shows that the term simply meant taking a meal.  The same expression is used

in the following passage relating to the shipwreck, where Paul exhorts those

on board to take food for their `health':

`And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in

presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat' (Acts

Without their contexts, we might believe that Acts 20:7 and Luke 24:35

related to the partaking of the Lord's Supper, yet the contexts preclude such

a belief.  The development known later as `the breaking of bread' is but one

of the traditions of the elders.

`And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by

the apostles.  And all that believed ... had all things common; and

sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every

man had need' (Acts 2:43 -45).

In these few lines we have compressed that which is expanded in Acts

3,4 and 5.  In those chapters is recorded the prophetically significant

miracle of healing, and the equally significant miracle of judgment that

caused `great fear' to come upon all the Church.  There is also a fuller

statement concerning the having of things in common in Acts 4:32 -37, which

compels us to ask whether the selling of possessions and community of goods

was not a real part of the meaning and purpose of Pentecost.  There have been

companies of believers, who, taking Pentecost as their basis, have sought

consistently to follow out its practice, but the having of all things in

common does not seem to have captured their minds in the same way as has the

gift of tongues.  Yet how can one speak of `continuing in the apostles'

doctrine and fellowship', without realizing that this koinonia (fellowship)

refers to and is expressed by the having of all things in common (eichon

hapanta koina)?

Turning to Acts 4:32 -37, we observe that there is a re -statement of

this `fellowship' and as in Acts 2:24 -46, so here, the account of this new

state of affairs is punctuated by reference to the witness of the apostles to

the resurrection of the Lord.  The reader will see that verse 33 of Acts 4

is, as it were, slipped in and breaks the flow of the narrative.  This,

however, is as intentional as the equally strange insertion found in Acts

1:15.  The resurrection of the Lord, as testified by the apostles, was

intimately associated with the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, and to

the time of the restoration of all things which had been spoken by the

prophets.  No Jew would need to be told, that just as the feast of Pentecost

with its emphasis upon the word `fifty' was a recurring, annual reminder of

the day of Jubilee, so the final prophetic fulfilment of all that Pentecost

stood for would be the

real, great Jubilee toward which all prophecy pointed.  Believing, therefore,

the `apostles' doctrine', these believers put their faith into practice.  If

the Jubilee was near, all would receive their own inheritance, all

forfeitures would be cancelled, all buying and selling of land and

possessions would come to nought; consequently, although no one could sell or

buy his inheritance, he could sell whatever else he had purchased, and use

the proceeds for the common good, while awaiting the Lord from heaven.  The

case of Barnabas is specially mentioned.  He was a Levite, and `having land,

sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet' (Acts

4:37).  In Jeremiah 32:6 -14 we have the case of Jeremiah (who, like

Barnabas, was of the priestly tribe).  He bought land to demonstrate his