Acts 2:46--Why is the Wathctower not consistent?
A.T. Robertson, as mentioned previously, concedes that kat’ oikon
may be rendered “from house to house”. But in rendering the
phrase “at home”, Robertson refers us to Acts 2:46, where precisely
the same Greek expression occurs. Of 2:46, And they [all that believed,
v.44], continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread
from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of
heart, Robertson writes:
Does it refer also to the possible agapai or to the Lord’s supper
afterwards as they had common meals “from house to house” (kat’
oikon)? We know there were local churches in the homes where they had
“worship rooms,” the church in the house. [Word Pictures in
the New Testament, Vol.3, p.39)
Robertson, inadvertently, has given us insight as to why the Watchtower,
despite its claim of consistent translation, has been forced to render
2:46 in private homes. In the Watchtower reference Bible (1984,
p.1315] the rendering “from house to house” is consigned to the
footnote, but exactly the reverse occurs in 5:42, where the Watchtower
quotes Lutheran scholar Richard Lenski as follows:
Never for a moment did the apostles cease their blessed work. ‘Every
day’ they continued, and this openly ‘in the Temple’ where
the Sanhedrin and the Temple police could see and hear them, and, of course,
also [kat’ oikon], which is distributive, ‘from house
to house,’ and not merely adverbial, ‘at home.’ [The
Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, 1961]
What the Watchtower thought to prove by this quote is not clear -- unless
their writer hoped the Witness readers would assume that Lenski’s
allusion to ‘distributive’ had some reference to what Jehovah’s
Witnesses do door-to-door! That Lenski meant no such thing is apparent
from his note on Acts 2:46:
Luke sketches the daily life of the first congregation. The three [kata]
phrases are distributive: “day by day,” “house by house”
... The believers both visited the Temple and broke bread house by house
at home ... “Breaking bread” also refers to all the meals and
not merely to such as might precede the Sacrament as an agape. “House
by house” is like “day by day.” It does not mean merely
“at home” but in each home. [pp.120-21, emphasis added.]
Why did the Watchtower NOT quote Lenski on 2:46? Would it not be at least
fair to both Lenski himself and to the reader, who might assume Lenski’s
position was the same as the Watchtower’s, to mention that he renders
the phrase in question, breaking bread house by house? In other
words, Lenski sees 2:46 and 5:42 as basically saying the same thing
about the worship habits of the early disciples. Is the Watchtower’s
selective quotation of Lenski in the spirit of impartial, objective research?
We have already noticed that the scholars of Christendom -- Lutheran Lenski,
Baptist Robertson, Anglican Rackham, Brethren Bruce, Methodist Marshall
etc -- have consistently interpreted 2:46 and 5:42. Let
us see whether their interpretation will hold up as we examine the other
principal Watchtower prooftext for door-to-door evangelism, Paul’s
memorable summation of his own 3-year ministry in Ephesus in Acts chapter
20.
Were the Apostles Really 'Jehovah's Witnesses'?
As outlandish as that question may seem, Jehovah's Witnesses
take pride in the claim that they -- and they only – are imitators
of the method of evangelism practised by the early church. But did 1st
century believers -- even the apostles -- go door-to-door, or does the
book of Acts present a different picture of preaching work of the early
church?
