With countless pages having already been written on such a passage, one wonders if there is anything left to be said about this paragraph in Luke’s account of the early church.
Perhaps, however, a few words are appropriate about what Luke did not write.
When he writes that the believers “were together,” the reader should not automatically conclude that this was a form of communal living. To the contrary, Luke tells us that they often met each other “in their homes” - note the plural!
The members of the early church had their own houses, and often invited each other for prayer, fellowship, and study. But it was not a kibbutz.
Likewise, when they met “in the temple courts,” the text is not telling us that they were there all day long. Certainly these early followers of Jesus spent much of their time in secular employment - farming, bricklaying, weaving, cobbling, smithing, etc.
There is a certain tension between meeting together “every day” in the temple courts and breaking “bread in their homes and” eating “together.” How to resolve this puzzle?
If these early believers spent large segments of time plying their trades and crafts, and were also obliged to attend to the usual daily business in the marketplace, then they would have scarcely had time to both attend long meetings in the temple courts and enjoy extended fellowship at home.
One must imagine this daily meeting in the temple courts as a type of brief devotional service - perhaps similar to a daily chapel service on a college campus, or to early morning chapel services as they are often held in large cities for businessmen hard-pressed for time.
Having completed their work, and having concluded whatever business was necessary in the marketplace, these followers of Jesus stopped by the Temple for brief moment of reflection, perhaps a few hymns, prayers, and Scripture readings. Some scholars translate this as “attending the temple.”
It is conceivable, and perhaps even probable, that what these Jesus followers attended were the usual temple services as they’d been conducted for centuries, and not some new Messianic innovation. The Jewish rituals would not have been superseded in the minds of the early church, but rather simply imbued with a new layer of meaning.
It would be fitting and reasonable, then, that after attending end-of-day prayers at the temple, that one might invite another home for supper, there to enjoy fellowship.
On the other hand, it is possible that this brief prayer service was early in the morning, before the commerce of the day began.
While eschewing communal living, the first followers of Jesus engaged in a type of economic communism, having possessions “in common.” But this was not an inward-oriented sharing. Rather, they gave to “anyone who had need,” i.e., not merely giving to each other, but rather giving to whole town, even to, and perhaps especially to, those who were not followers of Jesus.
This is, and was, true Christlike love: giving “to all, as any had need.” The text does not limit the distribution only to the believers.
Not only did the followers of Jesus generously give to those around them, but they engaged socially. It is for this reason that they enjoyed “the favor of all the people.”
The text is clear: the Jesus followers had “favor with all the people.” The townspeople who were not followers of Jesus nonetheless held the early church in favor. This was because of the friendly engagement which these Christians showed toward their neighbors.
This image which emerges from the second chapter of Acts is, then, that the early church consisted of people who lived in their own houses, not communally, attended a brief chapel service daily, and often enjoyed meals and fellowship at each other’s houses. They were not separatists, but rather gregarious, and thereby earned a reputation for friendliness even among those who were not followers of Jesus.
