Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 2:44

And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

44. were together, and had all things common ] With the words of the angels still in their ears (Act 1:11), “This same Jesus shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven,” the disciples were no doubt full of the thought that the return of Jesus was not far distant. Such an opinion spreading among the new disciples would make them ready to resign their worldly goods, and to devote all things to the use of their brethren. For so the spreading of a knowledge of Christ could be made the chief work of the whole body of believers.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

All that believed – That is, that believed that Jesus was the Messiah; for that was the distinguishing point by which they were known from others.

Were together – Were united; were joined in the same thing. It does not mean that they lived in the same house, but they were united in the same community, or engaged in the same thing. They were doubtless often together in the same place for prayer and praise. One of the best means for strengthening the faith of young converts is for them often to meet together for prayer, conversation, and praise.

Had all things common – That is, all their property or possessions. See Act 4:32-37; Act 5:1-10. The apostles, in the time of the Saviour, evidently had all their property in common stock, and Judas was made their treasurer. They regarded themselves as one family, having common needs, and there was no use or propriety in their possessing extensive property by themselves. Yet even then it is probable that some of them retained an interest in their property which was not supposed to be necessary to be devoted to the common use. It is evident that John thus possessed property which he retained, Joh 19:27. And it is clear that the Saviour did not command them to give up their property into a common stock, nor did the apostles enjoin it: Act 5:4, While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold was it not in thine own power? It was, therefore, perfectly voluntary, and was as evidently adapted to the special circumstances of the early converts. Many of them came from abroad. They were from Parthia, and Media, and Arabia, and Rome, and Africa, etc. It is probable, also, that they now remained longer in Jerusalem than they had at first proposed; and it is not at all improbable that they would be denied now the usual hospitalities of the Jews, and excluded from their customary kindness, because they had embraced Jesus of Nazareth, who had been just put to death. In these circumstances, it was natural and proper that they should share their property while they remained together.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Act 2:44-47

All that believed were together, and had all things common.

The primitive Christians, as here depicted

I. Presented a new social development, marked–

1. By community of goods.

2. By judicious distribution to the needy. Poor people had, of course, been relieved before, but not in the systematic way which is here seen to mark the beneficence of the early Church.

3. By a new and separate place of worship. Religious exercises were conducted at home as well as in the Temple. Thus the disciples were both conformists and nonconformists.

II. Exhibited notable personal characteristics.

1. They were strongly attached to one another.

2. They kept a good conscience, singleness of heart.

3. They lived in happiness, gladness.

4. They mingled devotion with all their actions, praising God.

III. Commanded the esteem of observers, having favour with all the people.

IV. Witnessed the constant extension of the work of God (Act 2:47). (W. Hudson.)

The communism of Christianity

To those whose eyes are opened wide, because their hearts are truly loving, there is no time in Gods whole year that is equal to this (Whitsuntide) time of fullest bloom. The soul of man is greatened by promises of the future, and he walks the earth in gladness because of the glorious bloom around him. But it is sad when autumn comes to see the pitiful harvest. I have seen that of a hundred blossoms on a given tree only one came to perfection. There is pathos and tragedy in that, for I see in it human life. Of a thousand babes that are born–Gods holiest blossoms–how many come to manhood? Why this waste? Yet God knows best. It is His law that the bloom shall be plentiful, and that some may remain for fruit. Some must fall, but the few that remain are a prophecy of what shall be, and man must learn that a little fruit of God is worth a great waste of bloom. All that believed were together, etc.: the doctrine was received into gladsome hearts. The spring heat was come, the winter had vanished. But what became of it? When a man looks round the world nowadays, what a strange blossom that seems to be! Who would try to gather it? When lovers, newly entranced, are scarce able to see common daylight, or to comport themselves with common sense, what are they to do? Bloom, blossom! But the blossom will not last. It is so like that outbreak of communism–and we know that did not last. But it will come again ultimately. It is the Word of God, the end of civilisation, the aim of all holy souls, that the holy city, the New Jerusalem, shall descend to earth. Here, then, is this first blossom of Christian faith, which was the natural outbreak of loving hearts. But these blossoms could not last, because the blossoms of love have to blow out in the cold, and be tried by the storm, as the blossoms of the tree must have the wind to nip them–but they prophesied as they died. Watching a little childs life, what glorious blossoms of unselfishness we see sometimes I But they dont last. The cynic sneers at this, but the wise man rejoices, for these blossoms tell him of what man may come to under more perfect conditions. And so these men got scattered, and by degrees the old world resumed its sway over them. Nevertheless, there yet remains the ultimate outcome of the Christian faith. We smile at these men, but only as a loving father smiles upon his little child who cries for the moon, because his ambition is so lofty and its realisation so impossible. Yet the Christian religion is making progress, and having its effect in working out of us what is evil and low, and what it is working out of us it will ultimately work out of the whole world. For what else mean the various efforts to put all things at the service of all men? Some of you who are much given to admiring the pictures of saints can now have a library full of the souls of the ancients; for far beyond all the saints you can paint on windows are those shelves filled with the books of the men of olden time. For in these books are the spirits of the fathers–of John Milton, of William Shakespeare–the thoughts of the wise, the songs of the minstrels, the gathered honey of all nations. And over all this is written Free Library–holy words which the Holy Ghost Himself might have inspired. By and by education too shall be like the gospel–free to all, crying, Come unto me, all ye that labour, and he that hath no money, come buy wine and milk without money and without price. Since I was a boy what has not been done to restore Pentecost? I have long given up the dream of my youth–that all men could do as these men did–live in a community. Robert Owen tried it; thousands have tried it, but they have given it up. All attempts at communism, in any practical form, have died out, gone into history, but the fruit remains. At every point we are winning–hours of leisure, places of recreation, flee libraries, free roads, free churches, free speech, cheap books. Therefore when I hear that the National Gallery is opened free to the public my soul is glad. For the beautiful works of art of the nation are there; they are not now shut up in rich mens houses, but belong alike to all. What has God to do with the rich? Did He send His sun to shine simply for the rich? Nay, but for the beggar also. The Spirit of Christ is always toward the Pentecostal blossom; but that it may become golden fruit there must be large loving; all thought of self must be consumed by the love of God. Gods gifts are many; strive as far as possible to have all things common, especially the greatest things. I smile when I see men saving a little property of their own, and keeping apart from one another; for the best and greatest things are fast passing into the hands of every one. Books are cheap, and when books are cheap the inspiring things of God belong to all. High price of books means Pentecost impossible. Let every man judge his own heart to what degree the love of God has entered it, for in that degree he will be willing that all things should be common, especially the highest and greatest things. Some men smile at this doctrine, and think that we mean the dividing of money or property. No, keep your money! Free libraries, picture galleries, churches, etc.

all these we have won, and we shall win more yet. So you may keep your old purse. Those blossoms that did stop on the tree are now bearing rich and golden fruit which shall last for ever. Christianity is the death-blow of privilege, the scorner of pedigree, the ridiculer of fine linen. It turns its back on all these and says, When thou makest a feast, call the poor, etc.; for the Christian religion means the opening of the gate of heaven to all men. It is the religion whose first miracle was to turn water into wine for humble people, and is slowly bringing back the Pentecostal spirit; not with a mighty rushing wind and tongues of fire, but with the sweetness of charity. You would do well to get it into your plans of daily life, that the day will come when all the nations of Europe shall be Pentecostal, for they shall have passed from feudalism to federalism, and the custom-house shall be abolished, and all nations shall be together and have all things common. (Geo. Dawson, M. A.)

Communism

What about this so-called communism in the early Church? What was it in nature and extent? The passage describing the community of goods is critical. Social reformers, not always Christian, point to this as the ideal state from which the Church has wandered.

1. The arrangement was purely voluntary. What any man put in was still his. The sin of Ananias was not that he had kept back a portion of his estate by fraud, but that he lied about it. It was still in his power after the sale as before. The community of property flowed out of the new spiritual life. (See Act 4:32-37.) In point of fact, their experiment was simply the assertion of the right of every man to do as he chooses with his own; and they chose to live together and help each other. It was a fraternal stock company for mutual aid and protection. No man was bound to come into it unless he wished; but if he did come in, he was bound to act honestly.

2. It was a spiritual result, and not a social experiment. It cannot be explained except on the spiritual basis. It must be studied in its true setting. The Brook Farm, Utopia, and all kindred institutions, have been social experiments. Bellamys Looking Backward Society is allied with them. They have arisen for lack of the Holy Spirit. This sprung up spontaneously because of Pentecost.

3. The community of goods seems to have been a community of use, not ownership. Nobody said that aught that he possessed was his own. They were of one heart. The circumstances were peculiar. Many of the people were away from home. All had to be cared for. No one should suffer.

4. The plan was local. Jerusalem was the only city where it was tried. No trace of it is to be found in any ether Church. It evidently did not commend itself to other churches as a wise plan. The other churches took up collections just as now when a case of need was presented. (See 1Co 16:2; 2Co 9:6-7.)

5. It was temporary. It lasted while the circumstances in which it arose continued.

6. It did not relieve poverty. It was not devised for that purpose. Many writers insist upon seeing a close connection between this incident and the subsequent poverty in Jerusalem. Thus Meyer: And this community of goods at Jerusalem helps to explain the great and general poverty of that Church. It is probable that the apostles were prevented by the very experience acquired in Jerusalem from advising or introducing it elsewhere. Thus Gulliver: Under such sublime inspirations it is easy to see that a communism, impossible to ordinary human nature, might temporarily flourish. But it is as easy to see that it would gradually settle to the level of ordinary motive, and would be subjected to the disturbances of inevitable inequalities in capacity and industry, as well as in piety. The Plymouth Pilgrims were, perhaps, the most single-minded men of modern times. Yet it was not till the community of lands and goods which obtained in the early years of their settlement gave place to farms in severalty, and to private property protected by law, that the annually recurring danger of absolute starvation in their colony disappeared. The lesson of such a history is, therefore, not solely the lesson of Christian consecration. It includes the utility and the sacredness of the personal control of property. It places before us the problem of combining the largest Christian benevolence with the strict maintenance of proprietary rights.

7. It was not modern communism. Says Gerok: That holy community of goods proceeded from love to the poor; but that which is now proclaimed is the result of a hatred to the rich. And Van Dyke: Of late years the communistic doctrine has begun to present itself in another shape. It has laid aside the red cap and put on the white cravat. It invites serious and polite inquiry. It quotes Scripture and claims to be the friend, the near relative, of Christianity. So altered is its aspect that preachers of religion are discovering that it has good points, and patting it on the back somewhat timidly, as one might pat a converted wolf who had offered his services as watch-dog. There is a fundamental and absolute difference between the doctrine of the Bible and the doctrine of the communiser. For the Bible tells me that I must deal my bread to the hungry; while the communiser tells the hungry that he may take it for himself, and if he begins with bread there is no reason why he should draw the line at cake. The Bible teaches that envy is a sin; the communiser declares that it is the new virtue which is to regenerate society. The communiser maintains that every man who is born has a right to live; but the Bible says that if a man will not work neither shall he eat; and without eating life is difficult. The communiser holds up equality of condition as the ideal of Christianity; but Christ never mentions it. He tells us that we shall have the poor always with us, and charges us never to forget, despise, or neglect them. Christianity requires two things from every man that believes in it: first, to acquire his property by just and righteous means; and, secondly, to look not only on his own things, but also on the things of others. (W. F. McDowell.)

The equalities and inequalities of human lots

The infant Church, from the nature of the case, was composed mainly, though not exclusively, of the less prosperous classes. The work it had to do at Jerusalem brought together a number of persons whose homes were elsewhere, and whose ordinary occupations were suspended, and it became necessary to face the all-important question of their simplest food and lodging. For this purpose a common fund was instituted, to which those who had money or other property might contribute for the temporary support of those who had none. There is no evidence that these were anything but voluntary offerings. There follow, for example, repeated references to the existence of rich and poor side by side in the same Church, and to the need and duty of almsgiving. Had there been any system in force, tantamount to a community of goods, neither of these things could possibly have survived. It might seem, indeed, superfluous to argue such a point were it not for two reasons–one, that there are always to be found well-meaning persons who, believing that the earliest type of Church, before corruption entered and human frailty overthrew Divine institutions, was and must be the best, and the one we ought to seek to restore, look back with yearning upon a state of things so different from our own, and resolve that our faces ought to be firmly set towards reviving the primitive usage. Imagining that true Christian equality involves equality of conditions and advantages, they see in the phenomena of our modern Church only the most terrible of inconsistencies. Many of these objectors are genuine friends and adherents of Christianity, and as such demand our warm sympathy. But there are others, I need not say, hostile to our religion, who in all times have made useful capital out of these alleged discrepancies. We cannot but notice that one chief grievance against Christianity in our day is that it does not tend to rectify human inequalities; that while it professes to hold all men equal in the sight of God, it seems quite content that they should remain unequal in their own. But though the objection is put as one against religion, it is obvious that the grievance is really one against Providence, or rather (since this form of socialism is almost always atheistic) against fate, which has allowed one man to enter the world better equipped than another for the struggle of life. Hence this form of socialism, which we see more and more asserting itself, is not merely atheistic, it is bitterly antitheistic, since it chiefly resents inequalities, due not to defective laws, but to natural, inborn, inherited differences. Such socialism demands, as the first right of humanity, that society should aim at compensating the feeble for their feebleness at the expense of the strong; or rather, that arrangements should be made that neither weak nor strong should be at any expense; that society should be restored to one level, and that of universal prosperity and comfort. This, it asserts, a reform in the worlds laws might and would effect. Religion, it alleges, is a failure; civilisation is a failure; legislation is a failure, seeing that all these have so far failed to bring about an equalisation of human lots. Those who use this language and lead captive many willing listeners are at least thus far justified in that Christianity has beyond question failed to bring about the result they desire; and they might even go further and object that Christianity does not start from any such assumption as the equal rights of human beings. From first to last the Bible nowhere teaches this kind of equality among men; nor their equal right, nor the right of any individual among them, to prosperity and comfort. It does not even regard these things as the aim towards which human effort should be directed. Its millennium is not in any sense a millennium of an equally distributed prosperity. Every counsel and command addressed to the rich and strong is, on the contrary, framed on the evident expectation that inequalities of condition would always exist. It must be frankly admitted that Jesus Christ accepted such inequality as a fact of human existence, and addressed His teaching to show how that fact might be made the best of–how it might minister to the discipline of mans nature, and its preparation for the kingdom of God. Christs teaching abounds in denunciations of the rich. But it is never for being rich, but for not recognising and accepting the responsibility of riches. He enunciated no fixed and rigid rules for the regulation of society. He enjoined no pouring of the worlds wealth into a common stock, from which the once rich and the once poor should be endowed anew on one uniform and unchangeable scale. He never offered to put back the clock of time, and to start all men on the race of life afresh. He took society as it existed in his day, and propounded the law and the spirit by which it might be made ever sounder and sounder, even while the weak and the strong, the rich and the poor, lived and worked side by side. A vulgar Socialist, aiming first at winning adherents, might have preached vaguely how all this would speedily be at an end; how no one should suffer much longer from his present disabilities, but that all should share and share alike when new laws should be passed in the Constitution he would frame and establish. But Jesus promised no such thing; He introduced no such topic. He dealt, indeed, persistently with the subject of equality. He called all men, without distinction, His brethren; He spoke of them all as alike dear to the heart of God, and as equally invited to the highest blessings that God confers. He appealed to all who were weary and heavy laden to come to Him (Jesus) and He would give them rest. And, before all things, He insisted that in that kingdom there is no such thing as caste. The first upon earth might be the last in that kingdom, and the lowliest on the earth the highest and greatest there. Who can doubt that it was this Christian doctrine of equality–this form of Christian Socialism (fellowship, membership in one Body, He preferred to call it) that fell like music on the wearied spirits of that motley crowd? No religious caste–no intellectual caste–no social caste–each mans acceptance of the responsibilities of sonship; each mans faithful cultivation of the talent entrusted to him–this, the one way of working out his own salvation, and entering upon eternal life. This was the one only equality that Christ recognised and proclaimed. As to inequalities of human fortune, so-called, and their methods of equalisation, it apparently did not enter into His plan to speak. On such subjects as a mans right or duty to better himself in his earthly position He said nothing. He neither commanded nor forbade a man to do his utmost in that kind. There is a common sneer against religion that it looks with coldness upon the ambition which natures, not apparently vicious, are aware of, to rise in the world, and to win fame, position, and wealth by the effective use of the talents confided to them. Whatever can be reasonably inferred from the Bibles teaching is to the very opposite effect. A gospel which enjoins its followers to cherish and improve every talent committed to them is in itself a command to excel, and therefore to advance, in whatever the hand, or the intellect, findeth to do. And to excel, and to advance, means and implies (let us not be afraid of the word) competition. If, of two men to whom talents are entrusted, one cultivates them and the other neglects them, what power that we can even guess at can prevent one of these men outstripping the other in the course of pre-eminence? If one man rises through moral character and fidelity to the talents given him, and another sinks through moral weakness and indolence, who can deny that in that contrast is witnessed a survival of the fittest? And the gospel of Christ did not interpose to remove such inequalities. But the primary purpose of the revelation of God to men was to change their conceptions of success and failure; to alter the worlds standpoint as to happiness. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. And who can fail to observe that whichever be cause and which effect, the decay of belief in a God, and the assertion of every mans right to be prosperous, always appear together? It cannot be otherwise; for belief in the God whom Christ revealed is not consistent with belief that we have all, or any of us, a right to any blessing or comfort save one, the greatest and most blessed of all. We have no rights as against God: we have only obligations. The very things that difference us from other men are our talents. We are forgetting to thank God for what He takes away. Prosperity–equal prosperity–and the gradual extinction of bodily pain and mental distress–this is the earthly paradise to which thousands are now being taught to look forward. Does it harmonise well with the teaching of Him who claimed to be the Elder Brother of the race, whose appointed life was suffering and self-denial, and whose death was the death of the Cross? The cure for discontent is to turn our thoughts to the noblest, purest, best Friend of our spirits; and then, recalling what He has been to us in the past, and what things He has prepared for us in the future, we may well feel that with all our unworthiness, all our weakness and disappointments, our profoundest sorrows and anxieties, we are more than conquerors; that having received this pledge of victory, we may indeed scorn to change our state with kings. (Canon Ainger.)

The apparent communism of the infant Church

Under the shadow of a great calamity, or the strain of a great excitement, the lines that divide classes or limit possessions vanish like snow-wreaths in the noonday sun. All ye are brethren is the word of the great occasions that stir and shake society to its depths. It is an easy step to the conclusion that that which associates men lies deeper in their nature and in the nature of society than that which divides them. It is a tempting step, though a false one, from this position to the principle that that which creates and maintains the differences cometh of evil, and is to be fought against as evil. This is the conviction out of which the nobler idea and form of communism spring; that which is rooted in love of humanity, in the desire for human progress, and the realisation of a condition in which society will not have to weep tears over the miseries of the poor. Whether the communistic conviction and plan of working out the regeneration of society have any root in the nature of things, or the Word of God, is one of the most profoundly important social questions of our times. Let us consider–

I. The remarkable appearance of a communistic organisation in the Church. Nothing can look more like communism on the outside. Make this arrangement universal, a communist would say, and the social millennium will come in. It will help us to estimate the countenance which Christianity lends to communistic ideas to consider–

1. How far was this universal in the Church? It seems to have been born and to have died at Jerusalem. There appears to have been no attempt even to extend it in the Church. It was a beautiful outburst of heavenly charity and zeal; but it bloomed, flourished, and faded, so to speak, in an hour. Churches were planted everywhere, but there is not the faintest attempt to repeat the experiment. Further, it was not universal even in Jerusalem. In chap. 5:1-4 St. Peter recognises that Ananias was free to adopt the plan or to decline it; and it appears from Act 12:12 that some members retained their property, and had their households, children and servants, round them as before. It would appear that it was but a partial and temporary arrangement even in the Church which adopted it, growing out of a moment of pressure, and quietly dying away. But–

2. How far are we justified in regarding it as an arrangement or organisation of the infant society at all? Both terms are misapplied. Organisation implies a definite principle of action for a definite purpose, adopted by competent authority, and binding upon all over whom the authority extends. We find nothing of this kind in the action of the apostles and of the Church. It was a spontaneous outburst of feeling–nothing like a plan. The man who had the best right to speak for the community expressly disclaims any plan or arrangement binding on the members of the community; he recognises their entire freedom. Far from making this a primary law of the Church of Jerusalem, it was in no sense a law at all, but simply a voluntary action on the part of individuals; beautiful, heavenly in its inspiration, but valid only while the inspiration lasted, and having no beauty, no virtue apart from the spirit which gave it birth.

3. The light cast upon the institution by the legislation of the apostolic age. Remember that the Church had before it the very problems with which communism professes to be able to deal–the wrongs of oppressed classes and the miseries of the poor. No literature of communism is so charged with passionate sympathy for the oppressed and the wretched, such burning indignation against strong-handed wrong, such tender, cherishing compassion for the poor and helpless, as those Old Testament prophecies to which Christ appealed to explain His mission (Luk 4:18-21). The poor have the gospel preached unto them was the very crown of miracles in the Saviours judgment; and the words–Only they would that we should remember the poor–tells us how sacredly the mission was cherished in the Apostolic Church. It was through no oversight of this its great function, to save the poor and so to begin at the right end the salvation of society, that the apostles suffered this institution to drop out of the habit of the Church. They were as intensely eager to enfranchise the enslaved, to deliver the oppressed, to comfort and to elevate the poor, as the most passionate of social reformers; and yet, having to deal with three great classes whose woes and wrongs were rending society in pieces–the slaves, the women and the poor–instead of proclaiming universal emancipation and community of possessions, they deliberately left the slave to the Christian brotherhood of his master, the woman to the Christian fellowship of her husband, and the poor to the Christian justice and charity of mankind. There was no attempt at a rearrangement of society, save as it might grow naturally and healthfully out of better and holier spiritual relations between class and class, and man and man. Thus they addressed themselves to the terrible social problems of their times: on this basis they sought to work out their solution. They showed themselves, like Christ, studious to maintain the existing order against violent disturbance or readjustment from without. When hardy Galileans would take Christ by force, and make Him a king, giving Him, as they dreamed, the grand opportunity to work out His glorious plans, He withdrew Himself to a desert place and prayed. The only power which could regenerate the world must come from that fountain. The Church sought to redress the wrongs, to adjust the inequalities, to heal the maladies and the miseries of society, by proclaiming the brotherhood of man under the Fatherhood of God, revealed in Him who is the Elder Brother of the poorest, the most crushed of the human race. You may say in answer, Look round and see what it has wrought! Look round in Lambeth, in Bethnal Green, on burning Paris, on luxurious, dissolute New York. Is this salvation? I feel the full pressure of the question. How long, O Lord, how long? is the cry that is ever rising from watching, breaking hearts. But I see also this, that the selfish lust and passion which make the day of the Lord so long, and the progress of the kingdom so slow, would bury in wreck or drown in blood every poorer and weaker attempt to work out more swiftly and vehemently the salvation of society.

II. But, what then was this, they had all things common? Was it a mistake?

1. On the contrary it was an inspiration; an outlet of love and joy when mans heart was bursting with them; and a holy and beautiful prophecy of what Christianity will one day accomplish for the salvation of the poor. There is many a beautiful, elevating, purifying action of the spirit in its intercourse with spirits, which if it were organised into an institution would be fatal to society. This action of the Church belongs to the same sphere as the holy waste of Mary. The money might have been saved and given to the poor, and the Master none the worse. But the prompting of the spirit which found that expression held within its glow more benediction to the poor in the long run, than the pence that might have been saved a thousand times told.

2. This action was an irrepressible outburst of joy and thankfulness. Travellers meeting in the heart of a great desert are ready to make all things common under the human sympathy which the new and glad experience kindles within. A shipwrecked company gathered on the shore of a desert island is ready to make all things common, through the joy of deliverance, and shame that any of the saved should want. There are crises when all that leads a man to say that anything is his own vanishes; when the sense that one great human heart is beating everywhere, and that we are but limbs of one great body, whose private use and pleasure is nothing, whose ministry to the whole is all, possesses us. These are our moments of inspiration, of rapture. They come to us laden with the breath of a purer, brighter region, which, organised as we are, it would waste us to live in, but the breath of which, mingled with our grosser air, lends a more vivid glow to the vital flame in our hearts, and in the heart of society.

3. And it was beautiful as a prophecy. The miracles of Christ were prophecies. And this shone out as a sign, that forces were there at work, whose fountain is the heart of Christ, which will one day, after a Divine fashion, establish–

(1) Liberty, the liberty of a soul and a society under the law to Christ.

(2) Equality, not of lot or of function, but of use and of honour.

(3) Fraternity, not of rights and of claims, but of ministries and loves. (J. B. Brown, B. A.)

Christian and anti-Christian communism

That Christian communism said, What is mine is thine; modern anti-Christian communism says, What is thine is mine. Among those Christians it was said, Take what I have; modern communists say, Give me what thou hast. That holy community of goods was founded on a spirit of love to the poor; this now preached rests on a spirit of hatred to the rich. (C. Gerok, D. D.)

Christian communism distinguished from unchristian

I. Its source. Not an external law or bare power, but the free impulse of love.

II. Its object. Not general equality, but general welfare.

III. The way to effect his object. Not by a community of goods, but by a community of hearts. (C. Gerok, D. D.)

Mans willingness to trust everything to God but money

Once in a most lively prayer-meeting the preacher who was presiding prayed: O Lord, help all of us to trust Thee with our whole souls! And a hundred voices responded, Amen! Some also shouted, Lord, grant it! and Amen, amen, all over the room. Encouraged by such sympathy, he went on: Help us all to trust Thee wholly with our bodies! And then the people cried, Amen! as heartily as before. Now the exalted sense of consecration rose to its height, and he prayed again: Oh, help us to trust Thee wholly with our money! And it is actually reported in private circles since that not a man had a word to say then. (E. S. Robinson.)

And they continuing daily with one accord in the temple.—

Characteristics of the primitive Christians

See–

I. Their constancy–they continued.

II. Their fervour–daily.

III. Their unity–with one accord.

IV. Their audacity–in the temple.

V. Their charity–breaking bread from house to house.

VI. Their familiarity–did eat their meat.

VII. Their alacrity–with gladness.

VIII. Their sincerity–with singleness of heart. (E. Leigh.)

Public worship

I. We ought to worship God in public.

1. It is obvious to the natural reason of mankind that this is a duty.

(1) Even those whose foolish heart was darkened, etc., were not so blind as not to see the fitness of their honouring with public worship those whom they accounted Deities. The heathens have their temples to which they resort for the celebration of some rites, whereby they think their idols honoured.

(2) God has formed our nature for society, is it not, then, a dictate of nature that we should associate ourselves for the most important purposes of religion as well as for the lesser purposes of the natural and civil life.

(3) Our Creator has made us capable of signifying to all about us the sense we have of His perfections, and of our obligations to Him. Should we not, then, employ our best powers after that manner in His service, to which they are so wisely fitted? The heavens declare the glory of the Lord; the firmament showeth His handiwork. How excellent is His name in all the earth! And is it not fit that intelligent creatures should show forth His glories by the most open acknowledgment of them? The law of God written in the heart (Rom 2:15) obliges them to the performance of social public worship.

2. God has in His Word given plain significations of His will that men should publicly worship Him.

(1) Public worship was practised long before we have any account of its being required. The light of nature directed men to assemble themselves together for the worship Of God; perhaps, therefore, He did not see it needful expressly to reveal His mind till their natural notions of religion were greatly corrupted by idolatry. Then it pleased God to give a law according to which worship was to be regulated (Exo 23:17). But though Israel were to offer sacrifices only at the tabernacle or temple, yet they did meet together in other places, where they did engage in some parts of Divine worship. This appears from the account given us in Scripture of synagogues (Act 15:21).

(2) Jesus Christ, while He was here on earth, did not only go to Jerusalem at the great feasts, but also attended constantly to the service of the synagogue (Luk 4:16). His example lays a strong obligation upon His followers.

(3) The disciples of Jesus, in the early days of Christianity, discharged their duty in this matter with great diligence, but in process of time the love of some began to cool, which appeared in their neglect of the duties of public worship. To prevent the spreading of this great evil the apostle admonished them (Heb 10:25).

II. The ends of public worship.

1. The glory of God. As He made all things for Himself it is highly reasonable we should principally design the glorifying of His name in all that we do. Now when God is worshipped by His creatures, they own His being, His all-sufficiency, His infinite understanding, that to Him belongeth power and mercy; and the more public their worship is the more clearly they spread abroad the honour of His name. The house of God, where He was publicly worshipped, is called the place where His honour dwelt (Psa 26:8), perhaps because He was there honoured in an eminent manner by the social worship of His people. For this reason, as we may justly suppose, the Lord is said to love the gates of Zion (Psa 87:2). This chief end of Divine worship cannot be so well answered by private devotions. The honour of Gods name is more propagated in the congregation than it can be in the family. Though our Saviour far exceeded those in knowledge who officiated in the Jewish synagogue, yet was He stated in His attendance there, for He knew that by so doing He glorified His Father.

2. Our spiritual benefit. God has connected our advantage with His own glory. He dispenses to us blessings in that way wherein we show forth the honour of His name. He promised His people of old that in all places where He should record His name he would come unto them and bless them (Exo 20:24). There is no appointment of any particular place under the gospel, but our Lord has said that where two or three are gathered together in His name, there He is in the midst of them (Mat 18:20; Rev 1:13). God delights to honour the ordinances of His public worship by making them means of grace (Psa 87:5). Most commonly it is by the means of public worship that sinners are awakened and converted; it is hereby that the saints are for the most part edified and comforted. All the private instructions which the psalmist enjoyed were not effectual to remove a very perplexing temptation. But when he went into the sanctuary so much light was imparted to him there as cleared his difficulty (Psa 73:17). Upon which he concludes (verse 29) that it was good for him to draw near to God, i.e., in the sanctuary. David expected that the clearest and most engaging discoveries of God would be made to him in His house, therefore he was very desirous of having his stated abode there (Psa 27:4; Psa 92:12-14).

3. Communion with one another in the great concerns of religion. The Scripture represents believers as one in God and Christ (Joh 17:20-21). They are spoken of as members one of another (Eph 4:25). They have one God and Father, the same Mediator and Saviour; they are animated by one Spirit; they belong to the same family, and they are travelling towards the same heavenly habitation. Now, when as many of them as conveniently can assemble together to partake of the ordinances of the gospel, they hereby denote the oneness.

III. The several parts of public worship as mentioned in the context.

1. Prayer. The house of God is called the house of prayer (Mat 21:13). We have all our common wants and weaknesses. Is it not, then, proper we should present our joint supplications to God for supplies and helps? (Mat 18:19).

2. Praise (Psa 48:1; Psa 34:3). We are never in such destitute circumstances as not to be obliged to bless the name of God, therefore are we commanded to add thanksgivings to our supplications (Php 4:6; 1Th 5:17-18). It is proper here to consider that particular method of praising God by singing. It is natural for the joy of mens hearts to break forth into songs, and it is most fit they should express the delight they take in the perfections and mercies of God by singing His praises (Jam 5:13; Eph 5:19-20; Col 3:16; 1Co 14:14-15; Rev 15:3).

3. Hearing the Word of God. Under the Mosaic constitution the priests lips were to keep knowledge, and the people were to seek the law at his mouth (Mal 2:7). Our Lord Jesus Christ has appointed ministers who are to give themselves continually to prayer and the ministry of the Word; to be instant in season and out of season in preaching of it. Therefore, certainly it is the duty of Christians to be instant in season and out of season in hearing the gospel (Eph 4:11-13).

4. The Lords Supper. This is meant by breaking of bread (1Co 10:16-17). Application:

1. How thankful should we be for our liberty to worship God in public.

2. It is matter of great lamentation that there is so much indifference among us to the public worship of God.

3. Let us have a care of forsaking the assembling of ourselves together as the manner of some is. In order to press you hereto, consider

(l) That an indifference to the duties of public worship is a dangerous step towards apostacy.

(2) Persons of the most eminent piety have expressed the greatest value for the public worship of God. (S. Price.)

Importance of daily prayer

Great pianists carry the dumb piano with them, which is simply a mechanical keyboard for the exercising of the fingers. Rubenstein uses it, and on a recent occasion he said, If I neglect practice a single day, I notice it, and if for two days, my friends notice it, and if for three days the people notice it. Some Christians leave off practising their religion. First they notice it themselves, then their friends, then the world. Every Christian has his dumb piano on which to practise. True it gives no sound that the world can hear, but it nevertheless accomplishes much; it is the instrument of silent prayer. McCheyne once expressed the belief that no one who prayed daily to God ever became a lost soul. It is well to recall this at times whenever the habit of silent prayer is neglected. Use the dumb piano.

Constancy in the performance of holy duties makes them easy

It is easy to keep that armour bright which is daily used; but hanging by the walls till it be rusty, it will take some time and pains to furbish it up again. If an instrument be daily played upon, it is easily kept in tune; but let it be but a while neglected, and cast in a corner, the strings and frets break, the bridge flies off, and no small labour is required to bring it into order again. And thus, also, it is in things spiritual, in the performance of holy duties, if we continue them with a settled constancy, they will be easy, familiar, and delightful to us; but if once broken off, and intermitted, it is a new work to begin again, and will not be reduced to the former estate but with much endeavour and great difficulty.

Constancy in the performance of holy duties

It is observable that many who have gone into the field, have liked the work of a soldier for a battle or two, but soon have had enough, and come running home again from their colours, whereas few can bear it as a constant trade. War is a thing that they could willingly woo for their pleasure, but are loath to wed upon what terms soever. Thus many are soon engaged in holy duties, easily persuaded to take up a profession of religion, and as easily persuaded to lay it down. Like the new moon, which shines a little in the first part of the night, but is down long before half the night be gone, are lightsome professors in their youth, but whose old age is wrapt up in thick darkness of sin and wickedness. Oh! this constancy and persevering is a hard word! This taking up the cross daffy, this praying always, this watching night and day, and never laying aside our clothes and armour, indulging ourselves to remit and unbend in our holy waiting upon God, and walking with God. This sends many sorrowful from Christ; yet this is the saints duty, to make religion his every days work, without any vacation from one end of the year to the other.

And breaking bread from house to house did eat their meat with gladness.—

The holy communion a feast of love

Love, as it is undoubtedly one of the most natural and general, so is it likewise one of the most agreeable and delightful emotions of the human heart. Whoever therefore promotes love, at the same time promotes happiness; and the firmer, the purer, the nobler that love is, the more solid is this happiness. And where shall we find a more perfect doctrine of happiness than in Christianity? Tend not all its doctrines, all its precepts, all its promises, all its rites to kindle and inflame the purest, noblest love towards God and man? Such is its whole design; this is the distinctive character of the noble few by whom it is actually attained.

1. The holy communion is a feast of the love of God. Here we see the love of God, our heavenly Father, in all its lustre; here enjoy it in its full measure. Here we draw nigh to Him, not as slaves, not as criminals, trembling at the sight of their judge, but as children, favoured, eminently endowed, meet together in His house, at His table, and rejoice and glory in His being our Father. Here we are truly blessed in the enjoyment of all the benefits wherewith He has favoured us through His Son Jesus.

2. In like manner is the holy communion a feast of love to Jesus our Lord. This holy feast emphatically reminds us of that sublime, disinterested, unprecedented love to the wandering wretched race of mortals that brought Him from a throne to the condition of a servant, to the Cross and to the sepulchre! And here we enjoy the fruits and effects of this love of our Lord. The effulgence which He brought with Him from heaven enlightens and shines round us; the virtue and the efficacy that are gone out from Him, vivify us; the serenity, the hope which He prepared for mankind reanimate us; the prospects into better worlds which He opened to them are our comfort and joy.

3. Lastly the holy communion is a feast of Christian brotherly love. Far hence away, all such as harbour malice, all cold and selfish hearts, all the slaves of envy, hatred, and revenge! Far hence, every the slightest suggestion of vanity and pride, whereby one exalts himself above another, and one in comparison of himself despises another! Do we not here rejoice and glory in our common deliverance, forgiveness, elevation, and happiness? Come, let us show ourselves glad in Jesus Christ by our love, by our mutual endeavours to become ever more humane, ever more bountiful and generally useful. Let us all rejoice in one another, as He rejoices in us all. Let us serve and assist one another, as He has helped and still helps us all. (G. J. Zollikofer.)

The souls atmosphere

This passage points out the characteristic fact of the cheerful social dispositions of the early disciples. The Jewish religion was the only one which ever organised joy as an integral and important part of its services. Christ and the apostles were Jews, and the same joyous spirit came with the new faith; and although they entered upon the organisation of the new life under circumstances calculated to make men bigoted and bitter, yet all the early periods of Christianity were sweet and calm. The earliest Christian art has not a single emblem of suffering or distress. All the representations were those of hope and cheerfulness. Subsequently philosophy almost destroyed this temper, and wrought an atmosphere of stoical hardness and moroseness which was not characteristic of true Christianity. Note:–

I. The nature of the Christian atmosphere. We all know how, in the physical world, that a dull, heavy atmosphere is unfavourable to pleasure or labour. We bear with it, fight our way through it; but it is the clear, bright, genial day that affects our spirits favourably, facilitates our work, and makes things grow. So the soul has an atmosphere of one kind or another. Discouragement, sadness, obscurity of soul makes it hard for a man to live, to be social. It is especially mischievous in religious life; for all the higher graces are such as spring up and bloom only in most genial atmospheres, just as many of our plants can only blossom in a long warm summer. The characteristics of this atmosphere are–

1. Good-nature–a grace not mentioned in Scripture because Paul did not speak English. This is better than genius, property, or honour. When Baxter spoke of marrying a woman who was of a good disposition rather than one who was eminently pious, he said that the grace of God could dwell with many persons that he could not live with. This good disposition is enjoined in Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love, etc., and is that charity which is not easily provoked, etc. Now good-natured people are often not geniuses; because to have genius one must have nerves; but men whose nerves are well covered, are relieved from many exasperations and exaggerations which annoy people; but where men have not this protection anal still are good-natured, it is a peculiar grace.

2. Cheerfulness–a hopeful state of life under any conditions; a shining state which amounts to more than contentment.

3. Faith–not simply that act which accepts Christ, but that which includes the whole action of the imagination. A practical, matter-of-fact man is like a waggon without springs–every single pebble on the road jolts him; but the man who has imagination has always the power of glancing off from hard facts, and of overcoming the world.

4. Humour. The sense of the ludicrous is a distinct peculiarity of man as lifted above the brute creation. If it calls to itself an element of distinctiveness it becomes sarcasm. When it holds up a man as an object of mirth it becomes ridicule. When it has a certain element of suppression then it developes humour. It sees things in a funny light. Blessed are the men who are able to put this cushion between themselves and all the sharp edges of affairs–who know how to see something that will convert sorrow into a source of pleasure. A man who has it is always able to call to his side good-nature and happiness, and troubles are not so troublesome, nor cares so sharp to him as they would be if he had no such faculty.

II. Its advantages. He who is cheerful, imaginative, humorous, has summer of the soul, and whatever he has to do he will do better in that than in any other atmosphere. This atmosphere favours–

1. Earnestness and courage. It has been thought to tend to frivolity, but that is not the case. When Napoleon was crossing the Alps, and the strength of the men had almost given out, and there was hesitation, he ordered the band to strike up a cheerful air. The sound of the drums rolled through the mountain passes, and the men, catching exhilaration from the music, applied themselves with renewed earnestness to the task. Now, when we are called to disappointments, if under the influence of imagination we can but feel cheer and good-nature, that temperament of the soul will enable us to hold on our way. What kills men is discouragement. It is sitting down under trouble that destroys men; it is standing up and mocking it that enables men to go through it without harm. I have thee, O man, says the Gorgon of disaster. Not yet, says the man of hope, with a smiling face, and eludes his grasp.

2. Charity–that which seeks the well-being of men. A man who is without good-nature always judges harshly; but the man who has cheerfulness and humour is at peace with other men. The most difficult people to manage are those who never see a jest or develop a smile; they carry gashing angles to the end of life. And unfortunately among them there are only too many professing Christians; so that men say that if they wanted sympathy in distress they would rather go to their drinking companions than to members of the Church. But a man who is really a Christian is light of the world–a man whose temper and disposition make him luminous. Sweet emotions give light to the face, and bitter emotions make it dark. And a man whose face is lit with joy and hope carries among his fellow-men that good will which takes away the friction of life and gives joy to the sorrowful and hope to the sinful.

3. Patience under difficulties. The world is a great deal larger to a man of imagination than to a Gradgrind–a man of mere facts–a man of miles who treats the world as though it were a football. The former takes cognisance of things invisible which help him to see that the troubles of to-day are the instruments of the joys of to-morrow. The man of facts sees only the cloud; the hopeful man sees the sun behind and the fruitful showers after the cloud.

4. Realisation of the presence of God and trust in Him. The trouble with men in this world is that they have no God. A present help in time of trouble is God, and if there be no help for you it is because you have no God that you know how to use. A man might live to the age of Methuselah and never know what music was, if he did not know how to handle the instrument; and a man may live with God around him and yet be without God because he does not know how to use Him.

And the souls atmosphere is the medium through which a man discerns God more easily than through any other. In conclusion–

1. You ask, Does not this tend to relax conscience? Perhaps it does, and that is the best thing about it so far as some consciences are concerned. A man may be conscientiously wrong and cruel as were Saul of Tarsus and Loyola. What is needed of conscience is that it should act in the sphere of love. Love being the summer atmosphere of the soul, let any faculty act in it, and it will act right.

2. But do not many lack the capacity for such cheerfulness? Yes, but cripples are not to be held up as models of humanity. (H. W. Beecher.)

The atmosphere of a church

There ought to be such an atmosphere in every Christian church, that a man going there and sitting two hours should take the contagion of heaven and carry home a fire to kindle the altar whence he came. (H. W. Beecher.)

Christian festivity

1. When you ascend from the post-apostolic to the apostolic days, you seem to emerge from a stifled, airless cave, where all manner of fungous growths luxuriate, into the open field, where fresh breezes play and sunbeams glitter and dew-besprinkled flowers shed their varied perfume on the air. In the Acts you find not only a purer religion but more of common sense and manliness than in the history of the fathers.

2. We make a great mistake if, while we seek in the Scriptures and by prayer for direction in matters of faith and in the larger turning-points of life, we leave smaller affairs, such as our feasts, to the arbitrament of chance or the example of the world. In everything by prayer and supplication, etc. Only on the great things may the stranger approach the king, but in everything is the appeal of the child welcome to the Father.

The disciples did eat their bread–

I. With gladness.

1. A preliminary to this was a liberal contribution to their poorer brethren–a necessary ingredient in all glad Christian festivity.

2. These ancient Christians were not hermits, they enjoyed their food all the more by enjoying it together. The sight of a friends face, and the sound of his voice while we eat, are as good gifts of God as food. A convivial meeting is an object of dread to Christian parents, but it is not in itself evil: in as far as it retains its etymological meaning–eating together–it is good.

3. A good reason for eating with gladness is that we have something to eat, and a self-acting machinery which reminds us when nourishment is needed, and compels us to take it at the proper time.

4. In the case of a Christian the Giver of food is recognised, and therefore he has more gladness than other men.

II. With singleness of heart, as well as gladness, and that without which gladness soon disappears. A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. Simplicity is destroyed and gladness lost–

1. By burdensome and irrational luxury. The cares of the meal are sometimes as heavy as the management of the estate. Instead of singleness, doubleness of a very troublesome type is the occupant of the heart. One half of the mental vision squints aside to calculate the estimation in which the elaborate festival is held by the guests. Simplicity may be marred, too, by the cost of the entertainment; and some approach to it might both replenish the coffers of charitable institutions and facilitate the settlement of tradesmens bills. The Christian should add to his faith courage here.

2. By immoderately late hours. To turn night into day is not simplicity, and cannot promote gladness. It is like the opinion within lunatic asylums that people should lie in bed while the sun shines, and be active under gaslight during the night. What would you think of the gardener who should cover your greenhouse till noon, and make up for the deficiency of light by burning lamps beside the flowers till midnight. Treat yourselves as you treat your gardens. Young men and women would be more like the lilies in freshness and beauty if they considered and imitated them.

3. The free use and vile abuse of intoxicating drinks. (W. Arnot, D. D.)

The bright side of life

There are two sides to every street and to every life–the bright and the dark. The man who deliberately chooses the latter must look to himself for companionship, but the man who elects the former will not lack society. The double attraction of his circumstances and his example will prove irresistible.

2. The bright side exists not only in spacious avenues fringed with lordly mansions, but in narrow lanes flanked by lowly cottages. The cheerful Christian draws satisfaction from, and shows it in, not only lifes great occasions, but in lifes commonplace acts. You can form no judgment of the spirit of a man when he is being united to his bride, when successful in business, or when on a holiday. Watch him at the table, or in some ordinary duty, and you will be able most accurately to gauge his character.

I. The bright side of life is illumined by a triple light.

1. Gladness. We like to see a man–particularly if he be a guest–thoroughly enjoy his meal. To see him daintily picking over half of it, and sending the other half untasted away, grieves the generous host, and excites commiseration for the man who cannot relish wholesome food. The illustration may be expanded so as to embrace the whole of life. The good workman is glad with his work and glad to do it. There is no gladness for a good mother like that excited by and indulged in home and children. And for the good Christian perfect gladness is only to be found in the blessed work that God has given him to do. But insipidity or disagreeableness in any of these relations is invariably attended by poor if not bad effects.

2. Singleness of heart–a word only occurring here in the New Testament–means soil from which all stones are cleared; and hence even and smooth, presenting no obstacle to the object passing over it. So these good people did not wait till conscience thundered that while they were feasting others were starving. Nor had they to clear away a number of prudential considerations, and make a number of troublesome calculations before their beneficence could find free play. All hindrances were already swept away by the fresh vigorous tide of charity which resulted from the copious baptism of the Holy Ghost. Surely this singleness of mind is wanted everywhere. What trouble is caused by anxious thought about the future at home and in the market place. What energies are paralysed when the thought of interest is allowed to mingle with the single thought of duty. How many Christians are kept back from joyous Christian service by allowing the disturbing thought of what other people will think or feel to upset the simple conviction that Gods will ought to be done. Get these thoughts swept out of the mind by the power of the Spirit, and then let the current of activity flow straight forward, and life will be bright. Otherwise it will be gloomy-a mixture of light and darkness–or hopelessly dark.

3. Thankfulness. He was a happy man who wrote that 103rd Psalm. The unthankful man is never happy, and cannot be. Selfishness and discontent kill all joy.

II. The bright side is the attractive side. The disciples had favour with all the people, and the Lord added to the Church. Thus God blesses those who walk on the bright side, and gives them their hearts desire, which is success–the gathering to themselves of a like-minded company. Religious increase is brought about in two conceivable ways–by compulsion and by attraction. The first produces hypocrites, the second only true Christians. It is only when Christians win favour that God adds. Apply this to–

1. Families. How many children have simulated godliness when forced upon them only to cast it away with disgust when the time of independence comes; but how many have risen up to call God blessed by the winsome piety they have seen at home.

2. Society. The estimate which worldly men and women form of religion is derived from what they see of professing Christians. And, alas! much of it is wholly and naturally unfavourable. The time has come to re-try the Pentecostal experiment; not in form but in spirit, a spirit that shall work through established social usages–showing how a Christian can comport himself joyously everywhere, and society will not long remain unchristianised.

3. The Church. So-called Christianity has tried force, indifference, and means calculated only to repel. Let Christians try that which will have favour with the people, use means in the best sense popular, and watch the result. (J. W. Burn.)

Gladness and singleness of heart.—

Gladness of heart springs from singleness of heart

They were glad at heart because they were single in heart. Their hearts were not divided between God, or Christ, and the world, and, being wholly the Lords, they rejoiced in the Lord.

I. Their gladness was the effect of their singleness of heart towards God, towards God in Christ, whom they called Lord and God, and into whose name they had been baptized for forgiveness of sins, with the promise of receiving from Him, if they repented, the gift or baptism of the Holy Ghost. It was the proper fruit, that is to say, of that awful fear of God, tempered and softened by filial confidence and grateful love, which we see characterised in the context as the habitual frame of mind in which these primitive disciples walked with God, in the exercise of living faith in Jesus Christ. In proportion as they knew God, or knew the gospel of Christ, they saw that He was all in all, that of Him, and through Him, and to Him were all things. They connected all things, little and great, with God. All things were thus to them full of God, and since they rejoiced in God, full of the joy of God. This was the secret of their happiness, this the source, this the sum. And in proportion to the singleness of their hearts towards God, so that He was all in all, and of Him, through Him, and to Him, all things, did the gladness of their hearts become more full and ecstatic, or rise nearer to the blessedness of saints in heaven. Their joy was, then, first of all the joy of godliness and gratitude.

II. Again, this gladness proceeded from the singleness of their hearts towards the world, from the victory over the world, to which they were crucified by the Cross of Christ. A half-hearted Christian, if such a man there be, a worldly-minded professor of Christianity whose heart is divided between God and the world, or rather is not yet given to God, is miserable when he is called to surrender his worldly possessions, and feels his happiness to consist in giving as little as possible to the cause of Christ. But not so the man who with singleness of heart has said, I am not mine own; I am bought with a price, therefore must I glorify my Redeemer with all that is mine. The more he can do for God, the more he can contribute to the cause of Christ, the more is his joy made full. His heart being single, his final aim being one, in the fulfilment of that aim, in the extent to which he can contribute by his exertions or possessions to its fulfilment, he is glad.

III. There was, however, another element in the joy of these Christians, for there was another distinguishing feature of their character. Theirs was the joy of mutual love–the sweetest joy which earth can boast. Their hearts were united in the bond of perfectness, charity, and therefore they were glad. That man might well consent to part with the world who, with the world as the price, could purchase a friend, could win to himself the pure love of one purified heart. No wonder they were glad at heart. They loved one another with a pure heart fervently. Their singleness of heart in their attachment to one another made them glad. Love is the proper fruit of the gospel, for faith, which is the reception of the gospel, worketh by love. Love is happiness; pure love is pure happiness; Christian love is Christian happiness, or life eternal in present possession, the life of heaven upon earth. Theirs was therefore the gladness of love free from selfishness, and as free from sectarianism.

IV. But there was one other characteristic of this gladness of heart which must not be omitted, since it points to its source, and is the thing by which it was distinguished from all other joy. This gladness was the joy of faith is Jesus Christ. In all its elements it was the fruit of that faith. Their godliness, their gratitude, was the godliness of faith and the gratitude of faith. Their victory over the world was also the victory of faith: For this is the victory that overcometh the world, even your faith. And their love to one another was love in the Lord, love of faiths producing, for faith worketh by love, which is the believers life. They were glad at heart, because they believed with all their heart. What, then, is the gladness of faith, as it is described here, compared with other joys? Need I show that it was a joy peculiar in its character, and pre-eminently pure and exalted? Need I show that it was an independent, and uniform, and habitual joy? not arising from circumstances of a variable kind, not like the joy of wealth, or of honour, or of pleasure, which may come in a night and depart in a night, which return only at intervals, and soon pall and cease to please, the sooner the oftener they return. Faith may flourish whatever fades; and this joy is as independent and as uniform as is the exercise of faith. Need I show that it is a perpetually increasing joy, a light which shineth more and more unto the perfect day? Every view of God increases it, if we see Him as He is in Jesus Christ. All our intercourse with the world calls it into exercise, and gives it, if we overcome the world, renewed strength. And love produces love. By loving we learn to love, as by walking we learn to walk. (R. Paisley.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 44. And, all that believed] , The believers, i.e. those who conscientiously credited the doctrine concerning the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, and had, in consequence, received redemption in his blood.

Were together] . “These words signify either, in one time, Ac 3:1; or in one place, Ac 2:1; or in one thing. The last of these three senses seems to be the most proper here; for it is not probable that the believers, who were then 3000 in number, Ac 2:41, besides the 120 spoken of Ac 1:15, were used all to meet at one time, or in one place, in Jerusalem.” See Bp. Pearce.

And had all things common] Perhaps this has not been well understood. At all the public religious feasts in Jerusalem, there was a sort of community of goods. No man at such times hired houses or beds in Jerusalem; all were lent gratis by the owners: Yoma, fol. 12. Megill. fol. 26. The same may be well supposed of their ovens, cauldrons, tables, spits, and other utensils. Also, provisions of water were made for them at the public expense; Shekalim, cap. 9. See Lightfoot here. Therefore a sort of community of goods was no strange thing at Jerusalem, at such times as these. It appears, however, that this community of goods was carried farther; for we are informed, Ac 2:45, that they sold their possessions and their goods, and parted them to all, as every man had need. But, this probably means that, as in consequence of this remarkable outpouring of the Spirit of God; and their conversion, they were detained longer at Jerusalem than they had originally intended, they formed a kind of community for the time being, that none might suffer want on the present occasion; as no doubt the unbelieving Jews, who were mockers, Ac 2:13, would treat these new converts with the most marked disapprobation. That an absolute community of goods never obtained in the Church at Jerusalem, unless for a very short time, is evident from the apostolical precept, 2Ch 16:1, c., by which collections were ordered to be made for the poor but, if there had been a community of goods in the Church, there could have been no ground for such recommendations as these, as there could have been no such distinction as rich and poor, if every one, on entering the Church, gave up all his goods to a common stock. Besides, while this sort of community lasted at Jerusalem, it does not appear to have been imperious upon any; persons might or might not thus dispose of their goods, as we learn front the case of Ananias, Ac 5:4. Nor does it appear that what was done at Jerusalem at this time obtained in any other branch of the Christian Church; and in this, and in the fifth chap., where it is mentioned, it is neither praised nor blamed. We may therefore safely infer, it was something that was done at this time, on this occasion, through some local necessity, which the circumstances of the infant Church at Jerusalem might render expedient for that place and on that occasion only.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

All that believed were together; not that they lived together in one house or street, but that they met (and that frequently) together in the holy exercises of their religion; and that manner of some, which St. Paul speaks of, Heb 10:25, to forsake the assembling of themselves together, was a sin not yet known in the church.

And had all things common; this was only at that place, Jerusalem, and at that time, when the wants of some, and the charity of others, may well be presumed to be extraordinary; and there is no such thing as community of goods here required or practised. Christs gospel does not destroy the law; and the eighth commandment is still in force, which it could not be, if there were no propriety, or meum and tuum, now; nay, after this, the possession which Ananias sold is adjudged by this apostle to have been Ananiass own, and so was the money too which he had received for it, Act 5:4. And these all things which they had in common, must either be restrained to such things as every one freely laid aside for the poor; or that it speaks the extraordinary charitable disposition of those new converts, that they would rather have parted with any thing, nay, with their all, than that any of their poor brethren should have wanted.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

44. all that believed were together,and had all things common(See on Ac4:34-37).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And all that believed were together,…. Not in one place, for no one house could hold them all, their number was now so large; but they “agreed together”, as the Arabic version renders it: all these believers were of one mind and judgment, as to doctrines, they agreed in their sentiments and principles of religion; and they were of one heart and soul, were cordially affected to each other, and mutually were assisting to one another in temporals, as well as in spirituals:

and had all things common: that is, their worldly goods, their possessions and estates; no man called anything peculiarly his own; and whatever he had, his brother was welcome to, and might as freely take, and use it, as if it was his own.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Were together ( ). Some MSS. (were and). But they were together in the same place as in 2:1.

And had ( ). Imperfect active, kept on having, a habit in the present emergency.

Common (). It was not actual communism, but they held all their property ready for use for the common good as it was needed (4:32). This situation appears nowhere else except in Jerusalem and was evidently due to special conditions there which did not survive permanently. Later Paul will take a special collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Common [] . Compare fellowship, ver. 42.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “And all that believed were together,” (pantes de hoi pisteusantes epi to auto) “And all those who believed were together,” in colleague or affinity of new covenant church fellowship, of their own accord, to obey their Lord, out of (from) the motivation of love, Joh 14:15, and love one for another, by which all men might know (recognize, perceive, or comprehend) that they were disciples of the Lord indeed, Joh 13:34-35. They sought to pursue the unity or harmony of the Holy Spirit of Promise in peace together, Eph 4:1-4.

2) “And had all things common; (eichon hapanta koina) “And they had all things common,” in salvation in baptismal common identity, in doctrine, in fellowship, in breaking the loaf, sharing meals in common for the hour of need, and in a common access to God in prayers, as explicitly stated later, Act 4:32-34. They were “bearing one another’s burdens,” thus fulfilling the law of Christ, especially in sharing food, clothing, shelter and common needs with the new converts from three continents who remained some time after Pentecost in company of fellowship, prayer, and study of the word, Gal 6:2; Heb 13:2; Mat 25:35; 1Pe 4:9.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

44. And all Whereas I have translated it joined together, it is word for word in St Luke, Into the same, or into one, which may be expounded of the place; as if he should have said that they were wont to dwell together in one place. Notwithstanding, I had rather understand it of their consent (and agreement;) as he will say in the fourth chapter, “That they had one heart,” (Act 4:32.) And so he goeth forward orderly, when, as he beginneth with their mind, he addeth afterward their bountifulness, as a fruit proceeding thence. Therefore, he giveth us to understand that they were rightly joined together with brotherly love amongst themselves, and that they did indeed declare the same, because the rich men did sell their goods that they might help the poor. And this is a singular example of love, and therefore doth Luke record the same, to the end we may know that we must relieve the poverty of our brethren with our plenty.

But this place hath need of a sound exposition, because of fantastical [fanatical] spirits, which do feign a commonalty or participation together of goods, whereby all policy or civil government is taken away; as in this age the Anabaptists have raged, because they thought there was no Church unless all men’s goods were put and gathered together, as it were, in one heap, that they might all one with another take thereof. Wherefore, we must in this point beware of two extremes. For many, under color of policy, do keep close and conceal whatsoever they have; they defraud the poor, and they think that they are twice righteous, so they take away no other men’s goods. Other some are carried into the contrary error, because they would have all things confused. But what doth Luke? Surely he noteth another order, when he saith that there was choice made in the distribution. If any man object that no man had any thing which was his own, seeing all things were common, we may easily answer. For this community or participation together must be restrained unto the circumstance which ensueth immediately; to wit, that the poor might be relieved as every man had need. We know the old proverb, “All things are common amongst friends.” When as the scholars of Pythagoras said thus, they did not deny but that every man might govern his own house privately, neither did they intend to make their own wives common; so this having of things common, whereof Luke speaketh, and which he commendeth, doth not take away household government; which thing shall better appear by the fourth chapter, whereas he nameth two alone which sold their possessions of so many thousands. Whence we gather that which I said even now, that they brought forth and made common their goods in no other respect, save only that they might relieve the present necessity. And the impudency of the monks was ridiculous, who did profess that they did observe the apostles’ rule, because they call nothing their own; and yet, nevertheless, they neither sell any thing, neither yet do they pass for any man’s poverty; (152) but they stuff their idle bellies with the blood of the poor, neither do they regard any other thing in their having of things common, save only that they may be well filled and daintily, although all the whole world be hungry. Wherein, then, are they like to the first disciples, with whom they will be thought to be able to compare? (153)

(152) “ Nec solliciti sunt si quisquam egeat,” nor are solicitous if any man want.

(153) “ Quorum aemuli haberi volunt,” whose rivals they would be thought.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

THE BY-PRODUCTS OF PENTECOST

Act 2:44-47.

ALONG with that apostasy which plainly marks our time, there is running a counter movement which calls upon the Church of God to bestir herself, inasmuch as the time is short and the day of the Lord draweth nigh. A proper interpretation of the seven Epistles to the seven Churches of Asia, found in the Apocalypse, is a profitable presentation of these facts. The same Lord who tells the Church of Laodicea, the Church that is to characterize the end of the age:

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot:

I would thou wert cold or hot.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of My mouthy

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked (Rev 3:5-17);

adds,

I counsel thee to buy of Me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

As many as I love I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent (Rev 3:15-19).

The great George Lorimer, just a while before his death, declared that the need of the hour is that the Church of God should take herself more seriously; that she should realize that the well-being of the community is inextricably interwoven with the success of that which we represent. And he justly affirms that there is a languidness and listlessness in the way of our meeting church obligations which would be fatal to any other enterprise. We are halfhearted and often explosively sensitive, agitating and rending churches through our foolish partisanship, when we ought to be united and fervently zealous. The church is not first with us, nor second, and often not even third. Self-indulgence, amusements and frivolous engagements have the right of way. The prayer meeting has imperative claims on only a few Christians, and by some is neglected for balls and social functions, while week-end parties are welcomed as a medium of relief from the tedium of the sanctuary. Delight in the place where Gods honor dwelleth seems to be a declining joy. Clubs and outside organizations command better service from the Christian people than the churches of which they are members. Movements for the advance of social enterprises or the increase of intelligence arouses their enthusiasm more than concerted endeavors for the promotion of religion and morals.

I am here this morning, by the grace of God, to so interpret this text as to bring this beloved church to take itself more seriously. Let me pick from it three of its central and dominating facts.

REGULARITY IN CHURCH GOING

The spiritual desire of the regenerate soul. The members of the old Church at Jerusalem, of which the Apostles were the leaders, did not forsake the assembling of themselves together. Our text is, And all that believed were together. That single phrase betokens their unity, their good fellowship, their cooperative service. The man who is not drawn to the Christian temple is lacking in evidence of personal conversion. People often come to me with the question, How; shall I know that I am saved? John, in his first Epistle, third chapter and fourteenth verse, answers it: We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren.

A letter received yesterday from my youngest lad absent, at a University, revived afresh the feelings of the first year away from home. He said, I must confess, I am homesick. It is an experience not soon to be forgotten. With me it was the more intense because I was five hundred miles from home instead of fifty, and until that journey was made I had scarcely known the use of steam cars; had never put in a week under a roof with others than my own flesh and blood. Consequently, when I discovered that there was a Kentuckian in the school, I sought him out and felt like I had found an old acquaintance. I knew at least that we had been born under kindred conditions, bred under similar circumstances, and that our history was in common, and conversation was accordingly easy. And next day, learning of another, I went for him, and so on, until every state man in the far away school was my friend.

It would seem, indeed, that to be born of the Spirit of God, to be fed at the same tablethe table of the Lord, and upon the same breadthat of His Word, ought to provide a basis of fellowship above that which natural birth begets. Somehow the babe, supposed to be entirely unconscious, knows the difference between the touch of mother, father, brother and sister, and any stranger that may enter the house; and I bear my testimony that often when consciousness of spiritual indifference has distressed me, and known sins have discouraged, and Satan has come with his railing accusations against both my accomplishments and my character, I have been compelled to fall back upon this Biblical evidence, We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren, for with me, at least, there was a time when my own attitude toward the people of God changed and I suddenly came to love them, and ever since I have counted it the time of my conversion, and believed that it was the evidence of my regeneration.

This fellowship is essential to spiritual life. The Apostles Creed does well to declare in favor of the goodly fellowship of the saints Goodly it is! Paul, writing to the Galatians (Gal 2:9), rejoices that James and Cephas and John, reputed to be pillars in the Church there, gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. Writing to the Philippians (Php 1:5), he declares that he makes his supplications with joy for their fellowship in the furtherance of the Gospel. John, in his first Epistle (1Jn 1:3), says,

That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us.

And a bit later, in the same Epistle, he says,

If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the Blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin (1Jn 1:7).

A further comparison of Scripture with Scripture shows the extreme emphasis put upon Christian fellowship by the first Apostles of the Christian faith. The January number of the Expositor contains a letter which Rev. Thomas H. Sprague, of the Grace Temple Baptist Church, Philadelphia, is accustomed to send out to the newest members of the church immediately after their reception, and in it he says, Allow me again to express to you a hearty welcome into the church. A place in the Church of Jesus Christ is one of the highest honors that can come to us upon earth. It is filled with privilege. We have the privilege of fellowship. That of itself means much to us. Coming into contact with one another as we strive to follow Christ, we are bound to receive greater help, greater incentive, greater devotion. No wonder that the writer to the Hebrews exhorted them not to forsake the assembling of themselves together, because it is only as we associate one with another that we receive mutual assistance.

The men who forget this fact pay dearly for it, and the pitiable thing is that most of them are not even conscious of the losses they have sustained. I have read somewhere of a pastor who mourned over a backslider in his congregationa man who had once been a regular attendant at both prayer meeting and all Sunday services, but now for months had never been seen in the prayer room. The pastor, at the close of a meeting, with burdened heart wended his way to the members home. He found him sitting before an open fire. The layman looked startled, and after having hastily brought a chair for his minister, he settled himself as if ready to hear words of rebuke. The preacher looked calmly at the fire for a moment, then lightly lifting the tongs, he took a glowing coal from the midst of its fires and laid it by itself upon the hearthstone, and without a word watched the blaze die out of it, the fires fade, till finally nothing but ash and cinder remained. The man who had looked on intently was too keen an observer not to understand. Walking over to his pastor, he put his hand upon his shoulder and said, Pastor, you need not say a word, sir, not a word! not a word! I will be there next Sunday and at prayer meeting on Wednesday night. I will tell you there is many a man whose spiritual life has gone to ashes because he has neglected to assemble with the saints of God, and has lost out on the side of goodly fellowship.

This is the explanation of much dissatisfaction. It is unsatisfactory to the church and to the minister, but far more unsatisfactory to the man involved. Only a few years ago Dr. Stanton, that successful Baptist preacher, penned a letter which was widely published to dissatisfied church-members, many of whom are first-class critics of the very institution to which they belong. Dr. Stanton said, The Church of God does just exactly what its members do, and is exactly what they are, no more, no less. Every member in it who does nothing detracts just that much from its usefulness and its consequent influence. The church may be as orthodox as the Bible, but unless it is as useful as the men of the Bible, it will degenerate into a club for the preservation of dead orthodoxy. Let the man who talks about the usefulness of the church lend his assistance in making her so, and shortly his criticism will be turned into commendation. The day you become useful to the church, that day the church will become useful to you. The only reason the people in the church derive no benefit from it is because they are in it, but not of it.

John, in that first Epistle of his, in which he talks so much of the fellowship of the saints and of fellowship with the Lord, finally comes to deal with some who have left that inner circle, and says,

They went out from us; but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us (1Jn 2:19).

Let us not forget that the first feature of this wonderful church life at old Jerusalem was that they were together.

But a second suggestion.

REGULARITY IN CHURCH GIVING

And had all things common, and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need (Act 2:44-45).

Permit two or three remarks concerning Christian giving. You will not dispute some of these even though you argue against others.

It ought to run parallel with Gods blessing. If every good and every perfect gift cometh down from above, from the Father of lights, then shall we be of the company of those who receive but never give, who take in, but never send out, who are like the Dead Sea, with an out-let closed. In the parlance of the slangy times, getting all we can and canning all we get. My friend has a ludicrous story he tells of a close-fisted old fellow who finally fell a victim to rheumatism and for a long time had to be confined to his house. But eventually he was sufficiently recovered to occupy a chair in the midweek prayer meeting. It happened on covenant night and the pastor said, Now we will try to get a testimony from each member to-night. Here is Brother Jones who has come back to us after a long absence. He will stand up and tell us what the Lord has done for him. Whereupon Brother Jones painfully dragged to his feet and said, If I have to bear my testimony I suppose I must. All I got to say about it is that the Lord has most ruined me. There are not a few who are ready to lay up to Gods account the devils work in any form of affliction or disease, but are equally ready to forget all Gods benefits. I have known children like that. Parents might be kind ninety-nine hundredths of the time and be almost constantly on the giving hand, but the moment a refusal or a question arises, the very mouth that never expressed a thank you is filled with complaint and reproaches; and I have known church-members after the same manner. And it is a remarkable thing that the more children have and the more their parents do for them, the more likely they are to exhibit this critical spirit. And this fact often finds a parallel in the Church of God. The ill-favored are not always the least thankful, nor are the most-favored the most grateful.

I am confident that any man who parallels Gods blessing with his gifts will never see a day go over his head without laying by in store something for the treasury of the Lord.

That something ought to be in proportion to Gods blessing. When Paul was writing to the Corinthians regarding a special collection, he introduced a righteous principle by saying, Concerning the collection for the saints * *. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store as he may prosper. One who will take pains to compare Scripture with Scripture will find that is the very principle of the Old Testament teachingmore from the rich, less from the poor, but from each as God has prospered. I have had a good many people object to my preaching on giving lest I get the poor to beggar themselves for the Church of God, but as a rule, it has not been the plain, less financially favored people who have presented that plea, and I do not believe they thank others for speaking in their behalf. I have heard of a Methodist minister who had in one of his charges a well-to-do man that gave regularly every Sabbath day $5.00 for the support of the church. There was in the same church a widow who was supporting herself and six children by washing. She gave just as regularly 5 a week, or a hundredth part of the prospered fellow church-member. This good layman saw her about it and proved his Christianity by going to the minister and saying, That poor woman ought to pay nothing and I want the privilege of paying that 5 a week for her. The pastor was pleased with such a layman and he ought to have been. He called on the widow to tell her in most considerate manner of the kindly proposition, but to his surprise her face filled with pain, tears flooded her cheeks as she asked, Do they want to take away from me even the comfort that I have in giving to my Lord? My health is good; my children keep well; I am the recipient of daily blessings, and one of the greatest joys of my life is the little offering that goes into that envelope each week. I thank God for one man who had religion enough to go beyond a mere criticism of appeal to the poor and propose to bear their burdens; that was proof of his sincerity. But I thank God also for a widow who still recognized that in the midst of hardship and difficult circumstance God had not forsaken her, and who refused to neglect the cause of God.

This giving ought to be in keeping with Gods Word. I am not going to take time this morning to preach another sermon on tithing. The Scriptures are not changed since last I spoke on this subject. It is still true that the tenth is the Lords; the injunction still stands, Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, and prove Me now herewith, saith the Lord, if I will not open the windows of Heaven and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it. If we are not convinced by the plain and multiplied teachings of Scripture, we will hardly be persuaded by the preachers repetition of the same.

This is 1927. In the last five years our Treasurer has received and disbursed in School and Church $1,063,742.60. Some of you far exceed the tenth; but I suspect if all tithed, we should have given double that amount, or more than $2,000,000.00 in these same five years. At any rate, one-half our membership has given the million recorded in Treasury books.

REGULARITY IN GOSPELIZING

And they, 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,

Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved (Act 2:46-47).

Proclaiming the Gospel ought to be the very breath of the new-born. Sometime since, the St. Louis Advocate said, They talk pro and con about evangelists and evangelism. Frequently, one might say habitually, they ignore the fact that every church-member is morally bound to do all the evangelistic work that lies in his power. The church-member who is not an evangelist is missing his opportunities and mistaking his calling. All need not preach; it is not necessary that all should address audiences, or even participate in public gatherings for religious purposes. The quiet evangelism which makes no parade of its purposes, plans or doings, is often wonderfully effective.

The New Testament view knows little difference between the professional evangelist and the consecrated layman. Philip started out the latter, and ere he knew it, he had blossomed into the former. Charles Spurgeon, speaking of that passage in Gods Word which describes the persecution that dispersed the disciples from Jerusalem, says, Most people would think that Scripture ought to read, Then the Apostles went everywhere preaching the Gospel. On the contrary they did not go at all. They remained at headquarters as yet. But the rest of the Church went everywhere preaching the Gospel. A general may have to stand still in the midst of the army and direct the forces, or even take a position in the rear for the same purpose, but the common soldier should fill his place, keep step to the music and be ever ready for the conflict.

We have the laymans movement in a multitude of forms. God grant that it may mean a loosening of the laymans tongue to tell, as did the redeemed Gadarene, how great things the Lord has done for him.

The private ministry of the first century was the secret of spiritual power, and never so long as the churches propose to delegate to a professional body the burden of testimony will the Gospel be proclaimed according to the Divine purpose, or the Church mark a Divinely appointed progress. The man who was healed at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple, went with the Apostles into the Temple, walking and leaping and praising God. I believe that with the new birthnew spiritual lifethere is as positive a tendency to speech as is in the babes desire to prattle, and that the dumb child in Gods family is no more desirable than the dumb child in the domestic circle.

Our testimony ought to be in the language of the Word. There is a positive religious and logical sequence in the statement, They continued stedfastly in the Apostles teaching, and the phrase, The Lord added to them daily those that were being saved. The Apostles teaching may be summed up in one wordChrist. Paul, the matchless preacher of them all, declared, I am determined to know nothing among you save Christ and Him crucified. Christ is the Gospelthe end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Charles Spurgeon spoke truthfully when he said, The faith of the Scriptures has Christ for its center, Christ for its circumference, and Christ for its substance. The Name that is the person, the character, the work, the teachings of Christ. This is the faith of Christians. Let the eighth chapter of Acts illustrate. Philip down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ unto them. It was when they believed Philips preaching the things concerning the Name of Jesus Christ, and the Kingdom of God, that they were baptized. And Philip never knew a time in his experience when he found it necessary to depart from that custom. Later, when he came to deal with the noted treasurer of Candace, he did not accommodate himself to Egyptian philosophy, nor clothe his speech in the language of learning, but he opened his mouth and began at the same Scripture and preached unto him Jesus. And after all that has been said (and almost every printed page is now the modicum of it) by modern thinkers, that the demands of the modern man necessitate the accommodating of the Gosper, the restating old truths, and all the rest, it still remains a fact, daily illustrated by church history, that we need no new Gospel, but rather the same great truths in the same Divine phrases. Charles Spurgeon had good occasion for saying, My confidence in the old Gospel grows as I see the speedy failure of all the quackeries of succeeding years. The methods of the modern school are a bottle of smoke. Christ crucified is the only remedy for sin. It is ours to keep to the Gospel of Life, for it is a truth that whosoever believeth on the Lord Jesus Christ hath everlasting life, and, There is none other Name given under heaven and among men whereby we must be saved.

This proclamation ought to be inspired by soul interest. Jowett has a volume on The Passion for Souls. We need to get that passion out of books and into lives. Almost daily I am face to face with some such a presentation of ideas as made up the burden of Dr. Faunces address before a Baptist Convention on Treasure in Earthly Vessels, and almost hourly hear the call to social service. I do not object to it, but I insist that no service is truly social, and at the same time uplifting and helpful, until it is spiritual; and I insist that no orator of socialism is worthy to be mentioned in the same breath with those spiritual pathologists whose lives were big with the passion to redeem their own.

There are many men in America who can write eloquently enough on The Coming Future of Japan, but the work of the true missionarythe work of bringing Christ to the children, Christ to the men and women of Japanis worth more than ten thousand such treatises, for when they have received Jesus, they then have a motive for living that the eloquent modernist has not even imagined, much less prescribed. And when Christ has come into their hearts they have a basis of education, for civilization such as cannot exist apart from that experience.

There is a bit of history associated with Livingstone in Africa that will suffice for my final illustration. Dr. Meyer tells us that when Livingstone went to Africa there was a Scotch woman, Mrs. MacRobert, quite advanced in years, who had saved up thirty pounds. She came to the great missionary saying, When you get to Africa please spare yourself needless pain and toil. Use this money; hire a body servant to care for you. So when he reached Africa he hired a man by the name of Sebalwe to attend him. One day a lion sprang upon Mr. Livingstone, crushing the bones of his left arm and was ready to destroy him, when this man leaped at the lion and drew attention to himself so that the lion turned from Livingstone and sprang at him; but the bullets of their companions pierced the beasts heart and he fell dead at Sebalwes feet. The body servant hired by the Scotch woman had saved the great missionary and meant light to darkest Africa, and I cannot help feeling that a proper sense of responsibility upon the part of those of us who know all the luxury of American life, might save many years of our representatives in foreign lands and extend an influence that is the most effective known in bringing all nations to acknowledge Jesus as Lord, hastening that Kingdom for which we pray, as He taught us, that it should come.

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

(44) All that believed were together. . . .The writer dwells with a manifest delight on this picture of what seemed to him the true ideal of a human society. Here there was a literal fulfilment of his Lords words (Luk. 12:33), a society founded, not on the law of self-interest and competition, but on sympathy and self-denial. They had all things in common, not by a compulsory abolition of the rights of property (see Act. 5:4), but by the spontaneous energy of love. The gift of the Spirit showed its power, not only in tongues and prophecy, but in the more excellent way of charity. It was well that that inimitable glow of love should manifest itself for a time to be a beacon-light to after ages, even if experience taught the Church in course of time that this generous and general distribution was not the wisest method of accomplishing permanent good, and that here also a discriminate economy, such as St. Paul taught (2Th. 3:10; 1Ti. 3:8), was necessary as a safe-guard against abuse. It was, we may perhaps believe, partly in consequence of the rapid exhaustion of its resources thus brought about, that the Church at Jerusalem became dependent for many years upon the bounty of the churches of the Gentiles. (See Note on Act. 11:29.)

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

44. Together Not residing together, but united together, having their common family reunions at their agapes.

All things common Common not by joint ownership, but by freedom of use. On this special liberality we may note, 1. It partly arose from the non-resident or pilgrim character of a large part of the converts. (See note on Act 2:5.) 2. It was not an obligatory rule; the laws of ownership or property were not disturbed or questioned. Even Ananias might have kept all his lands unblamed. (Note on Act 5:4.) 3. This liberality was local, being confined to Jerusalem; and temporary, not surviving the dispersion of the Church by the Sauline persecution. 4. It was not what Renan calls it, a coenobitical or communistic institute, had no monastic quality, but was a common impartation arising from the exigency of the times and the free spirit of Christian love. 5. The Jerusalem Church, under pressure of the hierarchy, was a long time impoverished, and Paul labored largely for contributions to its poor during years of his ministry.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Act 2:44-45. And had all things common; Peculiar reasons made this community of goods eligible at that time; especially as many sojourners, who had come from other parts, would justly be desirous to continue at Jerusalem much longer than they intended when they came up to the feast, in order that they might gain a thorough knowledge of the gospel. But the New Testament abounds with passages, which plainly show, that this was never intended for a general practice: the Gentiles did not fall into it when the gospel came to them; and none of St. Paul’s epistles contain intimations or directions for such a practice. The Jewish converts acted thus at this time and place, though not by command, yet doubtless with the approbation of the apostles.Butnonecanreasonablyimaginethatthe number of Christian converts, even then at Jerusalem, is to be accounted for by a desire to share in these divided goods; for it is evident, that as the portion each could have, would be very small, so the hardships to be endured for a Christian profession would soon counter-balance such advantages; and accordingly we find the converts at Jerusalem were soon reduced to such necessitous circumstances, as to need relief by the contributions of their Gentile brethren. Candour would rather lead men to argue the incontestable evidence of the gospel, from its prevailing on the professors of it to part with their estates to relieve persons, who, except in the community of their faith, had no particular claim to their regard. If such instances were numerous, this argument is strengthened in proportion; and if they be supposed few, the objection is proportionably weakened: however, the present is most certainly a noble and eminent instance of that disinterestedness, self-denial, and benevolence, which the gospel was designed to produce in the minds of men; and this is indeed the true Christian spirit, which is carefully to be cultivated bysuch as profess themselves the disciples of Jesus, in everyage and nation; though they are not obliged to exert it in the same kind or degree. See Christ’s prayer for the unity of his disciples, John 17 particularly Act 2:21.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Act 2:44-45 . But ( , continuative) as regards the development of the church-life , which took place amidst that without and this miracle-working of the apostles, all were . This, as in Act 1:15 , Act 2:1 , is to be understood as having a local reference, and not with Theophylact, Kypke, Heinrichs, and Kuinoel: de animorum consensu , which is foreign to N. T. usage. They were accustomed all to be together . This is not strange, when we bear in mind the very natural consideration that after the feast many of the three thousand of whom, doubtless, a considerable number consisted of pilgrims to the feast returned to their native countries; so that the youthful church at Jerusalem does not by any means seem too large to assemble in one place .

] they possessed all things in common, i.e. all things belonged to all, were a common good. According to the more particular explanation which Luke himself gives ( , comp. Act 4:32 ), we are to assume not merely in general a distinguished beneficence, liberality, and mutual rendering of help , [139] or “ a prevailing willingness to place private property at the disposal of the church ” (de Wette, comp. Neander, Baum garten, Lechler, p. 320 ff., also Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 90, and already Mosheim, Diss, ad hist. eccl. pertin. II. p. 1 ff., Kuinoel, and others); but a real community of goods in the early church at Jerusalem, according to which the possessors were wont to dispose of their lands and their goods generally, and applied the money sometimes themselves (Act 2:44 f., Act 4:32 ), and sometimes by handing it to the apostles (Act 5:2 ), for the relief of the wants of their fellow-Christians. See already Chrysostom. But for the correct understanding of this community of goods and its historical character (denied by Baur and Zeller), it is to be observed: (1) It took place only in Jerusalem . For there is no trace of it in any other church; on the contrary, elsewhere the rich and the poor continued to live side by side, and Paul in his letters had often to inculcate beneficence in opposition to selfishness and . Comp. also Jam 5:1 ff.; 1Jn 3:17 . And this community of goods at Jerusalem helps to explain the great and general poverty of the church in that city, whose possessions naturally certainly also in the hope of the Parousia speedily occurring were soon consumed. As the arrangement is found in no other church, it is very probable that the apostles were prevented by the very experience acquired in Jerusalem from counselling or at all introducing it elsewhere. (2) This community of goods was not ordained as a legal necessity, but was left to the free will of the owners . This is evident, from Act 5:4 ; Act 12:12 . Nevertheless, (3) in the yet fresh vigour of brotherly love (Bengel on Act 4:34 aptly says: “non nisi summo fidei et amoris flori convenit”), it was, in point of fact, general in the church of Jerusalem , as is proved from this passage and from the express assurance at Act 4:32 ; Act 4:34 f., in connection with which the conduct of Barnabas, brought forward in Act 4:36 , is simply a concrete instance of the general practice. (4) It was not an institution borrowed from the Essenes [140] (in opposition to Grotius, Heinrichs, Ammon, Schneckenburger). For it could not have arisen without the guidance of the apostles; and to attribute to them any sort of imitation of Essenism, would be devoid alike of internal probability and of any trace in history, as, indeed, the first fresh form assumed by the life of the church must necessarily be conceived as a development from within under the impulse of the Spirit. (5) On the contrary, the relation arose very naturally, and that from within, as a continuation and extension of that community of goods which subsisted in the case of Jesus Himself and His disciples , the wants of all being defrayed from a common purse. It was the extension of this relation to the whole church, and thereby, doubtless, the putting into practice of the command Luk 12:33 , but in a definite form. That Luke here and in Act 4:32 ; Act 4:34 expresses himself too strongly (de Wette), is an arbitrary assertion. Schneckenburger, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 514 ff., and Ewald have correctly apprehended the matter as an actual community of goods. Comp. Ritschl, altkath. Kirche , p. 232.

] the landed possessions (belonging to him). See v. 1; Xen. Oec. 20. 23; Eustath. ad Il. vi. p. 685. : possessions in general , Polyb. ii. 17. 11; Heb 10:34 , and Bleek in loc.

] it , namely, the proceeds . The reference is involved in the preceding verb ( ). Comp. Luk 18:22 ; Joh 12:5 . See generally, Winer, p. 138 [E. T. 181 f.].

] just as any one had need , with the indicative denotes: “accidisse aliquid non certo quodam tempore, sed quotiescunque occasio ita ferret.” Herm. ad Viger. p. 820. Comp. Act 4:35 ; Mar 6:56 ; Krger, Anab. i. 5. 2; Khner, ad Mem. i. 1. 16; and see on 1Co 12:2 .

[139] Comp. also Hundeshagen in Herzog’s Encykl. III. p. 26. In this view the Pythagorean might be compared with it (Rittersh. ad Porphyr. Vit. Pyth. p. 46).

[140] See Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 3 f. The Pythagoreans also had a community of goods. See Jamblich. Vita Pyth. 168. 72; Zeller, p. 504. See, in opposition to the derivation from Essenism, von Wegnern in the Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol. XI. 2, p. 1 ff., Ewald and Ritschl.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

DISCOURSE: 1741
THE STATE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS

Act 2:44-47. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, 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, praising God, and haling favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved.

THE true nature of Christianity would be very imperfectly discovered by any one who should look for it in the conduct of the Christian world. The generality of those who name the name of Christ, differ but little from those who never heard of his name. And even among those who profess a regard for religion, there is but a small measure of that spirit which may be discerned among the early converts. In the Churches of this day will be found a form of godliness, but very little of its power. We must go to the Scriptures, and to the accounts given us of the first Christians, to see what vital religion is. There we behold it in all its purity. Let us contemplate it as exhibited by those who were converted on the day of Pentecost. In our text we may behold,

I.

Their charity

This was more extensive than any that can be found on record in the annals of the world. A few individuals perhaps may be found, who have evinced an unbounded love towards those who had long been connected with them in the ties of friendship: but here the whole body of believers were animated by the same spirit towards each other, even towards those whom they had never so much as seen till that hour: all were divested of every selfish feeling, and sacrificed their own personal interests for the good of the whole.
But here arises an important question; Is their conduct in this particular a model for our imitation. I answer,
We certainly are not called to perform the same specific act

[That act arose out of the circumstances of the Church at that time. Some indeed have suggested, that they acted thus from an assured expectation that either they should be speedily dispossessed of their property by the violence of persecution, or that they should ere long suffer the loss of it in the general destruction of the Jewish polity. But such an idea as this divests their conduct of all its excellence; since it would have been no virtue at all to sell what they knew would soon be taken from them, and to give away what they could not retain. They proceeded on far different grounds from these. Of the multitude who were converted, great numbers came from a distance to the feast, not expecting to continue at Jerusalem more than a few days: but now that they were led to just views of Christianity, they would on no account lose the opportunities they enjoyed of obtaining further instruction from their inspired teachers: of course therefore, unless assisted by others, they must be left destitute of necessary food: and, if necessitated to depend on others who were enemies to this new religion, they could expect but little aid, and would therefore be under a, strong temptation to renounce Christianity as soon as they had embraced it. Besides, of those who lived at Jerusalem, many would probably become objects of virulent persecution, so as to be deprived of all that they possessed; and therefore that none might be reduced to abject want, the whole body formed one common stock for the supply of all; the richer making their abundance a supply for the necessities of the more indigent [Note: Compare Act 4:32; Act 4:34-35.]. This however was perfectly voluntary on their part; for St. Peter told Ananias that he was under no obligation to part with his property [Note: Act 5:4.]; and the whole tenour of Scripture supposes that there must be different ranks and orders of men, who are called to the performance of distinct and appropriate duties [Note: The command given to the Rich Youth was also peculiar to him. Luk 18:22.].]

But the principle from which they acted is of universal and unalterable obligation

[Love was the principle by which they were actuated: and it is characteristic of love, that it seeketh not its own [Note: 1Co 13:5.]: it puts off selfishness, and seeks its happiness in contributing to the happiness of others. A person under the influence of this principle considers all that he possesses as belonging to God, and as a talent with which he is entrusted for the benefit of mankind. Hence he is glad to distribute, and willing to communicate, whenever a just occasion for liberality presents itself, and especially towards the household of faith: and if the particular circumstances of the Church call for such a sacrifice, he is ready, as far as the occasion requires it, to comply literally with that command of Christ, Sell that ye have, and give alms; for whatever treasure he may possess on earth, his chief desire is to have treasure in heaven [Note: Luk 12:33-34.]. True indeed it is, that there are not many who, like the Macedonians, give according to their power, yea and beyond their power [Note: 2Co 8:3-4.]; and fewer still who, like the poor widow, give their last mite unto the Lord: in too many instances there is rather reason to complain with St. Paul, that all men seek their own, and not the things of Jesus Christ: but still the injunction, Seek not every man his own, but every man anothers wealth, is as much in force as ever; and we ought, if called to it, to lay down, not our property only, but even our own lives for the brethren.]

Of an equally exalted kind was,

II.

Their piety

They gave up themselves wholly, as it were, to the exercises of religion. But here the same question, as before, recurs; How far was their conduct in this respect a model for our imitation? And the same answer must be returned to it:
We are not called to follow them in the act

[The occasion was so peculiar, as to justify, and even require, a peculiar mode of acting. Our circumstances are extremely different from theirs. We have duties which cannot be neglected, without great injury to society, and dishonour to God: and, if every one, from the moment that he became religious, were to lay aside all his worldly business, he would place in the way of the ungodly such a stumbling-block as would prove almost subversive of Christianity itself. To do our own business, and not to be slothful in business, are as much commanded, as to be fervent in spirit, serving the Lord. We therefore cannot be called to such a line of conduct as is incompatible with the discharge of all our social duties.]
But in principle we must resemble them

[They gave themselves up wholly unto God: and so must it also be our meat and drink to do the will of our heavenly Father. We must love him with all our heart, and mind, and soul, and strength; and yield up to him our bodies and our souls a living sacrifice, and glorify him with our bodies and our spirits, which are his. Whatever be our calling in life, there can be no reason why we should not delight ourselves in God, and live, not to ourselves, but unto him that died for us and rose again. Why should not every one of us have the same frame of mind as David, whose duties must certainly have been as numerous and important as any that we are called to perform [Note: Psa 63:1-5; Psa 84:1-4; Psa 84:10.]? We cannot, as has before been observed, be constantly engaged in religious duties; but we may have our hearts always disposed for the enjoyment of them [Note: 1Th 5:16-18.]: and it is certainly incumbent on us to embrace all seasonable opportunities of waiting upon God in the Church, and at his table, and in our families and the closet. Our daily intercourse with our friends should also be improved for the advancement of true religion, and every returning meal should afford us an occasion of enjoying and glorifying our heavenly Benefactor [Note: 1Jn 1:3.]. It is our privilege, as much as that of the primitive Christians, to eat our meat with gladness and singleness of heart, blessing and praising God.]

With such knowledge of their conduct we may expect to hear of,

III.

Their increase

Their conduct conciliated the regard of all the people
[Doubtless the natural man hates the light, because the evil of his own ways is exposed by it. Yet there is something in true religion which approves its excellence, even to the very people who hate it. Herod, from a full conviction that John was a just and holy man, feared him, and complied with his advice in many particulars; though afterwards he imprisoned him and put him to death. Thus the wonderful change that was wrought upon the first converts, from selfishness to charity, and from irreligion to the most exalted piety, excited the admiration and the love of all.
How blessed is it, where the conduct of professors is so exemplary, as to put to silence the ignorance of foolish men, and to engage the esteem of those who are condemned by it! We must not indeed expect always to secure the favour of men; but we should endeavour so to act as to deserve it.]

Their numbers also were increased from day to day
[Doubtless conversion is the fruit of divine grace alone: Whether Paul plant, or Apollos water, it is God alone that can give the increase. Yet God uses various means to accomplish this work; and one of peculiar efficacy is, the conduct of his people: by that he puts to silence the ignorance of foolish men, and constrains them to glorify him in the day of visitation, It is highly probable that the exalted piety and unbounded charity of the first converts were greatly instrumental to the conversion of those around them. Every one of them was a preacher in his own house, by his actions at least, if not by words. And O! what might not be hoped for, if all who profess religion, breathed the spirit that displayed itself at that period of the Church? Truly, many might be awakened to a concern for their souls, and be constrained to say, We will go with you; for we perceive that God is with you of a truth. Let this be borne in mind, as an incentive to a continual progress in holiness; and let us strive so to make our light shine before men, that others, beholding our good works, may glorify our Father which is in heaven.]

We may learn from hence,
1.

At what a low ebb religion is amongst us!

[If we compare our attainments with those recorded in our text, what reason shall we see to blush and be ashamed! How has selfishness triumphed over charity, and lukewarmness assumed the place of piety! But let us not imagine that religion is different now from what it was in that day. Some difference in our mode of exercising religion may justly be admitted: but in our spirit there should be no difference at all: God is the same gracious God as ever; his Gospel is as worthy of all acceptation as ever; and the blessings we receive by means of it are as great as ever: and therefore we ought to feel its power and evince its efficacy, as much as others have done at any period of the Church. Let us then set this example before our eyes, and endeavour to walk even as they walked.]

2.

How we may be instrumental to the increase of the Church

[Much may be done, very much, by every member of the Church of Christ. The influence of a bright example is still as great as ever. As any instance of misconduct in professors hardens others against the truth, so the beauty of holiness exhibited by them has a powerful tendency to win the souls of adversaries. If, on the one hand, by an uncharitable or irreligious deportment, we may destroy many souls for whom Christ died, so, by a life becoming the Gospel, we may win many who never would have obeyed the preached word. Let us then attend to our conduct in every state and circumstance of life: let us look well to the whole of our spirit and temper, that we may not even in the smallest matter cause the enemy to speak reproachfully, but rather may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

Ver. 44. Were together ] There is a special tie to constancy in the communion of saints and community of supplies.

And had all things common ] This was voluntary, not necessary. Non fuit praeceptum, sed susceptum, saith Piscator.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

44 .] If it surprise us that so large a number should be continually assembled together (for such is certainly the sense, not ‘fraterno amore conjunctos,’ as Calvin) we must remember that a large portion of the three thousand were persons who had come up to Jerusalem for the feast, and would by this time have returned to their homes.

] they had all things (in) common , i.e. no individual property, but one common stock : see ch. Act 4:32 . That this was literally the case with the infant church at Jerusalem, is too plainly asserted in these passages to admit of a doubt. Some have supposed the expressions to indicate merely a partial community of goods: ‘non omnia vendiderunt, sed partem bonorum, qu sine magno incommodo carere poterant,’ Wetstein; contrary to the express assertion of ch. Act 4:32 . In order, however, rightly to understand this community , we may remark: (1) It is only found in the Church at Jerusalem . No trace of its existence is discoverable any where else: on the contrary, St. Paul speaks [constantly] of the rich and the poor, see 1Ti 6:17 ; 1Co 16:2 [ Gal 2:10 ; 2Co 8:13-15 ; 2Co 9:6-7 ]: also St. James, Jas 2:1-5 ; Jas 4:13 . And from the practice having at first prevailed at Jerusalem, we may [partly] perhaps explain the great and constant poverty of that church, Rom 15:25-26 ; 1Co 16:1-3 ; 2Co 8:9 ; also ch. Act 11:30 ; Act 24:17 .

The non-establishment of this community elsewhere may have arisen from the inconveniences which were found to attend it in Jerusalem: see ch. Act 6:1 . (2) This community of goods was not, even in Jerusalem, enforced by rule , as is evident from ch. Act 5:4 [ Act 12:12 ], but, originating in free-will, became perhaps an understood custom, still however in the power of any individual not to comply with. (3) It was not (as Grotius and Heinrichs thought) borrowed from the Essenes (see Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 3), with whom the Apostles, who certainly must have sanctioned this community, do not appear historically to have had any connexion. But (4) it is much more probabl that it arose from a continuation , and application to the now increased number of disciples, of the community in which our Lord and His Apostles had lived (see Joh 12:6 ; Joh 13:29 ) before . (The substance of this note is derived from Meyer, in loc.)

The practice probably did not long continue even at Jerusalem: see Rom 15:26 , note.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 2:44 . . . ., cf. Act 3:24 , all, i.e. , not only those who had recently joined, Act 2:41 . , see note on Act 1:15 ; here of place. Theophylact takes it of the unanimity in the Church, but this does not seem to be in accordance with the general use of the phrase in the N.T. = , (Hesychius). Blass points out that demands , and if we omit this word (W.H [130] ) we must supply with , as could not stand (W.H [131] ). The difficulty raised by Hilgenfeld, Wendt, Holtzmann, Overbeck, in this connection as to the number is exaggerated, whether we meet it or not by supposing that some of this large number were pilgrims who had come up to the Feast, but who had now returned to their homes. For in the first place, cannot be taken to mean that all the believers were always assembled in one and the same place. The reading in [132] , Act 2:46 , may throw light upon the expression in this verse , or the phrase may be referred to their assembling together in the Temple, Act 2:46 , and Act 5:12 may be quoted in support of this, where all the believers apparently assemble in Solomon’s Porch. It is therefore quite arbitrary to dismiss the number here or in Act 4:4 as merely due to the idealising tendency of the Apostles, or to the growth of the Christian legend. , “held all things common,” R.V. Blass and Weiss refer these words with to the assembling of the Christians together for common meals and find in the statement the exact antithesis to the selfish conduct in 1Co 11:20-21 . But the words also demand a much wider reference. On the Community of Goods,” see additional note at end of chapter.

[130] Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.

[131] Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.

[132] R(omana), in Blass, a first rough copy of St. Luke.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

believed. App-150.

together. See Act 2:1.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

44.] If it surprise us that so large a number should be continually assembled together (for such is certainly the sense, not fraterno amore conjunctos, as Calvin)-we must remember that a large portion of the three thousand were persons who had come up to Jerusalem for the feast, and would by this time have returned to their homes.

] they had all things (in) common, i.e. no individual property, but one common stock: see ch. Act 4:32. That this was literally the case with the infant church at Jerusalem, is too plainly asserted in these passages to admit of a doubt. Some have supposed the expressions to indicate merely a partial community of goods: non omnia vendiderunt, sed partem bonorum, qu sine magno incommodo carere poterant, Wetstein; contrary to the express assertion of ch. Act 4:32. In order, however, rightly to understand this community, we may remark: (1) It is only found in the Church at Jerusalem. No trace of its existence is discoverable any where else: on the contrary, St. Paul speaks [constantly] of the rich and the poor, see 1Ti 6:17; 1Co 16:2 [Gal 2:10; 2Co 8:13-15; 2Co 9:6-7]: also St. James, Jam 2:1-5; Jam 4:13. And from the practice having at first prevailed at Jerusalem, we may [partly] perhaps explain the great and constant poverty of that church, Rom 15:25-26; 1Co 16:1-3; 2Co 8:9; also ch. Act 11:30; Act 24:17.

The non-establishment of this community elsewhere may have arisen from the inconveniences which were found to attend it in Jerusalem: see ch. Act 6:1. (2) This community of goods was not, even in Jerusalem, enforced by rule, as is evident from ch. Act 5:4 [Act 12:12], but, originating in free-will, became perhaps an understood custom, still however in the power of any individual not to comply with. (3) It was not (as Grotius and Heinrichs thought) borrowed from the Essenes (see Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 3), with whom the Apostles, who certainly must have sanctioned this community, do not appear historically to have had any connexion. But (4) it is much more probabl that it arose from a continuation, and application to the now increased number of disciples, of the community in which our Lord and His Apostles had lived (see Joh 12:6; Joh 13:29) before. (The substance of this note is derived from Meyer, in loc.)

The practice probably did not long continue even at Jerusalem: see Rom 15:26, note.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

[44. , all) though sprung from entirely different nations. At what a wide distance, alas! we are removed from that unity in the present day.-V. g.]

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

had: Act 4:32, Act 5:4, Act 6:1-3, 2Co 8:9, 2Co 8:14, 2Co 8:15, 2Co 9:6-15, 1Jo 3:16-18

Reciprocal: Exo 10:26 – cattle Lev 25:6 – General 2Ch 35:8 – his princes Est 9:22 – sending portions Mat 13:44 – for joy Luk 14:13 – call Luk 18:22 – sell Luk 19:8 – Behold Luk 21:4 – all Act 4:23 – they Act 11:29 – to send Act 17:4 – some Rom 12:8 – giveth 1Ti 6:18 – ready Heb 6:10 – which Heb 13:1 – General

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

4

Common is from KOINOS, and Thayer defines it at this place with the one word that is used in the text. He then explains it, to mean, “belonging to several.” Robinson defines it, “common, shared alike by all.” This will be more specifically brought out in the next verse.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Act 2:44-45. The question of community of goods in the early Church is discussed in Excursus (B) at the end of this chapter.

And all that believed were together. This means that they assembled together. There were probably, even at this early period, several places of assembly for the followers of Jesus at Jerusalem.

And had all things common, etc. There is no doubt but that this was an attempt to live as nearly as possible the life lived by Jesus and His disciples during the days of His ministry on earth, when literally they had all things common. In the Excursus (B) the limitations of this community of goods are fully considered. We must, however, bear in mind that this communism among the early Christians only existed at Jerusalem, and then was certainly not compulsory or universal even in the first days.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Act 2:44-45. And all that believed were together Meeting as frequently as possible, even in the same place, and at the same time. Or, if this was impracticable, (their number being already, at least, three thousand one hundred and twenty, and in a few days several thousands more,) they probably assembled, as Dr. Lightfoot explains it, in several distinct companies, or congregations, according as their languages, nations, or other circumstances, brought and kept them together. And had all things in common That is, such was their mutual affection and love to each other, that they chose rather to part with their property, whatever it was, than that any of their brethren should want; and accordingly they who had estates, or any other valuable possessions, sold them, and parted the price of them to all men That is, to their brethren; as every man had need Herein, it is probable, they had an eye to the command which Christ gave to the rich man, as a test of his sincerity; sell what thou hast, and give to the poor. Not that this was intended for an example, or to be a constant and binding rule to all Christians, in all places and ages; as if they were bound to sell all their property, and give the money arising from the sale in charity. For St. Paul, in his epistles, after this, often speaks of the rich and poor, as distinguished from each other; and Christ said, The poor you have always with you; evidently meaning that this always would, more or less, be the case among his followers. Indeed, the New Testament abounds with passages which plainly show that what now took place at Jerusalem, was not intended to be a general practice in the church of Christ. But the case was now extraordinary; and, as Dr. Doddridge observes, peculiar reasons made this community of goods eligible at this time; not only as so many sojourners, who had come from other parts, would justly be desirous to continue at Jerusalem much longer than they intended, when they came up to the feast, that they might get a thorough knowledge of the gospel; but as the prospect, likewise, of the Roman conquests, which, according to Christs known prediction, were soon to swallow up all Jewish property, would of course dispose many more readily to sell their lands. For they who believed Christ to be a divinely-commissioned teacher, must believe that the Jewish nation would shortly be destroyed, and an end put to the possession of goods and estates by the Jews in Judea; and in the belief of that, the converted Jews resident in the country wisely sold theirs for the present service of Christ and his church, before they were snatched from them by the enemy. It does not appear, however, that the apostles enjoined this upon any of them, as an absolute duty; for Peter tells Ananias,

(Act 5:4,) that the possession he had sold was his own property before he had sold it, and that, after he had disposed of it, the price he had received for it was still in his own power, to have given, or not given, the whole or any part of it. But by this conduct, these first Christians manifested in a remarkable manner their firm faith in the declarations and predictions of Christ, respecting the calamities coming on Judea, their deadness to, and contempt of, this world, their assurance of another, their love to their brethren, their compassion for the poor, and their great zeal for the encouraging of Christianity, and the nursing of it in its infancy. The apostles left all to follow Christ, and were to give themselves wholly to the ministry of the word, and prayer; it was necessary, therefore, that something should be done for their maintenance; so that this extraordinary liberality was like that of Israel in the wilderness, toward the building of the tabernacle, which needed to be restrained. It is true the apostles, who wrought so many wonderful miracles, could probably have maintained themselves and the poor that were among them miraculously, as Christ fed thousands with little food; but it was as much for the glory of God that it should be done by a miracle of grace, inclining people to sell their estates to do it, as if it had been done by a miracle in nature. In the mean time, the gospel-word from their mouths did wonders, and God blessed their endeavours for the increase of the number of believers, adding to the church daily such as should be, or, as the word rather means, such as were saved Namely, from the guilt and power of their sins, by believing in Christ.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

44, 45. We are next introduced to a striking instance of the fellowship previously mentioned. (44) “Now all who believed were together, and had all things common, (45) and sold their possessions and goods, and distributed them to all, as any one had need.” This was not a community of goods, by which all were placed on a pecuniary level; for distribution was made only as any one had need. It was only such liberality to the poor as should characterize the congregations of the Lord in every age and country. Poor brethren must not be allowed to suffer for the necessaries of life, though it require us to divide with them the last loaf in our possession. “He who has this world’s goods and sees his brother have need, and shuts up his compassion from him, how dwells the love of God in him?” We will, hereafter, see that the Church in Jerusalem was not the only one which engaged in this species of benevolence. This conduct was in marked contrast with the neglect of the poor which was then common among the Jews, even in violation of their own law, and which was universal among the Gentiles. Nothing of this kind had ever been seen on earth before. We will refer to the subject again, under iv. 32, below.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

COMMUNITY OF GOODS

44, 45. A number of concurrent events superinduced this community of goods:

(a) The suddenness of the Pentecostal revival catching thousands of those delegates from Jewish synagogues in every nation under heaven, who had only brought supplies for their expeditious peregrinations, and were consequently dependent on the Jerusalem saints for support;

(b) amid the rage of men and devils, the magnates of church and state arrayed against the despised Nazarenes and determined to crush them in blood, obliterating the very memory of Jesus from the earth, there is every probability of forfeiting their estates by confiscation;

(c) all the primitive Christians were on the constant outlook for their Lord to return from heaven and take them away, as He had said with His valedictory lips, Behold! I come quickly. In that case, of course they would have no use for their estates. Amid these environments and inspirations we do not wonder at the forty-fifth verse, i. e., They continued to sell their real estates and private properties and distribute the same to all as any one had need. Should all Christendom practice the community of goods? It would certainly be very pertinent as well as altogether probable amid the circumstances which peculiarize the Pentecostians. But remember God makes the circumstances; they are His providences, and we have no right to make them.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 44

Had all things common; as explained below.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

2:44 {13} And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

(13) Charity makes all things common with regard to their use, according as necessity requires.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

These early believers had frequent contact with each other. Communal living was voluntary and temporary in the Jerusalem church (Act 4:32; Act 4:34-35; Act 5:4); it was not forced socialism or communism. No other New Testament church practiced communal living to the extent that the Jerusalem Christians did. The New Testament nowhere commands communal living, and Acts does not refer to it after chapter five. [Note: See Brian Capper, "The Palestinian Cultural Context of Earliest Christian Community of Goods," in The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 323-56; and Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, "The Cenacle-Topographical Setting for Acts 2:44-45," in ibid., pp. 303-22.]

The believers’ willingness to sell their property (real estate, cf. Act 5:37) and personal possessions to help others in need demonstrated true Christian love. One writer argued that Luke’s portrait of the early church was true to reality and not an idealized picture. [Note: Alan J. Thompson, "Unity in Acts: Idealization or Reality?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51:3 (September 2008):523-42.] Others have disputed this claim. [Note: E.g., S. S. Bartchy, "Community of Goods in Acts: Idealization or Social Reality?" in The Future of Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, pp. 309-18).] The believers were probably giving to non-believers as well as to their Christian brethren, but what Luke stressed was their sacrificial giving to one another. Beside Christian love it may have been their hope that Jesus Christ would return very soon that motivated them to live as they did. Furthermore since Jesus had predicted judgment on Jerusalem, what was the use of keeping property?

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)