Biblical Fellowship: Horizontally Manifest with Other Believers
The Church and Biblical Fellowship • Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 7 viewsNotes
Transcript
First, thank you for the interaction last week. I think ongoing conversation helps solidify the concepts in your mind but also helps me better know how people are understanding what I am explaining and where we may be struggling with clarity. So, thank you.
To assist in this ongoing conversation, let me offer a definition for biblical fellowship which is a compilation of all the elements of biblical fellowship.
Biblical fellowship is a Christ-centered, Spirit-empowered, humble, selfless, and affectionate sharing of our lives with one another.
I draw each element of the definition from a separate bible passage in which the authors employ the term koinonia. (1) First, Paul reveals, in 1 Cor 1:9, biblical fellowship originates in Christ-centered relationships. (2) Secondly, Paul reveals, in 2 Cor 13:13 and Phil 2:1, the Holy Spirit empowers biblical fellowship. (3) And finally, Paul reveals, in Phil 2:1-4 and Acts 2:42, biblical fellowship horizontally manifest in a humble, selfless, and affectionate sharing of our lives with one another.
The initial plan was to work straight through the definition, beginning with two important vertical, theological truths (Christ-centered and Spirit-empowered) and ending in the more horizontal, practical implications. Based on the interaction I have had over the last couple of weeks (which has been good interaction from my perspective), I want to tailor my presentation to our natural affinity to jump from theological (and seemingly abstract) truths to the practical implications of said truths. Then, we will come back and address “Spirit-empowered” from 2 Cor 13:13 and Phil 2:1.
To begin, let us turn in our Bibles to Acts 2:42. Luke writes of the early church, “And they [the early church] devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42).
The church was devoted. Let me draw your attention to the term devoted. The TDNT offers, for the word (proskartereo), definitions such as devoted, to focus on, or to hold fast to.”[1] Spicq and Ernest offer definitions such as “to be firm, endure, persevere, remain faithful to a person or a task.”[2] I appreciate Friberg’s definition of “unremitting persistence.”[3] The early church possessed a relentless pursuit – a constant and endless commitment to four distinct elements: the apostles’ teaching, the fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers.
First Observation: Biblical fellowship is distinct from other commitments.
First Observation: Biblical fellowship is distinct from other commitments.
Luke outlines four distinct practices of which the early church was relentlessly pursuing. Let me explain why I say “distinct.” (1) First, Luke uses the article before each element.[4] In the same way that we might say, “The Statue of Liberty,” and in doing so, we would all know which statue I was talking about. Similarly, Luke refers to specific elements of their worship (and lives together) and the early church would likely have known specifically to what he referred. (2) Secondly, Luke’s grammatical structure (the use of four dative nouns) seems to indicate that he was making a distinction between the four elements.[5] (3) Third, Luke, unlikely, employed two articulous dative nouns to describe an already established unique noun.[6] (4) Finally, Luke clearly defines his definition of fellowship in verse 2:44 and 4:32, which indicates the breaking of bread and prayers remain two distinct practices from fellowship.[7]
In a general way, we could probably appropriately refer to our time together around the word as fellowship. We are the participants, sharing (by listening, teaching, and implementing) our desire for God’s Word. In a general way that is fellowship. However, Luke makes a distinction, and bible study is not what Luke intended by “the fellowship” in this passage. Additionally, we could probably understand the breaking of bread and the prayers as part of a broad definition of fellowship. However, Luke refers to something other than communion and shared prayers as fellowship.
Connection to last week’s conversation. Similarly, in response to last week, fellowship is distinct from friendship, familial relationships, and redemptive relationships. There is overlap in these areas, but they are still distinct from biblical fellowship.
Not in order of priority – just a list. Luke does not list these four commitments in order of priority. They combine into a summation of that to which the early church devoted itself.
Second Observation: Biblical fellowship consists of church members sharing their lives together.
Second Observation: Biblical fellowship consists of church members sharing their lives together.
So then, if biblical fellowship is distinct from the apostles’ teaching, the breaking of bread, and the prayers, what does Luke mean by “the fellowship”?
Luke further defines “the fellowship” in two verses. First, he writes in Acts 2:44-45 all who believed shared all things in common and were selling their belongings and giving to other believers as they had need. Luke expounds on this even more as he reveals their mindset in 4:32 when he writes, “Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common” (Acts 4:32).
So then, the early church, in a broad stroke, shared their lives together. This sharing consists of time, energy, abilities, and finances.[8] The “fellowship” of 2:42 manifest in the loosely held possessions of all believers within the community of believers.
The Essenes. Luke, likely impacted by the meaning connected to Qumran, understood koinonia as a form of communal sharing. The Essene community reflects similar commitments and in so doing offers some insight into our passage in Acts.[9]
The Jewish historian, Josephus, offers a helpful description of the Essenes. The Jewish people admired the Essenes due their consistent spite for riches. No one within the Essenes community had more than another “for it is a law among them, that those who come to them must let what they have be common to the whole order.” As a result of abandoning their belongings to the community, none of the Essenes appeared impoverished or overtly wealthy.[10] Undoubtedly, surrounded by these varied communal practices, the fledgling church reflected such practices.
Unlike the Essenes, who required the giving up of all material possessions, the context of Acts indicates the early church did not demand such sacrifice. They sold as there was need. They broke bread in one another’s homes which indicates believers remained in possession of their homes. And, church history in no way displays any obligatory surrender of one’s possessions.[11]
Earlier Greek and Roman philosophers employ the phrase “everything in common” in normal usage and give the phrase proverbial status. Plato refers to the statement “friends have all things really in common” as an “old saying” (Leges 739b-c). In describing friendship, Aristotle offers two proverbs, “friends have one soul between them” and “friends’ goods are common property” (1168b).[12] Additionally, Cicero, in a lengthier context, acknowledges how friends share all things in common.[13]
Greek and Roman philosophers consider “sharing all things in common” as a common proverb. Jewish historians and the Essenes both discuss and model their understanding of “sharing all things in common.” Undoubtedly, these varied contexts impacted Luke’s understanding of koinonia and offer a contextual backdrop to his meaning in Acts 2:42 and 44.
The manner of their sharing. In Philippians 2, Paul writes of the manner in which this fellowship was enacted. These four verses, summarized, reveal fellowship.
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. (Phil 2:1–4).
Biblical fellowship is the humble, selfless, and affectionate sharing of our lives with one another.
Third Observation: Biblical fellowship horizontally manifest in a specific defined group.
Third Observation: Biblical fellowship horizontally manifest in a specific defined group.
Luke references “they” when outlining the four practices of the early church. When using “they,” Luke refers to those who had already “received his word” and “were baptized” (Acts 2:41). Additionally, in verse forty-four, Luke refers to those who believed “had all things in common.” The importance and practicality for this study on biblical fellowship rests in the limits to which the group confined their “sharing all things in common.” They did not share all things in common with everyone within the broader community, but instead with “those who believed.” Luke clearly demarcates the group that was both together and shared all things in common.
The early church did not commit itself to just anyone who had need. It committed to care for those within their church that had need. Luke refers to “they” – those who received the word and were baptized. Additionally, Paul specifically speaks to the church in Philippi – a specifically defined and organized gathering of believers.
This does not mean that the church should not and does not care for those outside of itself, but their primary commitment is to those within the covenant community.
Implications of Biblical Fellowship
Implications of Biblical Fellowship
The church should loosely hold its possessions. The immediate context includes the idea of having all things in common and selling their possessions to care for one another. Walton describes the early church’s practice as “a matter of possessions being held loosely, so that friends might ask for them as they needed help.”[14] Bock describes the practice similarly to Walton. Bock writes, “this is an ongoing distribution. As people are having…need, they receive help. This means that people did not sell everything all at once. The picture is of a community that cares for all its members, even those in material need.”[15]
The church must look out for one another. The members of the church must have been aware of each other’s needs in that “they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need” (Acts 2:45). While Luke does not set up a mandatory method for how this care ought to look for the modern church, believers today must still succeed in two areas. First, they must be aware of one another sufficiently enough to know when someone is in need. Secondly, they must be willing to let go of their possessions for those in need to have adequate supply.
The church glorifies God through counter cultural care for one another. Consider the ramification and implications of the early church practicing that which Roman and Greek philosophers heralded as the ideal. The Greeks held the idea that an ideal friendship held everything in common and metaphorically had one mind. Aristotle taught that a friendship was “a single soul” dwelling in two bodies.[16] Roman writers such as Cicero[17] also presented this type of care for one another as an ideal or utopian society which rarely existed. Aristotle acknowledged the abundance of two inferior forms of friendship but concluded the ideal of ultimate friendship “should be infrequent, for such men are rare.”[18] However, this fledgling group of Christians displayed this type of utopian society to the culture around them. Modern believers find the essence of care for one another in the New Testament community. Believers must be aware of one another in a counter-cultural way.
The American Church must fight its natural individualism. American believers, likely more than any other culture, will struggle implementing biblical fellowship due the individualism inherent in American culture. Those within most other cultures (even Western European cultures) experience more of a communal sensitivity. Certainly, the New Testament recipients lived in a communal culture and would have understood mutual care for one another. Often, as someone came to believe in Christ, they would be ostracized by their family, and the church became their new family. Joseph Hellerman writes, “For the Christians the church was their family. Believers who were imprisoned and awaiting execution because of their confession of Christ had their needs met by their brothers and sisters in Christ.”[19] He goes on to acknowledge, “The first followers of Jesus conceived of loyalty to God primarily in terms of loyalty to God’s group. To be committed to God was to be committed to His family.”[20]
The sharing of material resources in the Christian church must have been a pretty important priority for Cyprian to argue that its neglect led to the horrible deaths of numerous Christian saints. For Cyprian, the church is only pleasing to God when its members are engaged in the equitable distribution of the community’s resources to impoverished brothers and sisters in the faith family. To ignore this priority is to inevitably open the church up to the fiery discipline of God.[21]
(Cyprian 200-258 AD) Each one was desirous of increasing his estate; and forgetful of what believers had either done before in the times of the apostles, or always ought to do, they, with the insatiable ardour of covetousness, devoted themselves to the increase of their property . . . Not a few bishops who ought to furnish both exhortation and example to others, despising their divine charge, became agents in secular business, forsook their throne, deserted their people, wandered about over foreign provinces, hunted the markets for gainful merchandise, while brethren were starving in the Church. They sought to possess money in hoards, they seized estates by crafty deceits, they increased their gains by multiplying usuries. What do not such as we deserve to suffer for sins of this kind, when even already the divine rebuke has forewarned us[22]
(Tertullian AD 155-240) On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. These gifts are, as it were, piety’s deposit fund. For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God’s Church, they become the nurslings of their confession. [23]
(Tertullian AD 155-240) But on this very account, perhaps, we are regarded as having less claim to be held true brothers, that no tragedy makes a noise about our brotherhood, or that the family possessions, which generally destroy brotherhood among you, create fraternal bonds among us. One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives.[24]
Footnotes
Footnotes
[1] Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1985), 417.
[2] Ceslas Spicq and James D. Ernest, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 191.
[3] Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker’s Greek New Testament Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 334.
[4] Marshall acknowledges these four activities “are generally regarded as four separate things.” Marshall concludes while the four activities are separate, they combine into a summation “which characterized a Christian gathering in the early church” (Marshall, 88). However, Ben Witherington, agreeing with R. Pesch, concludes “that in fact only two things are really mentioned here, teaching and κοινωνια, with the latter further defined as involving the breaking of bread and prayer” (Witherington, 160). Eckhard Schnabel, who consistently offers the most comprehensive explanations throughout his commentary, does not even acknowledge the debate and simply mentions four distinct practices.
I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL, 1980), 88; Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998), 160; F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2008).
[5] As acknowledged by Lenski, Luke uses the dative for each of the four practices, thereby directing the reader to “not regard the last two as a unit apposition to ‘fellowship.’”[ Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, 115]
[6] Both Darrell Bock and Daniel Wallace point out the unique quality of the practices in that Luke appends τῇ (the) to each of the first three practices (τῇ διδαχῇ…καὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ, τῇ κλάσει). Wallace offers the option of Luke conveying “that each element of the worship was the only one deserving the name (par excellence)”. If each practice is unique, hardly would Luke have further described one unique practice (κοινωνίᾳ) by employing a different unique practice (κλάσει).
Darrell L Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 149–50; Richard N Longenecker, Acts, The Expositors Bible Commentary with the New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), 85; Daniel B Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 225.
[7] Luke’s use of similar root words in both 2:44 and 4:32 further expound his intent for the word in 2:42. Luke acknowledges in 2:43 the believers “had all things in common (κοινα)” then further expounds “they were selling their possessions and belongings.” Again, in 4:32, Luke describes the believers “had everything in common (κοινα)” in that no one considered their own possessions as their own. Barrett writes, “The word does not occur elsewhere in Acts (but cf. κοινός in 2:44; 4:32); it is however used by Paul (Rom. 15:26; 2. Cor. 8:4; 9:13) of his collection for the poor saints, and this, together with vv. 44f.; 4:32, 34–7; 5:1–11, lends some support to Lohse’s view so far as it concerns the charitable motivation of the κοινωνία; it does not support its connection with the Christian meal.” If the consistency of the root word in the three verses (2:42, 44; 4:32) along with Barrett’s observation indicate a similar meaning to “fellowship” throughout the verses, then Luke must have made a distinction between fellowship and the following two practices (breaking of bread and prayers).
Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 163.
[8] John Calvin concludes that fellowship refers “unto mutual society and fellowship, unto alms, and unto other duties of brotherly fellowship.” Similarly, George Panikulam contends that “Koinos implies communal sharing.”[8] Barrett offers the most thorough summation when he writes the following, “the same persons are said to form a community (fellowship) ‘in the sphere of Torah and property’, that is, the purpose of their association is the proper fulfilment of Torah and the joint (not individual) management of their property. If for Torah we substitute the ‘teaching of the apostles’ this is very close to what we have in Acts. There exists a fellowship or community; its nature is determined by and is expressed in the apostolic message, and one of the forms taken by this is the common management of wealth.”[8]
John Calvin and Henry Beveridge, Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles (Logos Bible Software, 2010), 126; Panikulam, 114ff.; Josephus, The Jewish War, II, 119-161; Antiquities, 18:18-22; Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 164.
[9] In his commentary on Acts, Schnabel acknowledges that the “parallels are obvious” and that the “Qumran community may have been part of the background to koinonia in Acts 2:42.” Miguel Manzanera argues that the “four elements enumerated in Acts 2:42 have their correspondence in the Rule of the Community of Qumran in the study of the Law and the instruction of the priest, the community of goods, the communal meal with the blessing of bread and the wine by the priest and the prayers in common (1 Qs 6, 2-8).”
1 Qs 6,2-8. By these rules they are to govern themselves wherever they dwell … They shall eat, pray and deliberate communally….When the table has been set for eating or the new wine readied for drinking, it is the priest who shall stretch out his hand first, blessing the first portion of the bread or the new wine. In any place where is gathered the ten-man quorum, someone must always be engaged in study of the Law, day and night, continually, each one taking his turn. The general membership will be diligent together for the first third of every night of the year, reading aloud from the Book, interpreting Scripture, and praying together.
Schnabel, Acts, 179; Miguel Manzanera, “Koininia En Hch 2,42: Notas Sobre Su Interpretacion y Origen Historico-Doctrinal,” Estudios Eclesiásticos 52, no. 202 (July 1977): 320; Panikulam, “Koinōnia” in the New Testament, 116; Michael Owen Wise, Martin G. Abegg Jr., and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (New York: HarperOne, 2005), 124–25.
[10] Titus Flavius Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Complete & Unabridged, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 605.
[11] Schnabel goes on to acknowledge the interaction between Peter and Ananias in chapter five would better support the second option. Peter reminds Ananias that his own possessions were at his disposal prior to being sold and given to the apostles (Acts 5:4). Brian Capper comments on Peter’s exposing of Ananias, “Peter exposes the crime, and specifically points out that Ananias' property was entirely his own before he brought it to the apostles, as were the proceeds after the sale, surely implying that Ananias was under obligation neither to sell his property nor to hand in the proceeds.” While the early church practiced a form of communal living like the Essenes, their practice remained option and not obligatory.
Brian J. Capper, “Community of Goods in the Early Jerusalem Church,” Haase and Temporini, Rise and Decline of the Roman World, 1731.
[12] Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, ed. Lesley Brown, trans. W. D. Ross (New York: Oxford University, 2009), 174.
[13] “This is association at its furthest extent, uniting human beings as human beings and all to all. At this level, a sense of community must be preserved with respect to everything that nature has born for the common use of human beings. Those things that have been distributed by statutes or civil law must be retained such as have been established by these very things; the rest should thus adhere to the Greek proverb “Everything in common among friends” (Cicero, On Duties, 1.51).” Marcus Tullius Cicero, On Duties, trans. Benjamin Patrick N., Agora Editions (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 2016), 43.
[14] Walton, “Primitive Communism in Acts?,” 103.
[15] Bock, Acts, 153.
[16] Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, 174.
[17] Cicero, On Friendship, trans. William Falconer (Lexington, KY: Lazy Raven, 2017), 18. “Friendship may be shortly defined, “a perfect conformity of opinions upon all religious and civil subjects, united with the highest degree of mutual esteem and affection”; and yet from these simple circumstances results the most desirable blessing (virtue alone excepted) that the gods have bestowed on mankind.”
[18] Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, 146.
[19] Joseph H Hellerman, When the Church Was a Family: Recapturing Jesus’ Vision for Authentic Christian Community (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2014), 109.
[20] Hellerman, When the Church Was a Family, 112.
[21] Hellerman, When the Church Was a Family, 110.
[22] Cyprian of Carthage, “On the Lapsed,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 438.
[23] Tertullian, “The Apology,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 46.
[24] Tertullian, Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 46.