of the assembly because it is teaching which

“gives me the basis for my faith.”144 In Zachariassen’s case, this manifests itself
 

in the weekly teaching on a Sunday morning and in their Tuesday evening Bible

studies.145 This is a mixture of consecutive, expository teaching through a Bible

 

book and teaching on topics of various types from ‘Purpose and Vision’146 to  

$ 140 Rowdon (1986) 33

$ 141 “Bíblian er Orð Guds og er tí grundleggjandi fyri samkomulívið.” Zachariassen (2007) 211
$ 142 “Virðing og halgan til Bíbliuna má eyðkenna samkomuna.” Ibid 218 emphasis added
$ 143 “Gud opinberar Seg sjálvan fyri okkum í Skriftunum.” Ibid 218
$ 144 “hon gevur mær grundarlag fyrin trúgv míni” Ibid 126
$ 145 A list of talks and sermons can be found on their website: http://www.livdin.fo/livdin.php?
h_menu=6
$ 146 “Endamál og visiónir”, 04.09.2011
$32
‘The Dead Sea Scrolls’147. The pattern that is followed in Lívdin is, thus, not that
 

different from the traditional one we saw earlier.148!  

Expository preaching, and specifically systematic expository preaching is

discussed by Naismith and Cousins in terms of both its importance and its

content. They start from the same position as Zachariassen and argue that

“There can be no doubt about the emphasis laid on teaching in the NT”149  

referring to Acts 2:42 as evidence for this. While recognising that not all great

preachers have followed a systematic programme150 they argue that this is the
 

best way to ensure a “balanced diet” of teaching. This diet should aim to be

“doctrinally balanced,”151 include teaching from the Old Testament and not just
 

the New, basic Christian doctrine, and ethics. !

In another article in the same book, the place that expository preaching has

within the life of the assembly is seen as symptomatic of that assembly’s

commitment to the authority of Scripture itself and that to reject preaching as a

major, if not the major, means of teaching is dangerous: “A church that rejects

preaching as a key part of its learning strategy may well be rejecting much more

than it thinks.”152 Clearly, the Brethren are not alone in their emphasis on the
 

authority of Scripture and on the centrality of teaching. Stott says that “Fidelity

to the teaching of the apostles is the first mark of an authentic and living

church.”153!
 

Expository preaching, though, is not the only way in which a church should

$ 147 “Deyðahavsrullurnar”, 06.11.2011

$ 148 See above, p. 5
$ 149 Naismith and Cousins (2002) 38
$ 150 They give C. H. Spurgeon and A. McLaren as examples. Naismith and Cousins (2002) 39
$ 151 ibid 42
$ 152 Noble (2002) 54
$ 153 Stott (2007) 26
$33
engage in teaching. Conversational Bible studies are also recommended

“where there is freedom to contribute or to ask questions”154 and other group

 

situations, such as marriage preparation classes155 are suggested. In neither of

 

these areas, though, do Naismith and Cousins suggest anything which is

radically different from other parts of evangelicalism, nor are they a departure

from the general pattern of traditional Brethren understanding, except perhaps

in the emphasis on systematic teaching and the readiness to adapt and change

to “make use of current teaching techniques as appropriate.”156!  

This difference in emphasis between the two wings of the Brethren is perhaps

exemplified in the article by J. H. Large in Church Doctrine and Practice. Once

again, he is clear that teaching is fundamental to the life of the assembly and

bemoans the situation, as he sees it, that the assemblies “are in danger of

falling into a quite unjustifiable complacency with our level of spiritual

knowledge and intelligence.”157 The solution to this is the raising up of good

 

teachers of God’s Word. However, remarkable for its absence is any discussion

on how this teaching is to take place, except that it will be within the context of

the local assembly; or of what the content may be, except that it is instructing

“the saints in the deeper things of God.”158 We may well be right in inferring that,
 

just as the training of the next generation of teachers “will need to develop by

the same processes” as before, so the way in which the assembly should be

taught should follow the traditional pattern.!

Teaching, though, has a second purpose which is to enable people to read and

$ 154 Naismith and Cousins (2002) 44

$ 155 ibid 49
$ 156 ibid 49
$ 157 Large (1970) 70
$ 158 ibid 73
$34
understand the Bible for themselves, as Zachariassen says, “Teaching on

Sundays is not enough to feed an assembly. Teaching in the assembly has to

create a desire in people to spend time in the Bible itself.”159 This has always
 

been a central Brethren concept and its apparent lack is something which Large

bemoans in his article.160! 

In conclusion, we can say that the Brethren remain a movement which is

“devoted to the apostles’ teaching”, that it is considered a fundamental part of

assembly and church life. However, there are some differences to be seen. The

Brethren hermeneutical tradition has been that “the Bible must be its own

interpreter”161
 

and this has led, as Clines argued, to an insularity of

interpretation. On the progressive wing this has changed; while the Bible

remains central, there is a greater willingness to turn to writers from outside the

Brethren for inspiration. This means that there has been a divergence in

interpretation amongst the Brethren along the conservative/progressive

spectrum so that there is no longer any uniform pattern or method across the

Brethren as a whole.!

Fellowship!

We saw in our opening section how the expression of fellowship in the Brethren

has, on occasions, been limited to little more than ‘being together’. However, it

would be untrue to suggest that there is not some discussion and debate about

what true fellowship is. While The Church Leaders’ Handbook has no specific

section on fellowship – discussion on the topic is subsumed under sections

concerning church activities and church management – on the conservative

$ 159 “Læran sunnudag er ikki nóg mikið av føði til samkomuna. Undirvísingin í samkomuni skal
fáa fólk at tráa eftir at brúka tíð í Bíbliuni sjálv.” Zachariassen (2007) 127
$ 160 Large (1970) especially page 70
$ 161 Clines (1982) 66
$35
wing there is a fairly substantial section on fellowship in Church Doctrine and

Practice. Thus our survey of contemporary thinking on fellowship will start with

this book and draw in relevant comments from other sources.!

Clarke sets out what he considers to be the three important foundational

aspects of fellowship, and they are:162!

 

1. A fellowship with God

2. A fellowship with the Apostles!
3. A fellowship with the Saints!

He thus starts with the spiritual nature of fellowship which we saw in our earlier

discussion so that “Christian fellowship is ... based upon a common (shared-by-

all) interest in the Person and work of Christ.”163 Or, as another contributor puts
 

it, “Partnership with our Lord Jesus Christ.”164 Thus, the foundation for Christian
 

fellowship is not agreement to a set of beliefs or creed (something of which the

Brethren have traditionally been wary) but the person of Jesus. This same

centrality of the person of Jesus in any understanding of fellowship is also

touched upon by Marshall in the context of understanding the breaking of

bread, where he describes fellowship as “identify[ing] ourselves with Jesus, his

death and his mission.”165!  

This leads on to what Clarke sees as the second aspect of fellowship,

fellowship with the Apostles. This fellowship comes about because “they shared

with us their personal knowledge of Christ and His work” and it is this Apostles’

teaching, mentioned in Acts 2:42, that forms part of “the basis of Christian

$ 162 Clarke (1970a) 107

$ 163 ibid 106
$ 164 Lovering (1970) 121
$ 165 Marshall (2008) 5
$36
fellowship.”166!
 

Finally, he sees our fellowship with the Saints as also foundational to true

fellowship. He is not completely clear on whether he sees this as fellowship

down through the ages, or merely with Christians living today. But, with Barnard,

he would agree that our “fellowship is with God and with each other.”167 The  

universal nature of this fellowship is expressed by Stenhouse when he says,

“fellowship… is the blood-bought heritage of all true believers,”168 and more  

explicitly in the article by Marshall mentioned above, where he goes on to say

that the fellowship that is expressed in the breaking of bread shows “our unity

with other Christians..., both those present… and those who participate in the

Lord’s Supper at other times and in other places.”169!  

Having seen that there is a recognition of a spiritual nature to fellowship across

the board in the Brethren, we need to ask what this means in practice, in other

words, how does the spiritual fellowship that Christians have with God, the

Apostles and with other believers manifest itself?!

The first answer to this is that fellowship is manifest "in every local assembly

gathered in a scriptural way and in subjection to the Holy Spirit."170 More  

specifically, fellowship expresses itself in the Breaking of Bread and in baptism.

As Clarke puts it, “The Lord's Table has been called the "focal point" of the

Christian fellowship... Neither it, nor its sister-ordinance baptism, creates the

$ 166 Clarke (1970a) 107

$ 167 Barnard (2007) 78
$ 168 Stenhouse (1970) 113
$ 169
Marshall (2008) 5
$ 170
Stenhouse (1970) 117. Space does not permit detailed discussion concerning what
Stenhouse means by “a scriptural way”; suffice it to say that this would be understood by his
target reader as that described earlier in this dissertation (p 4f)
$37
fellowship; but they both express it.”171 We will discuss the Breaking of Bread in
 

our next section, so will leave this here for the moment.!

The second answer to our question is given by Lovering where he describes

four themes that are important in understanding fellowship. These are:!

1. Fellowship Implies a Condition!

2. Fellowship Involves Communion!
3. Fellowship Involves Contribution!
4. Fellowship Invites Co-operation!

The first two of these cover the areas discussed by Clarke which we have

already mentioned. However, before moving on to discuss the second two,

which touch upon new areas, it is worth taking a moment to mention that ‘being

in fellowship’ was, and continues to be, the phrase used most often by

traditional Brethren when talking about membership of a local assembly. A

slightly different phrase, ‘having, or enjoying, fellowship’ is used to describe time

spent with other Christians, whether in a meeting or in a home. Lovering

discusses at some length the question of when a Christian is or is not ‘in

fellowship’ with another believer or group of believers. While an exploration of

this understanding of fellowship lies outside the scope of this dissertation, it

brings to our attention the distinction sometimes made between union with

Christ and other Christians, and communion. The former is unbreakable as it

relies upon the finished work of Christ; the latter can be disrupted in two ways.

The believer’s communion with God can be broken by sin, and their communion

with other believers by false teaching, so that the measure of how true and real

and deep fellowship is depends "upon the measure in which I and they are

walking in the light."172!  

$ 171 Clarke (1970a) 108, see also Stenhouse (1970) 117

$ 172 Stenhouse (1970) 119-20
$38
This question of fellowship with others and what may or may not hinder it is also

discussed among the progressive Brethren. In an article of Church discipline,

Donald Bridge argues that it is the responsibility of all to create true fellowship,

which he describes as “community life.”173 When discipline becomes necessary,

 

this involves the putting out of fellowship of the person involved.174!  

This understanding of fellowship as being corporate life together, coupled with a

continued hesitancy about using ‘church’ to refer to a gathering of Christians or

the building they meet in, has led to ‘fellowship’ being used as a common term

amongst progressive Brethren to replace the more conservative ‘assembly,’175 a  

word which is perceived to be outmoded. There is, thus, an understanding of

fellowship which suggests that it is all-pervasive and therefore somewhat

difficult to define. Indeed, in his list of the seven characteristics that he finds in

the early church, Summerton simply comments that fellowship “went on all the

time, of course.”176!
 

The second two categories above take the thought further by discussing other

ways in which fellowship manifests itself amongst believers. Firstly, fellowship

involves giving – the collection made by Paul for the church in Jerusalem is an

example of this.177 Some discussion takes place concerning the sharing of

 

possessions mentioned in Acts 2:44-45178 but this is generally seen as a part of

 

the life of the early church which it is not necessary to emulate, as it was only

“For a short period in the beginning.”179 This attitude prevails throughout the
 

$ 173 Bridge (2002) 169 see also Watson (1949) 45

$ 174 Bridge (2002) 167
$ 175 See e.g. Baigent, B. (2002) 142f where she uses church and fellowship interchangeably, and
sometimes combined.
$ 176 Summerton (2002) 88
$ 177 Romans 15:26, referred to by Lovering (1970) 123
$ 178 See e.g. Lovering (1970) 121
$ 179 Clarke (1970a) 106
$39
spectrum of Brethren thought; Partnership Perspectives has no article on what

the sharing of possessions may mean to day. !

Secondly, fellowship means co-operation, and for Lovering, this means first and

foremost, if not exclusively, co-operation in the spreading of the gospel.180 This  

understanding of fellowship as manifesting itself in co-operation in the gospel

and in the identification with Jesus’ mission181 has had a profound effect on the
 

Brethren. Mission has always played an important role in the life of Brethren

assemblies and fellowships – the weekly Gospel Meeting being a practical

expression of this from the earliest time.182 Assemblies continue to hold regular,
 

usually annual, mission conferences183  

and one of the four Partnership

Perspectives published every year has world missions as its topic.!

Zachariassen spends little or no time on the spiritual aspects of fellowship but

does devote two chapters of his book184  

to the practical importance of

fellowship. He considers membership of an assembly to be supremely important

and very different from that of a sports club, for instance,185 describing it as  

having a “spiritual home.”186 There are “certain responsibilities and certain rights
 

that come with belonging to an assembly.”187 These range from pastoral care to
 

membership of a home group; from defending the unity of the assembly to

supporting its work financially.188 In many ways, much of his discussion centres
 

$ 180 Lovering (1970) 124

$ 181 see Marshall’s comment above p 38
$ 182 See above p 5
$ 183 See e.g. http://www.woodsidegreencc.org.uk/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=76
$ 184 Zachariassen (2007) Chapters 17, “Halgan til samkomuna” (Commitment to the assembly)
and 18, “At hoyra til eina samkomu” (Belonging to an assembly)
$ 185 Zachariassen (2007) 195
$ 186 “andaliga heim sítt” ibid 196
$ 187 “nakrar framíhjárættir og ábyrgdir, sum øll, íð hoyra eini samkomu til, hava.” ibid 195
$ 188 See ibid 196-208
$40
around the areas of Contribution and Co-operation that we met in Lovering’s

definitions above. However, while he recognises that fellowship had come about

because of Christ, he sees this manifest somewhat weakly, in my opinion, in the

believers merely “forming lifelong friendships.”189!  

We can perhaps sum up the contemporary Brethren understanding of fellowship

as being grounded in the relationship the believer has with God through Christ

and that this manifests itself in fellowship, unity, communion, partnership with

other believers in practical ways as well as in the activities and meetings of the

individual fellowship or assembly. Perhaps the most important of all of these is

the partnership that believers have in the gospel. However, it is in the breaking

of bread, to which we now turn, that fellowship is most clearly manifested, or as

Zachariassen puts it, “Baptism and the remembrance supper are visible actions

which represent spiritual truths.”190 !  

Breaking of Bread!

In Brethren tradition it is difficult to overemphasise the importance given to the

breaking of bread. It is one of the two ordinances, along with baptism, that are

recognised as being incumbent upon an assembly, as is implied by

Zachariassen’s statement above. This importance is found and insisted upon

across the spectrum of the modern Brethren movement. Thus Stenhouse

describes it as “the centre of the church's activity”191 and Summerton can say,
 

“it is an article of faith that [the breaking of bread] should be the absolutely

central event in the life of a local church.”192 The reason for this is, primarily, the
 

$ 189 ibid 75
$ 190 “Dópurin og minnismáltíðin eru sjónligar handlingar, sum avmynda andaligar sannleikar.” Ibid
179
$ 191 Stenhouse (1970 117
$ 192 Summerton (2002) 91 see also Baigent (2008) 12
$41
record of its celebration in the New Testament, not only in Acts but also in 1

Corinthians. There is an understanding that a “universality of its observance

among Christians”193 existed not only in New Testament times but also in the
 

“Writings from sub-apostolic times.”194!  

A clear example of this importance is seen in the fact that over a period of 10

years, Partnership Perspectives devoted two complete issues to the topic195  

while discussions on fellowship and prayer were merely part of other general

discussions, such as “Doing Church”196 and “Spirituality”.197!

   

There is remarkable uniformity also in the ways in which the breaking of bread

is understood by the various writers, in that it should be regular;198 that it is open

 

to all who profess faith in Christ;199 that it holds the central place in the life of the
 

church; and that it is an expression of the fellowship we have with Christ200 and  

with each other201– to name but a few.!

 

Writers from across the spectrum refer to the example of the early church in

Acts 2:42 as the basis for their contention that regular celebration of the

breaking of bread should be at the heart of a church’s activities.202 It is from this  

verse that the most common appellation for the central meeting of the Brethren

– “The Breaking of Bread” – comes, and while the progressive strand of the

Brethren is more likely to make use of other terms such as ‘communion’, both

$ 193 Clarke (1970b) 132

$ 194 ibid 132
$ 195 Number 13, January 2000 and Number 39, October 2008
$ 196 Number 18, October 2001
$ 197 Number 17, April 2001.
$ 198 e.g. Baigent (2008) 12 and Jennings (1997) 220
$ 199 e.g. Clarke (1970b) 132, Barnard ( 2002) 81 and Summerton (2008) 34
$ 200 e.g. Marshall (2008) 8 and Lacey (1970) 143
$ 201 e.g. Barnard (2002) 80 and Clarke (1970a) 108
$ 202 e.g. Baigent (2000) 12 and Fitzgerald (1970) 128
$42
groups shy away from terms such as ‘Sacrament’, ‘Holy Communion’ or

‘Eucharist’. As Fitzgerald says, these latter terms were considered merely

“names or titles as used by men and churches… [whereas] … We use the New

Testament names.”203 Such a clear, and perhaps somewhat judgemental,

 

dismissal of these terms is not found in articles on the progressive side but the

practice of not using them continues.!

There is also general agreement that Acts 2:42 and the following verses refer to

the breaking of bread as being a daily occurrence. Brethren practice, though,

has always been “to meet weekly on a Sunday morning to ‘remember the

Lord.’”204 The example of Paul in Troas205 is sometimes used to justify this

   

practice as even though “Paul had arrived… the previous Monday… [he] called

no special meeting but patiently waited till the ensuing Lord’s Day”206 before
 

speaking with the believers. There is also recognition that the context of the

early church’s celebration of the Lord’s Supper was that of a general meal207  

and for some the question is raised as to whether “it is time to restore table

fellowship to our church programmes.”208!  

The practice of celebrating the Lord’s Supper on Sunday is one that is general

amongst the majority of progressive Brethren churches as well. However, there

are Brethren fellowships where this practice has changed, and changed quite

dramatically. In Barnstaple, Grosvenor Church has gone through a “delicate

transition from holding a weekly ‘Breaking of Bread’ service in the church to

$ 203 Fitzgerald (1970) 128-29

$ 204 Baigent (2008) 12 emphasis original
$ 205 Acts 20:7
$ 206 Clarke (1970b) 136
$ 207 e.g. Barnard (2008) 22
$ 208 Ibid 22
$43
incorporating it into our fortnightly home groups.”209 This is still the exception,
 

but a larger number of fellowships have moved to a more structured format for

the service, leaving behind the traditional one of ‘open worship’ where

participation was open to all (men) who wished to take part.210 For the more  

conservative Brethren, the “simplicity according to Scriptural pattern”211 which  

the traditional practice was seen to represent is of great importance; for those

on the progressive side, the fact that “the Bible does not say how assemblies

ought to do this”212 allows for more liberty in practice.!

 

The final point which perhaps needs to be mentioned here is that all are agreed

that celebration of the Lord’s Supper is something which is limited to the time

prior to the return of Christ. As Zachariassen says, “Then we will no longer have

need of this memorial meal, for then we shall see Jesus instead.”213!  

In conclusion, we can say that for all Brethren, the communion service remains

an important aspect of the church’s life and that there is a consensus

concerning its meaning and symbolism. In terms of practice, the more

conservative assemblies maintain a pattern which is recognisable from the

earliest days of the movement, but there is greater variation in the manner in

which the Lord’s Supper is practiced in churches in the progressive strand. !

Prayer!

“Prayer has characterised Christ’s assembly from the beginning…an assembly

that is characterised by prayer and gives prayer a prominent position is an

$ 209 Poland (2008) 38

$ 210 See the discussion in Summerton (2008).
$ 211 Clarke (1970b) 135
$ 212 “Bíblian sigur ikki, hvussu samkomur skulu gera hetta.” Zachariassen (2007) 181
$ 213 “Tá verður ikki neyðugt við minnismáltíðini, tí tá síggja vit Jesus ístaðin.” ibid 181
$44
assembly which is growing spiritually.”214 Zachariassen’s sentiments concerning
 

prayer are ones which would be echoed by writers from every part of the

Brethren spectrum. Prayer is something which is integral to the corporate life of

God’s people to such an extent that Alexander argues that it is in his people

gathered together in prayer that “true fellowship with” God is found.215!  

For traditional assemblies, the weekly Prayer Meeting is the main forum for

corporate prayer. That is not to say that prayer does not take place in other

meetings, but that these meetings are devoted to intercessory prayer. Separate

meetings are seen as a way - perhaps the way - of being faithful to the pattern

of Acts 2:42.216  

More progressive Brethren fellowships have sometimes

abandoned a separate prayer meeting preferring to include intercessory prayer

as part of the main gathering on Sunday morning. !

Both strands recognise not only the importance of prayer to the life of a

fellowship but also the struggles there are in engaging church members in this

important activity.217 One example of a church attempting to tackle those issues

 

through creating a different pattern is Beacon Heath Church in Exeter.218 A  

number of years ago the church moved from a weekly prayer and ministry

meeting, after the traditional pattern we noted in our first section, to fortnightly

house groups and fortnightly prayer meeting. This pattern changed again, about

six years ago, when a monthly prayer meeting called “ACTS”219 was started on
 

Sunday evening. In some ways this takes a traditional view of a separate time

$ 214 “Bøn hevur eyðkent samkomu Kristusar frá byrjan… Tann samkomu, ið er eyðkend av bøn
og setur bøn í hásetur, er ein samkoma, sum mennist andaliga.” ibid 241
$ 215 Alexander (1970) 156
$ 216 See Clapham (1970) 163
$ 217 See e.g. Clapham (1970) 166 and Gooding (2001) 12
$ 218 See the church’s website www.beaconheathchurch.org.uk. I was full-time pastor at this
church from 2000-2009.
$ 219 The common acronym for Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, Supplication.
$45
for prayer, albeit a time which includes praise and worship as well as

intercession, but places it at a different time of the week.!

There is, therefore, a great deal of agreement across the spectrum in the

importance placed on prayer but quite different ways in which the principles are

put into practice.!

Conclusion!

In his discussion on worship, Summerton lists seven activities of the local

church that he considers comprise the content of the gatherings of the early

church.220 Teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread and prayer are four of these.
 

It is a list which not only draws on biblical evidence but which stands firmly in

the Brethren tradition. As we have seen, the four activities we have been

considering are considered to have an abiding importance for the Brethren. The

difference between the conservative and progressive wings of the movement is

found to a large extent in what form these activities should be found in the

contemporary assembly. The conservative wing would hold on to the traditional

pattern of separate meetings distributed throughout the week with the main

meeting being on Sunday morning, and this meeting being the Breaking of

Bread. The progressive strand is less homogenous in its practice, sometimes

combining what traditionally has been separate.


$ 220 Summerton (2002) 88

$46
Applying Acts 2:42 Today!
In the discussion on the purpose of Acts, we saw that Liefeld considered that

there was little evidence to suggest that Luke wrote Acts “to provide a paradigm

for… church life.”221 We need, therefore, to bear in mind that Luke had other
 

aims and purposes and that we cannot - and should not - go to Acts to answer

questions Luke was not addressing, whatever others may have done. As

Witherington puts it, “If you go to Acts to answer all of the later questions about

infant baptism, church order, or apostles after the first generation, you will be

frustrated because of a lack of complete, and sometimes, any, answers. Luke’s

agenda was not ours.”222 The issue, though, of how far Luke’s work can be
 

seen as more than an historical account of practices that are of no lasting value

and therefore having some normative or prescriptive value for the contemporary

church is the “central interpretive question”223 related to the book. We need now
 

to consider just how we might justifiably interpret Acts 2:42 today.!

Genre and Importance0

The brevity of the verse would, at first sight, seem to suggest that it should be

given little importance. However, there are four specific reasons I wish to

highlight as to why this would be a mistake. These concern the question of Acts’

genre, the particular sub-genre of Acts 2:42, the way in which Acts 2:42 works

as background to later events, and the role of the word προσκαρτεροῦντες.!

We saw earlier that Acts is an historical work224 and as such is, of course,
 

narrative. Our interpretation of the book in general and this verse in particular

needs to take into account the specific nature of how narrative works. Tate

$ 221 Liefeld (1995) 32

$ 222 Witherington (1998) 1
$ 223 Duvall and Hays (2005) 266
$ 224 See above p 21f
$47
argues that “the world in the story points to a reality beyond itself”225 and that
 

the task of interpretation involves “Movement from the referential level to the

mimetic level.”226  

On the referential level Luke is simply recording what

happened in the early church. However, on the mimetic level, he is conveying a

message which has repercussions beyond that time. If Tate is right, and I think

he is, then as Luke’s readers we are being invited to encounter a “truth about

the real world” through the story he tells. Our reading of Acts will, therefore, not

only be about its actual - and factual - content, but will also take into account

Luke’s purpose in writing and thus capturing the message that is being

transmitted through it.!

Understanding this particular verse involves more than accepting that the book

is narrative history. We need to look more specifically at what sub-genre Acts

2:42 is.!

The verse is obviously a summary of some kind, describing the activities of the

early church in a brief form. Witherington draws a distinction between summary

passages and summary statements,227 and so a good place to start may be to

 

discuss where Acts 2:42 fits into this. Summary passages occur exclusively in

the early part of Acts dealing with the life of the early church, “suggesting

perhaps that Luke has fewer and less extensive sources for the earlier

period”228 than for later in his narrative. They also “share a common theme
 

about the nature of the interior life of the early church, seen at its best.”229 For
 

these reasons, we might agree with Witherington that this verse forms part of

$ 225 Tate (2008) 139

$ 226 ibid 139
$ 227 See above p 9
$ 228 Witherington (1998) 159
$ 229 ibid 159
$48
the “summary passage”230 which is Acts 2:42-47.!
 

However, Witherington is a little tentative in his designation of Acts 2:42 as part

of a summary passage, and some of the observations he makes (quoting

Cadbury) concerning summary statements could apply to Acts 2:42 – especially

those concerning their being Lucan creations and being “derived from

generalisation.”231 For this reason, he argues it should be seen as transitional,

 

an argument which is not totally convincing. I would rather see Acts 2:42 as an

integral part of the longer summary passage that follows, while it retains some

of the features of a summary statement. !

Whatever the niceties of this definition may be, the role of the summary

passages and statements in Acts justifies us in in drawing the conclusion that

the importance of this verse should not be diminished simply because it is short,

or because the activities mentioned here as being characteristic of the early

church are not referred to later in the story.!

The third aspect involves the role of the verse in Acts as a narrative. We have

seen that Luke does not give summaries of the internal life of the church

beyond his description of the early days in Jerusalem. This may indeed be

because he was lacking in more detailed sources. However, there may be

another reason as well.!

As a story teller, Luke is setting the scene in these early chapters upon which

the rest of the story of the expansion of the gospel is played out.232 Thus, the
 

lack of continued repetition of the activities of the early church and the relative

$ 230 ibid 157

$ 231 ibid 158
$ 232 See Liefeld (1995) 115
$49
paucity of references to church government or structure 233
 

do not mean that

they later changed or that Luke was not interested in them. Rather, that he

expects us to see all that subsequently takes place in the greater drama of the

spread of the gospel against this backdrop.234 Neither does it mean that the
 

activities are less important than others. This is a result of the genre that Luke

has chosen. Conversely it increases the importance of the verse in question as

it is this verse, and others like it, which gives a context to the rest of the early

church’s activities.?

Finally, in our exegesis, we saw how προσκαρτεροῦντες is a “strong verb”235  

which emphasises both the importance of the activities that followed and that

this devotion was continuous. Its use implies that Luke saw the activities he

describes as not simply having importance for the early church in Jerusalem but

that this importance was one which extended beyond the immediate context.!

We are not, therefore, at liberty to ignore or even sideline the issues that Acts

2:42 raises. It may be only one verse, but as Liefeld says, “since all Scripture is

true and profitable, even one verse that describes the way the early church did

something is to be noted.”236 We are justified, then, in turning to this verse for

 

information on the activities of the early church and as a basis for discovering

the truth which we can apply to our contemporary situation. In other words, Acts

2:42 is not just descriptive, but should be seen as having lasting importance for

the church and thus as being prescriptive - the question is, though, in what way.!

$ 233 See ibid 41

$ 234 See ibid 96
$ 235 Peterson (1998) 390
$ 236 Liefeld (1995) 33
$50
Description or Prescription0

In our exegesis of Acts 2:42 we recognised that there was room for debate

about the actual activities Luke was referring to, but came to the following

specific conclusions concerning them: !

• τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων is teaching by the Apostles which was founded

upon the Hebrew Scriptures and centred upon the person and work of Jesus;

this latter formed the basis of our New Testament.!

• τῇ κοινωνίᾳ is the fellowship the believers had with God through his Spirit

and which manifested itself in a number of practical and spiritual ways.!

• τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου is the celebration of the Lord’s Supper which probably

occurred within the context of a fellowship meal.!

• ταῖς προσευχαῖς refers to the disciples’ regular times of prayer which may

include Jewish times of public prayer.!

We also saw that Luke does not go into any detail concerning the form of these

activities, nor about whether they represent distinct gatherings for each activity

or were characteristic of each gathering of the early church. This is where some

frustration with Luke may come in, as it is these questions as much as any

others which occupy our minds if we agree with the basic premise of Brethren

interpreters that this verse is important for an understanding of what a church

should do.!

However, it is also here that we find the clue as to how Acts 2:42 can be used

legitimately in our contemporary situation, for it draws a distinction between

principle and practice which is fundamental. The principles which Acts 2:42 give

us, of devotion to teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread and prayer are ones
$51
which should be the “marks of a living church today.”237 However, there is no
 

binding or standardised pattern of practice to be found here. As Fee and Stuart

point out, the diversity that Luke records in various aspects of his narrative

“probably means that no specific example is being set forth as the model…

church life.”238 It is here that, I would suggest, there is a divide between the
 

conservative and progressive wings of the Brethren. The former continue to

maintain a pattern of meetings and general practice which has changed little

with changing contexts; the former, conversely, appear to be ready to wrestle

with the issue of how these principles can be put into a relevant practice.!

There is, though, one area where there appears to be a serious failing across

the spectrum, and that is in the area of fellowship. We have seen that

celebration of the Lord’s Supper needs to be central to a church’s life, that it

should be a regular occurrence, and that its true meaning is only to be found

when it is shared within the context of a wider manifestation of fellowship, of

κοινωνια. Stott is right when he says that fellowship is “most vividly expressed

in the Lord’s Supper,”239 but it is not limited to this. !

 

The devaluation of fellowship to a cup of tea or coffee,240 is one of the most

 

striking aspects of what we have considered. The only area where a more

meaningful understanding of fellowship is manifested is in the area of mission.

While we can agree that the Brethren have generally, though in different and not

always culturally relevant ways, placed teaching, the Breaking of Bread and

prayer at the centre of their gatherings, they have failed to work out any real

way of manifesting true κοινωνια. There is an urgent need to get beyond the

$ 237 Stott (2007) 22

$ 238 Fee and Stuart (2003) 113
$ 239 Stott (2007) 97
$ 240 See ibid 91
$52
conservative near-obsession with upon what grounds fellowship with others can

be had, and the progressives’ tendency to reduce fellowship to mere friendship,

and rediscover the reality and depth of sharing lives together in true community.

It is here that work needs to be done in applying what all agree is an important

aspect of the early church.!

As our discussion has shown, it is not easy to bring the principles of Acts 2:42 to

bear in a contemporary church setting. What is important, though, is that this

distinction between specific practice and biblical principle is recognised and

maintained. There are no easy answers and a working out of this will mean a

diversity of practice, but this is a diversity which does not imply a divergence of

belief. The challenge for the Brethren, as for all of us, is to hold fast to the

principles while accepting differences in practice and making “every effort to

keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.”241!

 

!
!

$ 241 Ephesians 4:3

$53
Bibliography!
Alexander, S. (1970) “Worship and prayer in relation to the Assembly” in
Heading, J. & Hocking, C. Church Doctrine and Practice
(Taunton: Precious Seed) 149-157.
Anonymous (1888) “Prayer, Worship and the Lord’s Supper” The Bible Treasury
17 (Stem Publishing) http://stempublishing.com/magazines/bt/
BT17/1888_173_Prayer_Worship_Lords_Supper..html Accessed 8.2.2012 at
12.20.
Baigent, J. (2000) “Your Meetings Do More Harm Than Good” in Partnership
Perspectives 13 pp12-17
Baigent, J. (2008) “Believer’s Baptism and Regular Communion” Partnership
Perspectives 39 pp 9-14.
Barnard, K. (2002) “The Lord’s Supper” in Rowdon, H. H. (ed.) Church Leaders’
Handbook (Carlisle: Partnership) 76-82.
Barnard, K. (2008) “Communion – Some Radical Thoughts” Partnership
Perspectives 39 pp 19-23.
Berghamar, S. (1992) – men Gud gav vøkst (Tórshavn: Forlagið Afturljóð).
Blue, B. (1998) “The Influence of Jewish Worship on Luke’s Presentation of the
Early Church” in Marshall, I. H. (ed.) Witness to the Gospel The Theology of
Acts (Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) pp 473-497.
Bridge, D. (2002) “Church Discipline” in Rowdon, H. H. (ed.) Church Leaders’
Handbook (Carlisle: Partnership) 166-172.
Brown, G. (2003) Whatever Happened to the Brethren? (Carlisle: Partnership).
Bruce, F. F. (1962) The Book of the Acts (Edinburgh: Marshall, Morgan and
Scott).
Bruce, F. F. (1964) “The Church of Jerusalem,” Christian Brethren Research
Fellowship Journal 4 pp 5-14.
Bruce, F. F. (1970) Tradition Old and New (Exeter: The Paternoster Press).
Bruce, F. F. (1990a) The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company).
Bruce, F. F. (1990b) "Some Reflections on the Primitive Church" in A Mind for
What Matters (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company)
235-47.
Catwell, S. R. (1995) Gospel Hall Assemblies 1889-1994 (Barbados: Own
Print).
Cecil, A. P. (1878) “The Lord’s Table, and its Place in the Church” The Bible
Treasury 12 (Stem Publishing) from http://stempublishing.com/magazines/bt/
BT12/1878_183_Lords_Table.html Accessed 8.2.2012 at 12.15.
Clapham, D. (1970) “The Prayer Meeting” in Heading, J. & Hocking, C. Church
Doctrine and Practice (Taunton: Precious Seed) 162-66.
Clarke, A. G. (1970a) “Fellowship – Recognition and Reception” in Heading, J.
& Hocking, C. (Eds) Church Doctrine and Practice (Taunton: Precious Seed
Magazine) pp 106-112.
Clarke, A. G. (1970b) “The Lord’s Supper” in Heading, J. & Hocking, C. (Eds)
Church Doctrine and Practice (Taunton: Precious Seed Magazine) pp 131-41.

$54
Clines, D. J. A. (1982) “Biblical Hermeneutics in Theory and Practice” in
Christian Brethren Review Journal Number 31,32 (exeter: The PAternoster
Press Ltd) 65-77.
Darby, J. N. (1874) “God, not the Church, the Teacher by His Word.” in Kelly, W.
(Ed.) (1964) The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby Ecclesiastical Number 4,
(Kingston-upon-Thames: Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot) pp 223-50.
Darby, J. N. (1875) “Fellowship and the Right State for it.” in Kelly, W. (Ed.)
(1965) The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby Doctrinal Number 9, (Kingston-
upon-Thames: Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot) pp 366-68.
Darby, J. N. (1877) “Church and Privileges.” in Kelly, W. (Ed.) (1965) The
Collected Writings of J. N. Darby Doctrinal Number 9, (Kingston-upon-Thames:
Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot) pp 281-89.
Darby, J. N. (undated) “Principles of Gathering.” in Kelly, W. (Ed.) (1965) The
Collected Writings of J. N. Darby Doctrinal Number 9, (Kingston-upon-Thames:
Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot) pp 381-83.
Dickson, B (2008) “Spiritual Experience and Communion” Partnership
Perspectives 39 pp 15-18.
Dickson, N. (2008) “From Pentecost to Plymouth: Communion in Church
History” Partnership Perspectives 39 pp 24-27.
Duvall, J. S. & Hays, J. D. (2001) “The Interpretive Journey – New Testament –
Acts” in Grasping God’s Word (Grand Rapids: Zondervan) pp 265-280.
Ellison, H. L. (1979) The Household Church (Exeter: The Paternoster Press).
Erwin, M. (2012) “Building an Authentic Community” in McQuoid, S. &
Summerton, N. (eds) Fresh Shoots in Stony Ground The Challenges of Church
Planting (Taunton/Portishead: Church Planting Initiative/Partnership) pp 111-21.
Falk, D. K. (1995) “Jewish Prayer Literature and the Jerusalem Church in Acts”
in Bauckham, R. (Ed.) The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting Volume 4
Palestinian Setting (Carlisle: The Paternoster Press) pp 267-301.
Fee, G. D. & Stuart, D. (2003) “Acts: The Question of Historical Precedent” in
How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan) pp 107-125.
Fitzgerald, T. (1970) “The Lord’s Supper” in Heading, J. & Hocking, C. (eds)
Church Doctrine and Practice (Taunton: Precious Seed) 128-131.
Gasque, W. W. (1989) A History of the Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles
(Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers).
Goldingay, J. (1997) “Expounding the New Testament” in Marshall, I. H. (Ed)
New Testament Interpretation (Carlisle: Paternoster Press) pp 351-65.
Gooding, I. (2001) “The Difficulties and Opportunities of Prayer” Partnership
perspectives 17 pp 12-14.
Goodman, G. (19??) God’s Principles of Gathering (London: Pickering and
Inglis).
Grass, T. (2011) F. F. Bruce A Life (Milton Keynes: Paternoster).
Heading, J. (1975) Acts (Kansas City: Walterick Publishers).
Hole, F. B. (Undated(a)) Assembly Principles (London: The Central Bible Truth
Depot), available at http://www.histable.com/assemblyprinciples.htm.
Hole, F. B. (Undated(b)) The Gospels and Acts (Stem Publishing) http://
stempublishing.com/authors/hole/NT/ACTS.html Accessed 25.5.12 at 17.07.

$55
Ironside, H. A. (1942) A Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement, (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.
Jennings, R (1997) Church Principles for Today (Dun Laoghaire: Bible Studies
Institute).
Lacey, H. (1970) “Legality and the Lord’s Supper” in Heading, J. & Hocking, C.
(eds) Church Doctrine and Practice (Taunton: Precious Seed) 70-74.
Lang, G. H. (1955) The Local Assembly (Belfast: Raven Publishing Company).
Large, J. H. (1970) “A School” in Heading, J. & Hocking, C. (eds) Church
Doctrine and Practice (Taunton: Precious Seed) 70-74.
Liefeld, W. (1995) Interpreting the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker Books).
Lovering, E. L. (1971) “On Fellowship - a Discussion” in Heading, J. & Hocking,
C. (eds) Church Doctrine and Practice (Taunton: Precious Seed Magazine) pp
120-125.
Marshall, I. H. (1980) Last Supper and Lord’s Supper (1997 edition) (Carlisle:
Paternoster Press).
Marshall, I. H. (1988) Luke - Historian and Theologian (Carlisle: Paternoster
Press).
Marshall, S. (2008) “Communion: the Biblical Priority” Partnership Perspectives
39 pp 4-8.
McQuoid, S. (2000) “A Tale of Two Churches” Partnership Perspectives 13 pp
8-11.
Mills, B. (2002) “Stimulating Corporate Prayer” in Rowdon, H. (ed.) Church
Leaders’ Handbook (Carlisle: Partnership).
Moar, P. S. (2004) “New Testament Assemblies In Shetland - A History” in
Precious Seed Volume 59, Issue 1 (http://www.preciousseed.org/
article_detail.cfm?articleID=76) Accessed 10.08.12 at 14.10.
Mundle, W. (1992) “καρτερεω” in New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology Volume 2 (Brown C. Ed.) (Carlisle: The Paternoster Press)
pp 767-68.
Naismith, A. & Cousins, P. (2002) “Providing Balanced Teaching” in Rowdon H.
(Ed.) Church Leaders’ Handbook (Carlisle: Partnership) pp 38-45.
Newell, D. (1979) “The Birth of the Church” in Clapham, D., Heading, J. &
Horlock, M. (Eds) Day by Day Through the New Testament (Birmingham:
Precious Seed Publications).
Nixon, R. (1997) “The Authority of the New Testament” in Marshall, I. H. (Ed)
New Testament Interpretation (Carlisle: Paternoster Press) pp 334-50.
Noble, A. (2002) “The Place of Preaching” in Rowdon H. (Ed.) Church Leaders’
Handbook (Carlisle: Partnership) 53-58.
Nolland, J. (1989) Luke 1-9:20 (Dallas: Word Books).
Patzia, A. G. (2001) The Emergence of the Church (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press).
Peterson, D. (1998) “The Worship of the New Community” in Marshall, I. H.
(ed.) Witness to the Gospel The Theology of Acts (Cambridge: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company) pp 373-395.
Poland, G. (2008) “Communion in Practice: Grosvenor Church, Barnstaple”
Partnership Perspectives 39 pp 38-39.

$56
Purss, A. (2002) “Church Membership” in Rowdon, H. H. (ed.) Church Leaders’
Handbook (Carlisle: Partnership) 158-65.
Randall, I. (2001) “Word and Spirit: Evangelical Spirituality” in Partnership
Perspectives No 17 (London: Partnership) pp 3-6.
Rowdon, H. H. (1986) Who Are the Brethren and Does it Matter? (Exeter:
Christian Brethren Research Fellowship).
Schattenmann, J. (1992) “κοινωνια” in New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology Volume 1 (Brown C. Ed.) (Carlisle: The Paternoster Press)
pp 639-44.
Smith, N. D. (1986) Roots, Renewal and the Brethren (Pasadena: Hope
Publishing House).
Soltau H. W. (1862) (Undated publication) The Brethren Who Are They? What
Are Their Doctrines? (London: Pickering and Inglis).
Stenhouse, A. (1971) “Fellowship” in Heading, J. & Hocking, C. (Eds) Church
Doctrine and Practice (Taunton: Precious Seed Magazine) pp 112-120.
Stott, J. (2007) The Living Church (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press).
Summerton, N. (2002) “Worship” in Rowdon, H. H. (ed.) Church Leaders’
Handbook (Carlisle: Partnership) pp 83-100.
Summerton, N. (2008) “The Practice of Communion” Partnership Perspectives
39 pp 28-38.
Tate, W. R. (2008) Biblical Interpretation An Integrated Approach, (3rd ed.;
Peabody: Hendrickson).
Vine, W. E. (1952) “Doctrine”, “Fellowship” in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of
New Testament Words (Iowa Falls: Riverside Book and Bible House) pp
233-24; 420.
Vine, W. E. (1970) "Is the Scriptural Assembly Possible Today" in Heading, J. &
Hocking, C. (Eds) Church Doctrine and Practice (Taunton: Precious Seed)
46-49.
Watson J. B (Ed.) (1949) The Church - A Symposium of Principles and Practice
(London: Pickering and Inglis).
Wegenast, K. (1992) “διδασκαλια” in New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology Volume 3 (Brown C. Ed.) (Carlisle: The Paternoster Press)
pp 768-771.
Williams, D. J. (1990) Acts (Carlisle: Paternoster Press).
Witherington, B. III (1998) The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company).
Zachariassen, J. (2007) Samkoman - Innlit í samkomu Kristusar og samkomulív
í 21.øld. (Gøta: Forlagið Leirkerið).

$57