ο] ‘ a , α 3 cy a a wie KOLVWVLO και τη κλάσει του αρτου και ταις προσευχαις. 40. ΕΥΕΕΤΟ
δὲ πάσῃ ψυχῇ φόβος, πολλά τε τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα διὰ τῶν ἀποσ-
1 και Ty κλασει; om. και N*ABCD* 61, so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt,
Hilg., so Alford.
Par. του αρ. της κλ.), of which Blass says “recte, nisi delenda τ. «A.”’.
κοινωνια της κλασεως του αρτου, so d, Vulg., Sah. (so in Gig.,
But the
Western readings look like attempts to remove a difficulty.
restrict its meaning here), But, on the other hand, there are equally undoubted instances of κοινωνία referring to spiritual fellowship and concord, a fellowship in the spirit; cf. 2 Cor. vi. 4, xiii. 14, Phil. ii. τ, Gal. ii. 9, 1 John i. 3, 6, 7; cf. also in classical writers, Arist., Ethic., viii., 9, 12, ἐν κοινωνίᾳ ἡ Φιλία ἐστί. Here, if the word can be separated from ἀποσ., it may be taken to include the inward fellowship and its outward manifesta- tion, ver. 44. May not a good parallel to this signification of the word be found in Phil, i. 5, where κοινωνία, whilst it signifies co-operation in the widest sense, including fellowship in sympathy, suffering and toil, also indi- cates the special and tangible manifesta- tion of this fellowship in the ready alms- giving and contributions of the Philippian Church; see Lightfoot, Philippians, in loco. The word naturally suggests the community of goods, as Weizsacker points out, but as it stands here without any precise definition we cannot so limit it, and in his view Gal. ii. ο gives the key to its meaning in the passage before us—the bond which united the µαθηταί was the consciousness of their belief in Christ, and in the name ἀδελφοί the relationship thus consti- tuted gained its complete expression.— Tq] κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτον: no interpretation is satisfactory which forgets (as both Weizsacker and Holtzmann point out) that the author of Acts had behind him Pauline language and doctrine, and that we are justified in adducing the language of St. Paul in order to explain the words before us, cf. 1 Cor. x. 16, xi. 24, Acts xx. 7 (and xxvii. 35, Weizsacker). But if we admit this, we cannot consistently explain the expression of a mere common meal. It may be true that every such meal in the early days of the Church’s first love had a religious significance, that it became a type and evidence of the kingdom of God amongst the believers, but St. Paul’s habitual reference of the words before us to the Lord’s Supper leads us to see in them here a reference to the commemoration of the Lord’s death, although we may admit that it is altogether
indisputable that this commemoration at first followed a common meal. That St. Paul’s teaching as to the deep religious significance of the breaking of the bread carries us back to a very early date is evident from the fact that he speaks to the Corinthians of a custom long estab- lished; cf. ‘‘ Abendmahl I.” in Hauck’s Real-Encyklopddie, heft i. (1896), p. 23 ff., on the evidential value of this testi- mony as against Jiilicher’s and Spitta’s attempt to show that the celebration ot the Lord’s Supper in the early Church rested upon no positive command of Jesus. Weizsacker’s words are most emphatic: ‘‘Every assumption of its having originated in the Church from the recollection of intercourse with Him at table, and the necessity felt for re- calling His death is precluded—the cele- bration must rather have been generally observed from the beginning ” Apostolic Age, ii., p. 279, E.T., and cf. Das apostol. Zeitalter, p. 594, second edition (1892), Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche Theol., i., p. 155. Against any attempt to inter- pret the words under discussion of mere benevolence towards the poor (Isaiah lviii. 7) Wendt regards xx. 6, 7 (and also XxvVil. 35) as decisive. Weiss refers to Luke xxiv. 30 for an illustration of the words, but the act, probably the habitual act of Jesus, which they express there, does not exhaust their meaning here. Spitta takes vi. 2, διακονεῖν τραπέζαις as = κλάσις ἄρτου, an arbitrary inter- pretation, see also below. The Vul- gate connects τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου with the preceding κοινωνία, and renders in communicatione fractionis panis, a ren- dering justified in so far as the κοινωνία has otherwise no definite meaning, and by the fact that the brotherly intercourse of Christians specially revealed itself in the fractio panis, cf. 1 Cor. x. 16, and Blass, in loco, and also B where he reads καὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ τῆς κλάσεως τοῦ ἄρτου. But whilst Felten refers to the evidence of the Vulgate, and also to that of the Peshitto, which renders the words before us “in the breaking of the Eucharist” (so too in xx, 7), it is worthy of note that he refuses to follow the usual Roman