In the constitution of the first church of Christ, there seems to
have been no other noticeable peculiarity, than the number of its
ministers, and even this in reality amounted to nothing; for the
decided pre-eminence and superior qualifications of Peter were such as,
in effect, to make him the sole pastor and preacher for a long time,
while the other apostles do not seem to have performed any duty much
higher than that of mere assistants to him, or exhorters, and perhaps
teachers. Still, not a day could pass when every one of them would not
be required to labor in some way for the gospel; and indeed the sacred
historian uniformly speaks of _them_ in the plural number, as laboring
together and alike in the common cause. Thus they went on quietly and
humbly laboring, with a pure zeal which was as indifferent to fame
and earthly honor, as to the acquisition or preservation of earthly
wealth. They are said to have held all things common, which is to be
understood, however, not as implying literally that the rich renounced
all individual right to what they owned, but that they stood ready to
provide for the needy to the full extent of their property, and in that
sense, all these pecuniary resources were made as _common_ as if they
were formally thrown into one public stock, out of which every man drew
as suited his own needs. To an ordinary reader, this passage, taken by
itself, might seem to convey fully the latter meaning; but a reference
to other passages, and to the whole history of the primitive Christians,
shows clearly, that a real and literal community of goods was totally
unknown to them, but that in the bold and free language of the age
and country, they are said to have “had all things in common,” just as
among us, a man may say to his friend, “My house is yours;――consider
every thing I have as your own property;” and yet no one would ever
construe this into a surrender of his individual rights of possession.
So the wealthy converts to the Christian faith sold their estates and
goods, as occasion required, for the sake of having ready money to
relieve the wants of those who had no means of support. Thus provided
for, the apostles steadily pursued their great work, passing the
greater part of every day in the temple; but taking their food at home,
they ate what was so freely and generously provided, with thankful and
unanxious hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people.
In these happy and useful employments they continued, every day finding
new sources of enjoyment and new encouragement, in the accession of
redeemed ones to their blessed community.
_Taking their food at home._――This is my interpretation of
κλωντες κατ’ οἶκον αρτον, (_klontes kat’ oikon arton_.) Acts ii.
46, commonly translated “breaking bread from house to house,” a
version which is still supported by many names of high authority;
but the attendant circumstances here seem to justify this
variation from them. A reference to the passage will show that
the historian is speaking of their regular unanimous attendance
in the temple, and says, “they attended every day with one
accord in the temple,” that is, during the regular hours of
daily worship, but as they would not suffer untimely devotion
to interfere with their reasonable conveniences, he adds,
“they broke bread,” (a Hebraistic form of expression for
simply “taking food,”) “_at home_, and partook of their food
in humility and thankfulness.” This seems to me, to require a
sort of opposition in sense between ἱερον, (_hieron_,) “temple,”
and οικος, (_oikos_,) “house” or “home,” for it seems as if
the writer of the Acts wished in these few words, to give a
complete account of the manner in which they occupied themselves,
devoting all their time to public devotion in the temple except
that, as was most seemly, they returned to their houses to take
their ♦necessary food, which they did humbly and joyfully. But
the _distributive_ force which some wish to put upon κατ’ οἶκον,
by translating it “from house to house,” is one which does not
seem to be required at all by any thing in the connection, and
one which needs a vast deal of speculation and explanation to
make it appear why they should go “from house to house,” about
so simple a matter of fact as that of eating their victuals,
which every man could certainly do to best advantage at one
steady boarding-place. That the expression, κατ’ οἶκον, most
commonly means “at home,” is abundantly proved by standard
common Greek usage, as shown in the best Lexicons. But κατα,
in connexion with a singular noun, has the _distributive_ force
only when the noun itself is of such a character and connection
in the sentence as to _require_ this meaning. Thus κατα μηνα,
would hardly ever be suspected of any other meaning than
“monthly,” or “every month,” or “from month to month;”――so κατα
πολεις means “from city to city,” but the singular κατα πολιν,
almost uniformly means “in a city,” without any distributive
application, except where the other words in the sentence imply
this idea. (Acts xv. 21: xx. 23.) But here the simple common
meaning of the preposition κατα, when governing the accusative,
(that is, the meaning of “at” or “in” a place,) is not merely
allowed, but required by the other words in the connection, in
order to give a meaning which requires no other explanation, and
which corresponds to the word “temple” in the other clause; for
the whole account seems to require an opposition in these words,
as describing the two places where the disciples passed their
time.
♦ “neeessary” replaced with “necessary”
There are great names, however, opposed to this view, which seem
enough to overpower almost any testimony that can be brought in
defense of an interpretation which they reject. Among these are
Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, Ernesti, and Bloomfield, whose very names
will perhaps weigh more with many, than the hasty statement
of the contrary view which I am able here to give. Yet I am
not wholly without the support of high authorities; for De
Dieu, Bengel, Heinrichs, Hammond, and Oecumenius, reject the
_distributive_ sense here.