Happy Together
Psalm 133, Acts 4:32-35
Tony’s Overview Video
How to Use
Preparing to teach
- Read the Bible Lesson by Tony Cartledge in this month’s issue of the Nurturing Faith Journal
- Watch Tony’s Video for this session
- Select either the Adult or Youth teaching guide and follow the directions
Click to read the Bible Lesson by Tony Cartledge
Key Verse: Psalm 133:1 –
How very good and pleasant it is
when kindred live together in unity!
Perhaps you have known people who seem to relish strife, but it’s safe to say that most of us love the thought of living in a community, a country, and a world that is marked by peaceful harmony and mutual appreciation than by prejudice or enmity between peoples. Israel’s poets were no different.
A poet’s hope (Psalm 133)
We normally consider just one of the four lectionary texts, but this week we will include two: Psalm 133 and the text from Acts fit together nicely.
Psalm 133, designated as a “Psalm of Ascent,” was probably sung most commonly in the context of Israel’s three major pilgrim festivals. [DD] It celebrates the joy of kindred people dwelling or sitting together as they would during festival meals (v. 1, the Hebrew word can mean either “to sit” or “to dwell”).
The NRSV’s “kindred” is literally “brothers,” and some scholars have argued that the image refers to brothers who continue to live in the family compound or “house of the father,” even after reaching adulthood. [DD]
More writers recognize that “brothers” can carry the broader meaning of “kindred,” and think of the sentiment as a wish for the larger Jewish community to live in harmony. The annual festivals would be an appropriate time for sharing in fellowship, food, and worship – all of which can be effective in building community.
The poet uses two similes or word pictures to express something “good and pleasant.” The first is the image of fragrant anointing oil running down Aaron’s face and dripping from his beard as he was anointed Israel’s first high priest (v. 2). [DD]
In some ways, such scented oils were the ancient equivalent of the various skin lotions, creams, or “revitalizing oils” that many people use today. In a day when baths were infrequent, rubbing oil onto one’s skin and then scraping or wiping it off could provide a bit of cleansing and a fresher smell – more “good and pleasant” than before.
The second word picture imaginatively transports the dew on Mount Hermon to the people gathered around the temple on Mount Zion (v. 3). Mount Hermon, actually a range of mountains straddling the borders of northern Israel with Syria and Lebanon, is more than 9,000 feet tall. The highest reaches of the mountain range are snow-covered for most of the year, and the melting snow pack – perhaps enhanced by heavy dew in warmer months – drains into several streams that join to form the Jordan River.
Images of dew in particular and water in general inspire thoughts of both freshness and refreshment – both “good and pleasant.” While Canaanites appear to have thought of Mount Hermon as the home of a god called Baal-Hermon (Judg. 3:3, 1 Chr. 5:23), the psalmist transferred Hermon’s sacred character to Zion, Yahweh’s earthly resting place.
Both images, as alien as they might seem to us, convey the idea of something fresh and renewing, like fellowship with old friends at a rural church homecoming. How good and pleasant that can be!
A church’s reality (v. 32-33)
Our second text for the day comes from Luke’s description of the early Christian community in Jerusalem following the resurrection of Christ and the miracle of Pentecost. Twice, Luke describes the community as being characterized by unity, generosity, and mutual care. The first summary statement is in Acts 2:42-47. The second describes a community that seems too good to be true.
“Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul,” Luke said, as the NRSV translates v. 32a. The word rendered as “soul” is psuche, the root of our English words “psyche” and “psychology.” While the KJV and NAS95 translations also use “soul,” the NIV, NET, and HCSB translate it as “mind.” Like the Hebrew nephesh, the word psuche refers to one’s interior life, the conscious awareness of who we are and what we think.
The terms “heart and soul” are metaphorical in any sense: no one literally surrendered possession of heart or mind, but Luke suggests they joined in common cause for the purpose of loving/serving Christ and loving/serving each other. To truly love is to serve.
That spirit of unity and loving service inspired such generous sharing that Luke could say “no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common” (v. 32b), a statement that echoes his earlier claim that “All who believed were together and had all things in common” (2:44).
On the surface, this appears to suggest wholesale communal living in which everyone pooled their possessions and lived from a common fund. Does Acts, then, teach a Socialist or Communist ideology in which no one owns private property or personal wealth?
We must be careful not to draw too many inferences from Luke’s summary statement. If in fact he intends to reflect a fully communal system, it apparently didn’t work well or last very long. While v. 34 insists there was not a needy person among them, the church in Jerusalem later became so impoverished that Paul took up a collection to assist it (Rom. 15:25-28, 1 Cor. 16:1-4, 2 Cor. 8:1-15).
Luke’s purpose, in any case, is not to make political statements or to endorse an economic ideology, but to show how the people were living out Christ’s call to love and serve one another.
In Luke’s mind, the Christian witnesses of word and deed are inseparable. Thus, sandwiched between three verses about social concern, he observes that “With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all” (v. 33).
This verse does two things. First, it injects the apostles, who were not mentioned in v. 32, but become significant players in the stories that follow.
Secondly, it describes a characteristic practice of the newly bold apostles, who spoke “with great power” as they testified to the resurrection of Christ. The word “their” is supplied in the NRSV translation: the text says literally, “they gave testimony.” The testimony they proclaimed, however, grew from their experience as witnesses of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. The “great power” that emboldened the apostles, the reader assumes, derives from the Holy Spirit, which had come upon them at Pentecost (Acts 2, cf. 1:8, 3:12).
Thirdly, Luke describes the end result: “great grace was upon them all.” Members of the church had not only experienced grace, but had learned to express it. Luke’s intent is not simply to remind us that the believers had been saved by grace, but to assert that their lives were now characterized by grace. [DD]
A spirit of community (vv. 34-35)
Now Luke returns to the theme of communally shared resources. Acts 2:44 and 4:32 make no mention of the apostles or the method by which goods were distributed, but in v. 35 Luke notes that when people sold property for the purpose of aiding the community, they brought the money and “laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as they had need.”
This adds a layer of administration to the mix, along with the element of apostolic authority: to put one’s self or one’s possessions at the feet of another indicated submission to the other’s leadership.
These verses offer more insight into the system of sharing. Though v. 32 might seem to imply that early believers contributed all of their property or funds to a common pool, the verbal tenses in v. 34 suggest that property was sold piecemeal to provide contributions as needs arose or the common fund grew dry.
The verb for “selling” is a present active participle, and the word for “bringing” is in the imperfect tense. Both suggest a type of continual or progressive action. Thus, instead of “they sold and brought,” as in NRSV, the phrase could be translated “they were selling and bringing.” The NIV gets the same point across by introducing the phrase with “From time to time,” though those words are not in the text: “From time to time those who owned land or houses sold them and brought the proceeds …”
The text, then, suggests that the ownership of private property or wealth continued, but church members were so filled with grace that they were willing to dispose of it as needed for the common good. As J. Bradley Chance puts it, “the early community can best be described not so much as practicing communal ownership, as generous sharing” (emphasis by Chance, Acts [Smyth & Helwys, 2007], 81).
A community in which there are no needy persons reflects a longstanding ideal for Israel (see Deut. 15:1-11). [DD] With the advent of Christ and the power of the Spirit, Luke says the ideal became reality … at least for a time. Evidence suggests that it didn’t last. [DD]
We can’t be sure of the answer, but it appears that the early church – like the modern church – was just as subject to self-interest as Israel had been before it. The ideal of a generous community so rich in the Spirit and in grace that it leaves no one in need remains a great hope still in need of fulfillment. [DD]
Nevertheless, the ideal remains, and we have to ask: how does our community measure up?
Adult Teaching Resources
Download the PDF of teaching resources for this lesson.
This PDF contains the Teaching Guide, Digging Deeper, and Hardest Question pages.
Read Scripture online: Psalm 133, Acts 4:32-35
Youth Teaching Resources
Parent Prep
Pinterest has entire board full of pinned project boards that list “Family Rules”. Does your family have one of these boards? Does your family have a set of rules that they follow? Maybe your family rules aren’t written out on a board that hangs in your kitchen or foyer, but I bet that your family has a set of rules that you all live by and follow. Who creates these rules? Who enforces these rules? How do you decide if a rule needs to be added or changed? How many rules are created because something happened you don’t want to happen again? How many rules are created to allow other things to happen? Too often, our rules bind our actions instead of creating spaces for exploration and learning. There have been studies done that show whatever children hear, they will do. So if all they hear is don’t do _____, they will still do that action you don’t want them to do, because they don’t ever hear the alternative. Take a look at the rules you have, are they inhibiting what is done, or creating freedom?
Additional Links/Resources
Read Scripture online: Psalm 133, Acts 4:32-35
Download the PDF for youth teaching resources using the button below. This PDF contains the Teaching Guide for this lesson:
Video
Encourage youth to check out this video ahead of the lesson.
“Rules” from Mean Girls
Via www.youtube.com
Need Help?
Learn how to better use Nurturing Faith teaching resources.