Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 4:32

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any [of them] that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

32 37. Unanimity and Love among the first Christians

32. of one heart and of one soul ] A Hebrew form of expressing complete accord. Thus (1Ch 12:38) “all the rest of Israel were of one heart to make David king,” and (Jer 32:39) “I will give them one heart and one way.”

neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own ] It is more emphatic in the Greek, and not one of them said, &c. Each felt that he held his possessions only as a trust, and if occasion called for it, they were to be given up. Such love towards one another, Christ had foretold, should be a mark of His disciples (Joh 13:35). All those who have sketched a perfect society, as Plato in his Republic, and Sir Thos. More in his Utopia, have placed among their regulations this kind of community of goods which was established by the first Christians. In theory it is the perfection of a commonwealth, but there is need of perfection in the citizens before it can be realized. There can be no question that an expectation of Christ’s immediate return from heaven, acting along with the unity of thoughts and feeling, made these men willing to part with their possessions and goods, there being, as we shall see from the case of Ananias, no constraint upon them to do so.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

And the multitude – The number of believers at this time had become large. In Act 4:4, it is said that it was five thousand, and the number was constantly increasing.

One heart – This expression denotes tender union. They felt alike, or were attached to the same things, and this preserved them from jars and dissensions.

One soul – This phrase also denotes close and tender union. No expression could denote it more strikingly than to say of friends they have one soul. Plutarch cites an ancient verse in his life of Cato of Utica with this very expression – Two friends, one soul (Grotius). Thus, Diogenes Laertius also (5, Act 1:11) says respecting Aristotle, that being asked what was a friend, answered that it was one soul dwelling in two bodies (Kuinoel). The Hebrews spake of two friends as being one man. There can be no more striking demonstration of union and love than to say of more than five thousand suddenly drawn together that they had one soul! And this union they evinced in every way possible – in their conduct, in their prayers, and in their property. How different would have been the aspect of the church if the union had continued to the present time!

Neither said … – That is, I they did not regard it as their own, but to be used for the benefit of the whole society. See the notes on Act 2:44.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Act 4:32

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul.

Unity among Christians to be desired

Melancthon mourned in his day the divisions among Protestants, and sought to bring Protestants together by the parable of the war between the wolves and the dogs. The wolves were somewhat afraid, for the dogs were many and strong, and therefore they sent out a spy to observe them. On his return, the scout said, It is true the dogs are many, but there are not many mastiffs among them. There are dogs of so many sorts one can hardly count them; and as for the worst of them, said he, they are little dogs, which bark loudly, but cannot bite. However, this did not cheer me so much, said the wolf, as this, that as they came marching on, I observed they were all snapping right and left at one another, and I could see clearly that though they all hate the wolf, yet each dog hates every other dog with all his heart. I fear it is true still; for there are many professors who snap right and left at their own brethren, when they had better save their teeth for the wolves. If our enemies are to be put to confusion, it must be by the united efforts of all the people of God; unity is strength. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Unity requires dissimilarity

Unity subsists between things not similar and alike, but things dissimilar or unlike. There is no unity in the separate atoms of a sand-pit; they are things similar; there is an aggregate or collection of them. Even if they be hardened in a mass they are not one, they do not form a unity; they are simply a mass. There is no unity in a flock of sheep; it is simply a repetition of a number of things similar to each other. But in Christian unity we find something very different, for the Christian Church is made up of dissimilar members, without which dissimilarity there could be no unity. Each is imperfect in itself, but each supplying the deficiencies of other members of the body spiritual, as do the physical members of the physical body. Now, if you cut off from the spiritual body any one member, as in the physical body, you destroy the unity of the whole body. (T. H. Leary, D. C. L.)

Unity assisted by fire

There was a blacksmith once who had two pieces of iron which he wished to weld into one, and he took them just as they were, all cold and hard, and put them on the anvil, and began to hammer with all his might, but they were two pieces still, and would not unite. At last he remembered what he ought never to have forgotten; he thrust both of them into the fire, took them out red-hot, laid the one upon the other, and by one or two blows of the hammer they very soon became one. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The social instinct

I. Gods voice assures us that it is not good that the man should be alone: and knit into the very stuff of our personality is the instinctive dread of loneliness and the craving after intercourse with our fellow-men. We know that it is only in fellowship with others that the life which belongs to us as men can find its essential exercise and development. Conscience, justice, sympathy, honour, pity, love: these are but a few of the words whose whole wealth of meaning lies in a mans dealings with his fellow-men. Every principle of morality, every safeguard of reason, every canon of taste, depends for its significance, if not for its sanction, on our position as members of a great community: and it was by a true and deep insight that the Greek declared that he who would live in solitude must be either more or less than man. The social instinct is astir in the very act of self-consciousness: and I would show something of the reality of the satisfaction which is offered to it in the Church of Christ–Gods answer to the needs of man.

II. There are two ways in which we may measure the adequacy of any communion and fellowship into which we are invited. Sympathy lives, so to speak, in two dimensions: breadth and depth: and we may call it great either for the extent which it can cover, or for the inner depths which it can reach. So, too, it may be cramped and narrow, either because it moves within a scanty range, or else because its diffuse activity hardly goes below the surface of life. And in correspondence with these two measurements of sympathy, there are two distinct ways in which the desire for communion may seek and seem to find its satisfaction without reference to Christianity.

1. On the one hand we may find an almost infinite scope for sympathy and fellowship, if we share or understand the wants and hopes and aims of our generation, and so bear our part in its corporate action. Probably there never was an age which offered wider range more varied opportunity, more hopeful schemes for such an exercise and development of the social instinct. Whatever help we have to give, we can pass at once into commerce with hundreds of our fellow-men. Whether the feelings with which we go out into the world are mainly benevolent, political, or scientific, we are at once admitted to a tract of interest and work in which the social instinct moves without the fear of limitation.

2. It is when the other measurement is forced upon us that we feel the practical defect of a purely natural communion, however wide and intelligent, with our fellow-citizens or with mankind. Every human soul has energies, mysterious and profound, which find no exercise or answer in that diffusive interest which is ever losing, in intensity what it gains in width. For while our inner life looks out to no horizon, in our social relations we are hemmed in on every side: in each wider range of fellowship, more of our personal feelings and convictions have to be repressed or misunderstood: as we pass from love to friendship, from friendship to acquaintance, from acquaintance to association, at each stage we feel that less of our true self is active and satisfied, that we are exchanging the full and blessed sympathy where hearts are of each other sure, for the excitement and effectiveness of living in a crowd. And from the partial and superficial communion which thus beckons on and disappoints in ever-widening fields of ever more restricted feeling, most men turn to seek in friendship or in home a sympathy which has less to fear from the second measurement of which I spoke. Probably we all know the intense relief of passing from the jar or compromise of society at large into some inner sphere of love where we mean what we say, and what we would we know.

3. And having found the refreshment and confidence of such sympathy, most men come to live a double life: passing across day by day from the diffuse and shallow fellowship of the wide world to the quiet trust and swift intercourse of the chosen few: trying to supplement the extent of one communion by the depth of the other: even as the great poet of our day cries–

God be thanked, the meanest of His creatures

Boasts two soul-sides, one to face the world with,

One to show a woman when he loves her.

But must we put away for ever all thought and hope of any communion which shall be at once both wide and deep? Is there any power which can bring the souls of men together in a sympathy without either exclusion or reserve?

III. I believe in the communion of saints. This is the answer of the christian church: she, and she alone, still clings to the hope and promise of a fellowship and sympathy which shall be at once deeper than any depth which a man can fathom in his own soul, and wider than the world itself: a brotherhood into which the most ignorant and outcast and sinful may through penitence find entrance, a brotherhood in which the most sensitive and thoughtful and exacting soul shall never feel or fear the touch of cruelty or stupidity, but ever be led on from height to height, from strength to strength, from glory to glory, by the answer of a love which never is out of sight, and yet never can be outstripped. By what means then does the Church propose to make good her promise of a sympathy both wide and deep? Must we look back for the plainest answer to these questions to the days when the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul? It is, in deed and truth, a humiliating necessity. But still we cannot doubt that the Divine spirit of that communion is with us now: we know that, for all the noisy and obtrusive quarrels which are the shame and plague of Christendom, the strong love which held together the souls of martyrs and evangelists, the love which was stronger than death, is among us still: that in pure homes, in the fellowship of Christs work among the poor and suffering, we can still see, in the perfect harmony of self-forgetful work, the inherited secret of Christian unity and the earnest of its achievement in the Church triumphant. But there is one plain ground of fellowship which lies so near to the experience of our daily life, that it is easy for all to see and measure. For at the outset, Christianity, and Christianity alone, sets before us all one Lord. Alike in earth and heaven we are to be brought into the true fellowship one with another by a service and devotion which is not mutual but common: by seeking first the same Lord and Saviour. The real secret of sympathy is to love in the first place, not ones friend, but that which he loves better than himself: and the fulfilment of the social instinct is found in the concentration of all hearts upon the one true God. We shall better understand what the communion of saints may be, in proportion as we can give our hearts, our strength, our lives, to Him who gave Himself for us–to Him who, since He was lifted up from the earth, alone can draw all to Himself, and link them in the one sufficient sympathy of one unending Love. For if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another. (F. Paget, D. D.)

Neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

Nothing our own

Their conduct was answerable to so great a change as had been brought over their spirits. In several respects it was singular; such as befitted their special condition, but was nowise applicable to any other community or any after generation. Among these was the community of goods;–a usage into which they fell by a natural consequence of the relation in which they stood to one another and to the rest of mankind, and even by their own position and expectation upon the earth. They were few, and they were brethren. If they had been numerous, or if they had been divided, the idea would have been from the first as impracticable as it soon became. But at the outset it almost forced itself upon their observance. What was wealth to them? They were set upon a profession of self-denials. There was nothing that they cared to purchase or inherit in the places that were so soon, as they imagined, to be destroyed. Their minds were attracted but by incorruptible treasures and enduring abodes. For this reason it was, that none of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. Let us trace a few lines of reflection over so great a subject. What can we consider our own? Relatively, in certain connections, and to a certain extent, everything that we can conceive of. All the objects that delight the senses, all the pursuits that interest the attention, all the truths that occupy and nourish the mind, are ours. We have no need to become the proprietors of anything, in a commercial sense, in order to make it belong to us. The poor borderer upon a rich domain may use and enjoy it more than its real occupant and lord. He who borrows a book from a wealthy library may render it more truly his than it is the collectors, whose name is written in it, but whose understanding has never grown familiar with its contents. Whatever we can avail ourselves of for the purpose of our instruction, of our profit, of our happiness, is our own. Whatever we can put away at a calm distance from us, doing without it and feeling above it, is more than our own. The fruits of our endeavours are ours, the days of our being, the circumstances of our condition, the pictures of our fancy, the associates of our hearts. The universe offers itself to the eyes that can love its beauty, not only as a spectacle, but as a gift; and the very Lord of that boundless whole is manifested as the portion of obedient souls. Since everything we know is imaged in the mind, and the mind is ourself, we may call the powers of nature and the lessons of wisdom our tributaries, wherever those powers are surveyed or those lessons embraced. But if we are ready to be elated with such a description of the extent of the authority that has been committed to men, we have but to take into view that opposite truth which accords better with the expression of the text, and account that none of the things which they possess are theirs, in any absolute sense. We may say, with the apostle to his Corinthians, All things are yours. But then we must add, in the words of the same great testifier, Ye yourselves are not your own; ye are Christs, and Christ is Gods. Let us turn to this side of our theme, and remark some of the leading particulars that belong to it. None of the things which we possess are absolutely our own.

1. Not our worldly goods. Who created them? He who made them to be transitory. Who bestowed them? He who has a right to take them back. For what purpose have they been lodged in the hands of prosperous men? For their special benefit and gratification? Yes. But for their occupation, their exercise, their trial also, and more. In the first place, the changes of events prove to us that we do not hold by any absolute tenure what we seem to hold; for how often it is suddenly snatched from us, or drained gradually away! So much for chances. And then come in the settled decrees of our condition and the demands of our consciences. Consider them both, and you will see how amply they vindicate the expressions of the text as applicable to all men and times and places. You will have no community of goods; and indeed we can scarcely conceive of any social project so unnatural, so unjust, so impracticable. Yet still the goods of the wealthiest cannot choose but flow into the community. He must part with them, whether he will or not, and regularly part with them. He can have no enjoyment from them but by their use, and their use is their perishing. They are not his but as they pass, and when they are gone whose are they? They must be spent and distributed, and return into the common stock from which they were amassed. Reflect further on what the various obligations of life admonish us ought to be. Are we not stewards and debtors, rather than owners and lords, in the portion that is allotted to us? Much is due to the service of our brethren; and all is in pledge to Him, to whom the whole must be accounted for. Benevolence, justice, and truth are greater apostles than Peter and James and John; and honest contributions must be brought and laid down at their feet.

2. Our friends and the objects of our affection are not our own. You look into the faces of those you love, and take them by their cordial hands, and they seem to be yours, because their countenances have been always bright towards you, and you are well assured that their help is ready in the time of your need. But how many such have circumstances parted, and misunderstandings estranged! And how often has death severed the tie which no trials of life could weaken! Children are in a sense your creatures. None can share with you your parental rights. I will not say, that they may so disappoint your hope as to leave little disposition to rejoice in their belonging to you; that they may so grieve and burden your lives as to lead you to wish that you had been childless. But at least you are well aware, that what no temptations of after days might be able to make unworthy of your regard, the decree of heaven may remove from your side. The infant and the youth are as liable to be summoned away in their unsullied freshness, as the grown man in the fulness of his strength and the midst of his labours; and how can you claim as yours what is so changing and so frail? Rejoice, rather, that they are in better hands and at a wiser disposal; that their portion is in the assignments of an eternal Providence; and that their true Proprietor is the Holy Father, whose angels have a charge over them here, and who will never dismiss those blessed ministers from their office of love. (N. L. Frothingham.)

The unity of the early Church

I. The unity. The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and sou!. The Church of that day was a great contrast with the world, where there were wars and rumours of wars, envious and jealous hatreds. Unity ever set forth in New Testament as a fundamental conception of the Church. Christ prayed for it. Apostles strove to preserve it. The ideal we should ever keep before us.

II. The manifestation. Neither said any of them that aught of the things that he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. This a convincing evidence of their unity. Teaches the surpassing love of that brotherhood of Christ. The principle is just as true to-day. The Church is a partnership in preaching the gospel and in good works.

III. The causes. By examining the context we may discover some of the causes or conditions.

1. Fidelity. They had been entrusted with the gospel. They had faithful leaders (Act 2:14; Act 3:12; Act 4:3-8; Act 13:19). They had faithful people (verses 24-30).

2. Prayer (verses 24-30).

3. Recognition of Gods providence (verse 28).

4. Holy Spirit (verse 31). Notice it came in answer to prayer. To believers (cf. chap. 2:4)

. Churches need renewals (cf. Act 2:4; Act 4:31)

of Holy Spirit.

IV. The results.

1. Great spirituality. Scatter the embers of a dying fire and it goes out. Rake them together and you have warmth and glow. So with a divided and a united Church.

2. Great power. A city set on a hill, etc. Such a Church can make the powers of darkness tremble. Keep this ideal before us and we shall be a united, spiritual, and aggressive Church. (E. E. Curry.)

Apostolic socialism

I. The reasons which led the first Christians to form themselves into a community having all things common.

1. From the moment of the founding of Christianity the duty of living for others was insisted on. John the Baptist said, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none, etc. Nor was Jesus less explicit. Sell that ye have and give alms. It is more blessed to give than to receive, and many other passages which embody the principle of true socialism.

2. Doubtless some would urge that Jesus set the example of founding such a communistic society–not that He required all to part with their possessions, but it would seem that He did require this of the inner circle of apostles. Lo, we have left all and followed Thee. Go sell that thou hast and come follow Me. Of this community Judas was the treasurer.

3. Remember again that this took place immediately after the outpouring of the Spirit, the natural effect of which would be the kindling of an enthusiasm which would make them capable of a self-sacrifice impossible to the natural man. It is evident, too, that poverty was very rife, and the newly invigorated affections rendered it impossible for a Christian to feast while others starved.

II. Why was this socialistic scheme abandoned? For it is evident that it did not last long, since we find it nowhere else, nor even here a few years later. The truth is experience taught them that in the existing state of society Socialism would not work. Why? Just the sinfulness and selfishness of men. For society can only prosper if mens faculties are sharpened, and their energy and industry exerted to the utmost. And it is found that only competition can supply the motive which will induce men to do their best. No doubt if men were perfectly unselfish it would be otherwise, but they are not. When a mans comfort no longer depended on his own efforts, so that even if he worked harder than others he would fare no better, the spur to exertion would be gone, and he would do less, or even nothing, and thousands would prey upon others. Even the sharp law under which we live, If a man will not work, neither shall he eat, is evaded by idle impostors and beggars, but how indefinitely would the number of these social parasites be increased if all had a common right to the wealth of the community. And then again Socialism would give scope for fraud and dishonesty. The basis of any such scheme is that rich and poor give alike all they possess into the common fund. Selfish men, like Ananias, would seek to evade this and to live at the public expense while retaining what others had relinquished. It was this that probably broke up the scheme.

III. Why are these facts recorded? Not merely to teach that Socialism is a mistake, but that it is true as an ideal, but false as a practical system. Its essential underlying ideas are true. It is a Divine instinct which makes us long to give the same blessings to the poor which the rich possess. It is right that each should labour not only for himself but for all. And while we cannot bring all humanity into a communistic society, we must nevertheless keep the ideal of social regeneration on the basis of brotherly love ever before us. (A. M. Mackay, B. A.)

Baptised purses

Miss Margaret Winning Leitch, one of two sisters from Ryegate, Vermont, U.S.A., of Scottish parentage, formerly of the United Presbyterisn Church, now missionaries of the American Board in Ceylon, lately told her scholars the following incident: A man, being converted, was about to join the Baptist Church. When he was going down into the water to be baptised, upon a profession of his faith in Christ, he handed his pocket-handkerchief to a friend to hold. In doing so, his purse fell out. The friend said, I will hold that too; you wilt not want it to get wet. But the man replied, No, when I go down into the water I want my purse to be baptised with me, for that, as well as myself, must be consecrated to the service of the Lord. We may well agree with the missionary in her wish that there were more Christian workers with baptised purses.

Remarkable liberality

Perhaps there never was a more charitable man than John Wesley. His liberality knew no bounds but an empty pocket. He gave away, not merely a certain part of his income, but all that he had; his own wants being provided for, he devoted all the rest to the necessities of others. He entered upon this good work at a very early period. We are told that when he had thirty pounds a year, he lived on twenty-eight, and gave away forty shillings. The next; year, receiving sixty pounds, he still lived on twenty-eight, and gave two and thirty. The third year he received ninety pounds, and gave away sixty-two. The fourth year he received one hundred and twenty pounds. Still he lived on twenty-eight, and gave to the poor ninety-two. During the rest of his life he lived economically; and in the course of fifty years, it has been supposed, he gave away more than thirty thousand pounds.

Accumulated riches rightly used

If you go to St. Pauls Cathedral in London, I ask you to find out the monument to John Howard the philanthropist, and you will read upon it that the man who devotes himself to the good of mankind treads an open but unfrequented path to immortality. Thank God, that path is not unfrequented now, and many capitalists realise their responsibilities. I was chaplain in Switzerland during August. One morning I was walking up a lovely valley by the banks of a river, and through a rich pasture land, enamelled with flowers, when I was overtaken by a young Swiss lad. He pointed to a mighty mountain at the head of the valley, covered with perpetual snow, and said in French, Why should the good God have made snowfields and glaciers? I pointed to the stream, and to the rich grass beneath our feet, and told him that the streams which enriched the valleys all around came from this snow mountain. So there are men who rise above their fellows like mountains above the valleys; riches have accumulated upon them as snow upon the lofty heights; but the sunshine of Divine love has melted the snow, which has flown down in fertilising streams, spreading gladness and prosperity around. (Canon Bardsley.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 32. The multitude of them that believed] The whole 5000, mentioned Ac 4:4, and probably many others, who had been converted by the ministry of the other apostles since that time.

Were of one heart and of one soul] Were in a state of the most perfect friendship and affection. In all the 5000 there appeared to be but one heart and one soul; so perfectly did they agree in all their views, religious opinions, and holy affections. Some MSS. add, , and there was no kind of difference or dissension among them. This remarkable reading is found in the Codex Bezae, another of great authority, E, two others, Ambrose, Bede, Cyprian, and Zeno. Diogenes Laertius relates of Aristotle, , ; being asked, What is a FRIEND? , answered, ONE soul dwelling in TWO bodies. This saying has been justly celebrated: but what would this wonderful philosopher have thought and said, had he seen these disciples of Jesus, and friends of mankind: one soul dwelling in 5000 bodies!

They had all things common.] See Clarke on Ac 2:44, where this subject is examined. See Clarke on Ac 4:34.

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

Were of one heart and of one soul; as if one heart and one soul had moved that multitude; to be sure there was one Spirit in them all, that is, the Spirit of God, by whose grace they agreed in all truths, and in hearty affections towards one another; insomuch, that they were as willing that what they had might be enjoyed by their necessitous brethren as by themselves. The community of goods was not commanded, but left at liberty, and was chosen as most expedient at such a time in that place; that it was not even then commanded, we may see, Act 5:4; neither was it practised any where but at Jerusalem; and it was the rather practised there, that believers might show what credit they gave to our Saviours prediction concerning the destruction of that place, in which they did not care to have or retain any thing. There might be something too to command this practice of the church in that season: the whole church, upon the matter, being in Jerusalem, and consisting of such as lived afar off, and were by persecution to be driven suddenly farther, had not such a means been yielded to it must have perished, without a miracle.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

And the multitude of them that believed,…. The Gospel, and in Christ, the substance of it; and a multitude they were, for they were now about eight thousand persons. And though their number was so great, they

were of one heart and of one soul; there was an entire consent and agreement in doctrine, in matters of faith they were all of one mind and judgment, and there was a perfect harmony in their practice, they all performed the same duties, and observed the same commands and ordinances; and all pursued the same interest, and had the same ends and views; and there was a strict union of their affections to each other; their souls were knit to one another; so that there was, but as it were, one soul in this large body of Christians. Aristotle, being asked what a friend was, answered, one soul dwelling in two bodies p: and so the Jews say, it is fit and proper that lovers or friends should be , “of one heart, as one man” q; and such friends and hearty lovers were these.

Neither said any of them, that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; though he had a peculiar right unto them, yet he did not claim that right, nor insist on it, nor so much as speak of it, nor make use of his substance as if it was his own, reserving it for himself, or even disposing of it himself; but exposed it to the free use of the whole body, to enjoy it equally with himself:

but they had all things common; which was what they were not obliged to, but it was a free and voluntary action of their own, and so is not binding on others; nor indeed is their practice to be imitated, in the direct manner in which they did it, for their case was peculiar. They were not only every day liable to persecutions and to have their possessions seized, and their goods confiscated; but they also knew, that in process of time, Jerusalem would be destroyed, and they could not tell how soon; and therefore judged it right to sell off their possessions, and throw the money into one common stock, for their mutual support, and for the carrying on the common cause of Christ.

p Diog. Laert. in vit. Aristot. l, 5. 313. q Tzeror Hammor, fol. 21. 3. & 162. 4.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The Prosperity of the Church; The Liberality of the Disciples.

      32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.   33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.   34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,   35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.   36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,   37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

      We have a general idea given us in these verses, and it is a very beautiful one, of the spirit and state of this truly primitive church; it is conspectus sculi–a view of that age of infancy and innocence.

      I. The disciples loved one another dearly. Behold, how good and how pleasant it was to see how the multitude of those that believed were of one heart, and of one soul (v. 32), and there was no such thing as discord nor division among them. Observe here, 1. There were multitudes that believed; even in Jerusalem, where the malignant influence of the chief priests was most strong, there were three thousand converted on one day, and five thousand on another, and, besides these, there were added to the church daily; and no doubt they were all baptized, and made profession of the faith; for the same Spirit that endued the apostles with courage to preach the faith of Christ endued them with courage to confess it. Note, The increase of the church is the glory of it, and the multitude of those that believe, more than their quality. Now the church shines, and her light is come, when souls thus fly like a cloud into her bosom, and like doves to their windows,Isa 60:1; Isa 60:8. 2. They were all of one heart, and of one soul. Though there were many, very many, of different ages, tempers, and conditions, in the world, who perhaps, before they believed, were perfect strangers to one another, yet, when they met in Christ, they were as intimately acquainted as if they had known one another many years. Perhaps they had been of different sects among the Jews, before their conversion, or had had discords upon civil accounts; but now these were all forgotten and laid aside, and they were unanimous in the faith of Christ, and, being all joined to the Lord, they were joined to one another in holy love. This was the blessed fruit of Christ’s dying precept to his disciples, to love one another, and his dying prayer for them, that they all might be one. We have reason to think they divided themselves into several congregations, or worshipping assemblies, according as their dwellings were, under their respective ministers; and yet this occasioned no jealousy or uneasiness; for they were all of one heart, and one soul, notwithstanding; and loved those of other congregations as truly as those of their own. Thus it was then, and we may not despair of seeing it so again, when the Spirit shall be poured out upon us from on high.

      II. The ministers went on in their work with great vigour and success (v. 33): With great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. The doctrine they preached was, the resurrection of Christ: a matter of fact, which served not only for the confirmation of the truth of Christ’s holy religion, but being duly explained and illustrated, with the proper inferences from it, served for a summary of all the duties, privileges, and comforts of Christians. The resurrection of Christ, rightly understood and improved, will let us into the great mysteries of religion. By the great power wherewith the apostles attested the resurrection may be meant, 1. The great vigour, spirit, and courage, with which they published and avowed this doctrine; they did it not softly and diffidently, but with liveliness and resolution, as those that were themselves abundantly satisfied of the truth of it, and earnestly desired that others should be so too. Or, 2. The miracles which they wrought to confirm their doctrine. With works of great power, they gave witness to the resurrection of Christ, God himself, in them, bearing witness too.

      III. The beauty of the Lord our God shone upon them, and all their performances: Great grace was upon them all, not only all the apostles, but all the believers, charis megale—grace that had something great in it (magnificent and very extraordinary) was upon them all. 1. Christ poured out abundance of grace upon them, such as qualified them for great services, by enduing them with great power; it came upon them from on high, from above. 2. There were evident fruits of this grace in all they said and did, such as put an honour upon them, and recommended them to the favour of God, as being in his sight of great price. 3. Some think it includes the favour they were in with the people. Every one saw a beauty and excellency in them, and respected them.

      IV. They were very liberal to the poor, and dead to this world. This was as great an evidence of the grace of God in them as any other, and recommended them as much to the esteem of the people.

      1. They insisted not upon property, which even children seem to have a sense of and a jealousy for, and which worldly people triumph in, as Laban (Gen. xxxi. 43): All that thou seest is mine; and Nabal (1 Sam. xxv. 11): My bread and my water. These believers were so taken up with the hopes of an inheritance in the other world that this was as nothing to them. No man said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, v. 32. They did not take away property, but they were indifferent to it. They did not call what they had their own, in a way of pride and vainglory, boasting of it, or trusting in it. They did not call it their own, because they had, in affection, forsaken all for Christ, and were continually expecting to be stripped of all for their adherence to him. They did not say that aught was their own; for we can call nothing our own but sin. What we have in the world is more God’s than our own; we have it from him, must use it for him, and are accountable for it to him. No man said that what he had was his own, idion—his peculiar; for he was ready to distribute, willing to communicate, and desired not to eat his morsel alone, but what he had to spare from himself and family his poor neighbours were welcome to. Those that had estates were not solicitous to lay up, but very willing to lay out, and would straiten themselves to help their brethren. No marvel that they were of one heart and soul, when they sat so loose to the wealth of this world; for meum–mine, and tuum–thine, are the great makebates. Men’s holding their own, and grasping at more than their own, are the rise of wars and fightings.

      2. They abounded in charity, so that, in effect, they had all things common; for (v. 34) there was not any among them that lacked, but care was taken for their supply. Those that had been maintained upon the public charity were probably excluded when they turned Christians, and therefore it was fit that the church should take care of them. As there were many poor that received the gospel, so there were some rich that were able to maintain them, and the grace of God made them willing. Those that gather much have nothing over, because what they have over they have for those who gather little, that they may have no lack, 2Co 8:14; 2Co 8:15. The gospel hath laid all things common, not so that the poor are allowed to rob the rich, but so that the rich are appointed to relieve the poor.

      3. They did many of them sell their estates, to raise a fund for charity: As many as had possession of lands or houses sold them, v. 34. Dr. Lightfoot computes that this was the year of jubilee in the Jewish nation, the fiftieth year (the twenty-eighth since they settled in Canaan fourteen hundred years ago), so that, what was sold that year being not to return till the next jubilee, lands then took a good price, and so the sale of those lands would raise the more money. Now,

      (1.) We are here told what they did with the money that was so raised: They laid it at the apostles’ feet–the left it to them to be disposed of as they thought fit; probably they had their support from it; for whence else could they have it? Observe, The apostles would have it laid at their feet, in token of their holy contempt of the wealth of the world; they thought it fitter it should be laid at their feet than lodged in their hands or in their bosoms. Being laid there, it was not hoarded up, but distribution was made, by proper persons, unto every man according as he had need. Great care ought to be taken in the distribution of public charity, [1.] That it be given to such as have need; such as are not able to procure a competent maintenance of themselves, through age, infancy, sickness, or bodily disability, or incapacity of mind, want either of ingenuity or activity, cross providences, losses, oppressions, or a numerous charge. Those who upon any of these accounts, or any other, have real need, and have not relations of their own to help them–but, above all, those that are reduced to want for well doing, and for the testimony of a good conscience, ought to be taken care of, and provided for, and, with such a prudent application of what is given, as may be most for their benefit. [2.] That it be given to every man for whom it is intended, according as he has need, without partiality or respect of persons. It is a rule in dispensing charity, as well as in administering justice, ut parium par sit ratio–that those who are equally needy and equally deserving should be equally helped, and that the charity should be suited and adapted to the necessity, as the word is.

      (2.) Here is one particular person mentioned that was remarkable for this generous charity: it was Barnabas, afterwards Paul’s colleague. Observe, [1.] The account here given concerning him, v. 36. His name was Joses; he was of the tribe of Levi, for there were Levites among the Jews of the dispersion, who, it is probable, presided in their synagogue–worship, and, according to the duty of that tribe, taught them the good knowledge of the Lord. He was born in Cyprus, a great way off from Jerusalem, his parents, though Jews, having a settlement there. Notice is taken of the apostles’ changing his name after he associated with them. It is probable that he was one of the seventy disciples, and, as he increased in gifts and graces, grew eminent, and was respected by the apostles, who, in token of their value for him, gave him a name, Barnabas–the son of prophecy (so it properly signifies), he being endued with extraordinary gifts of prophecy. But the Hellenist Jews (saith Grotius) called praying paraklesis, and therefore by that word it is rendered here: A son of exhortation (so some), one that had an excellent faculty of healing and persuading; we have an instance of it, ch. xi. 22-24. A son of consolation (so we read it); one that did himself walk very much in the comforts of the Holy Ghost–a cheerful Christian, and this enlarged his heart in charity to the poor; or one that was eminent for comforting the Lord’s people, and speaking peace to wounded troubled consciences; he had an admirable facility that way. There were two among the apostles that were called Boanerges–sons of thunder (Mark iii. 17); but here was a son of consolation with them. Each had his several gift. Neither must censure the other, but both case one another; let the one search the wound, and then let the other heal it and bind it up. [2.] Here is an account of his charity, and great generosity to the public fund. This is particularly taken notice of, because of the eminency of his services afterwards in the church of God, especially in carrying the gospel to the Gentiles; and, that this might not appear to come from any ill-will to his own nation, we have here his benevolence to the Jewish converts. Or perhaps this is mentioned because it was a leading card, and an example to others: He having land, whether in Cyprus, where he was born, or in Judea, where he now lived, or elsewhere, is not certain, but he sold it, not to buy elsewhere to advantage, but, as a Levite indeed, who knew he had the Lord God of Israel for his inheritance, he despised earthly inheritances, would be encumbered no more with them, but brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet, to be given in charity. Thus, as one that was designed to be a preacher of the gospel, he disentangled himself from the affairs of this life: and he lost nothing upon the balance of the account, by laying the purchase-money at the apostles’ feet, when he himself was, in effect, numbered among the apostles, by that word of the Holy Ghost, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them, ch. xiii. 2. Thus, for the respect he showed to the apostles as apostles, he had an apostle’s reward.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Of one heart and soul ( ). It is not possible to make sharp distinction between heart and soul here (see Mr 12:30), only that there was harmony in thought and affection. But the English translation is curiously unlike the Greek original. “There was one heart and soul (nominative case, not genitive as the English has it) in the multitude ( , subjective genitive) of those who believed.”

Not one of them ( ). More emphatic than , “not even one.”

Common (). In the use of their property, not in the possession as Luke proceeds to explain. The word is kin to (together with)= (Epic) and so =. See this word already in 2:44. The idea of unclean (Ac 10:15) is a later development from the original notion of common to all.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Heart and soul. See on Mr 12:30.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “And the multitude of them that believed,” (tou de plethous ton pisteusanton) “Now of the multitude of those having believed,” those of the church to whom Peter and John went when released or set at liberty from the Sanhedrin imprisonment, Act 4:23; Their company had grown, enlarged from the 120 company of Act 1:15; Act 2:41; Act 4:4.

2) “Were of one heart and one soul:” (en kardia kai psuche mia) “There was one heart and soul,” an harmony and unity as of one heart and one soul, free of confusion, division, of strife, evidencing the love and presence of the Spirit of Christ, as when they waited for the empowering on Pentecost, Act 1:14; Acts 21; Joh 17:21; Eph 4:1-3.

3) “Neither said any of them,” (kai oude elegan) “And not even one said or claimed,” in any selfish or covetous way, 2Co 13:11.

4) “That ought of the things which he possessed,” (eis te ton huparchonton auto) “That even one of the things belonging to him,” 1Pe 3:8.

5) “Was his own:” (idion einai) “To be (exist as) his very own; Each had come to the concept expressed of David to the Lord, “I am thine and all that I have belongeth to thee.” Such is the fact of true, Divine Stewardship, 1Ki 20:4; 1Co 12:18.

6) “But they had all things common,” (all’ en autois panta koina) “But all things were common to them,” were held and used according to their common needs, Act 2:44; Joh 13:34-35; Rom 15:5-6; Php_1:27; Php_2:1-3.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

32. And the multitude. In this place there are three things commended; that the faithful were all of one mind; that there was a mutual partaking of goods amongst them; that the apostles behaved themselves stoutly in announcing the resurrection of Christ. He saith that the multitude had one heart; because this is far more excellent than if a few men should have a mutual consent. And heretofore he hath declared, that the Church did grow to be about five thousand. And now he saith that there was wonderful concord in so great a multitude, which is a very hard matter.

And surely where faith beareth the chief sway, it doth so knit the hearts of men together, that all of them do both will and nill one thing. For discord springeth hence because we are not all governed with the same Spirit of Christ. It is well known that by these two words, heart and soul, he meaneth the will. And because the wicked do oftentimes conspire together to do evil, this concord was laudable and holy therefore because it was amongst the faithful.

And no man did say. This is the second member; that they coupled this love with external benefits. But we shall see anon, after what sort they had their goods common. This is now worth the noting in the text of Luke that the inward unity of minds goeth before as the root, and then the fruit followeth after. And surely even we ought to observe the same order, we must love one another, (230) and then this love of ours must show itself by external effects. (231) And in vain do we boast of a right affection, unless there appear some testimony thereof in external offices. Moreover, Luke declareth therewithal, that they were not of one mind for any respect of their own commodity, forasmuch as the rich men, when they did liberally bestow their goods, sought nothing less than their own gain.

(230) “ Sincero cordis affectu,” with sincere affection of heart, omitted.

(231) “ Nam et externa beneficentia nisi oriatur ex corde, nihili est coram Deo,” for even an external beneficence, if it comes not from the heart, is of no value in the sight of God, omitted.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

DIVERSE POWERS IN THE CHURCH

Act 4:32 to Act 5:16.

WHEN we concluded our last discourse, the disciples were at prayer and the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spake the Word of God with boldness. These are conditions producing always such consequences as we find recorded (Act 4:32-33).

The remaining portion of this story illustrates some great truths, and truths that as surely need emphasis today as they could have needed it in the first century.

Herein we find The Unifying Power of the Holy Spirit, The Destroying Power of Self-Deception, and The Evangelizing Power of Divine Healing.

THE UNIFYING POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

And with great power gave the Apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all (Act 4:32-33).

What a marvelous presentation of the fact that an overshadowing and indwelling Holy Spirit produces unity in devotional spirit, unity in doctrinal expression, and unity in sacrificial distribution!

Unity in the devotional spirit! They were of one heart and soul. In this day, when men are at variance one with another, liberalists are fond of reminding us that diversity characterizes the gifts of the Holy Ghost; and they often appeal to two chapters of Scripture in support of that theory Romans 12, and 1 Corinthians 12. But a more careful study of these Scriptures will show that they do not present diversity of opinion as the expression of the indwelling Holy Ghost. In Romans, Paul is writing of the gifts of grace as they are administered by the Spirit, but he presents none that are antagonistic or even lacking in harmony with the rest. In I Corinthians he is writing of spiritual gifts, but he affirms their unification as the Spirit administers them. All these, the one and selfsame Spirit worketh. Inharmony of sentiment within the professed body, the Church, is never the work of the Holy Spirit, but a sign of His absence from some hearts. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians concerning the tongues movement, he put certain of them under condemnation because of confusion. How is it then brethren, when ye come together each with a song, with a teaching, with a tongue, with a revelation, with an interpretation? Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be two, or at the most three, and that in turn and let one interpret (1Co 14:26-27, R. V.) a plain intimation of the fact that they were babbling, producing a confusion of noise and inharmony of sentiment. On the other hand, when he wrote to the Ephesians, he describes those filled with the Spirit as speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in their hearts to the Lord. In the first instance there was inharmony, no Holy Ghost; in the second, the filling of the Spirit assured a perfect harmony of sentiment. One could quote a passage, another sing a hymn, but the order was perfect; the same sentiment dominated both.

If the human body, dominated by a single mind, finds its various members in a cooperation as hearty as the organic union is perfect, so the Church of God, administered by the Spirit, will exercise diversities of gifts in unity of action being of one heart and soul.

The Unity in doctrinal expression. And with great power gave the Apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus (Act 4:33). The very truth that is now the occasion of division in the professing church, was, under the Spirits administration, universally accepted; and testimonies concerning it knew no dissenter. More and more liberals tend to minimize doctrine and the New Theologian would have us believe that such a thing as unity of faith never existed with the Apostles, and is in no sense essential to twentieth century religion. From the beginning it was not so. Dr. Edwin W. Rice reminds us that three great creeds of the early days The Apostles, the Nicene and the Athanasian Creedstood for a Christian unity and teaching. And, he continues, some modern critics think they have found evidences of many types or forms of organization in the primitive church and have attempted to show that the early historical interpretation of the church by apostolic men was a mistaken one. In the view of these critics the New Testament in general and the Book of Acts, in particular, not only describe, but even sanction, by precept and example, divisions in the apostolic church, and the New Testament sets forth four or five distinct primitive types similar to the denominational divisions existing in Christendom. This view boldly flies in the face of all the ecumenical creeds and councils and of all ecclesiastical history in the first three centuries of the Christian era, for the first rudimentary forms of the church belief that preceded the perfected Apostles Creed recognize, with more or less clearness, the unity of Christians and the unity of the church. The profoundest thinkers and the acutest critics believe that the New Testament emphasizes Christian unity and deprecates schism. No less an authority than Prof. Chas. W. Shiels of Princeton, said, Christianity became a compact organization in the midst of pagan society, with its sacraments and its Scriptures, and it continued thus compact and undivided for some centuries afterward. In that one Catholic, apostolic church, we have an example and model of church unity, not only as consistent with Christian unity, but as expressing and maintaining it. Indeed, it is only in and through such church unity that Christian unity can find due and full expression. Without such unity it must remain as a vague ideal or crude sentiment, if it be not a mere pretext for schism and excuse for sectarianism.

This was even more true of doctrine than of organization. Only the superficial student has been able to find conflict of doctrinal teaching in the New Testament. Not an Apostle that ever doubted the Virgin Birth; that ever called into question the miracle working; that ever debated the resurrection of Jesus from the grave save Thomas, and he was soon cured; that ever taught else than the blood atonement, or entertained other expectation than the soon coming of Christ in power and glory to sit on Davids throne.

Diversities in doctrine are marks of modernism, the results of intellectual skepticism; and if it is to find defense, it must be outside of the Book we call the Bible.

The great commentators, Jamieson, Faucett and Brown, speak of the Spirit having rested upon the entire community in such a way as melting down all selfishness and absorbing even the feeling of individuality in an intense and glowing realization of Christian unity. Nor did they escape divergence of opinion by soft-pedaling their ideas and carefully working down each word lest it should strike with power. They were not engaged in the negative business of a series of tentative suggestions. In the language of Joseph Parker, They hurled it across the heavens; they uttered it with thunder; they spake it with the accent of the soul. They presented no apologies to anybody for their faith in the Deity of Jesus, nor did they try to make friends and fellow-laborers of those who denied His resurrection from the dead. God forbid that we, their successors in opportunity, should fail of their convictions and courage. If the Book be true, preach it without apology! If it be false, fling it from you! The hour has struckyea, the hour has always existed, when men should know the truth, for the truth alone can make men free. And truth is not a compromise! Truth is not a circle of debate! Truth is intolerant. It cannot compromise, and the truth is that Jesus is risen! Tell it out! Dying men need it. The day demands it.

But we have in this Scripture, also, the unity in sacrificial distribution.

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

And laid them down at the Apostles? feet and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need (Act 4:34-35).

Communism of goods? Yes! Socialism in practice? Never! There is not the slightest intimation in this text that any man was compelled to part with his personal possessions. There is not even an intimation that he was expected to do it. It was a purely voluntary actthe first-fruits of being filled with the Spirit. Christianity is volitional! Repentance is impossible apart from the consent of ones will. Regeneration never takes place without that consent. Apart from the same consent, the fruits of the Spirit are impossible. The man who unwillingly sold his possessions and gave them would not be accepted of God. His animating motive of pride, a good name, a reputation for charity, would all be offensive to the Holy Ghost. It might deceive men, but not God. Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh an the hear.

…God abhors the sacrifice,Where not the heart is found.

The Lord loveth a cheerful giver, and we are told that the word in the original means the hilarious giverthe man who gives with joy; the woman who, with every sacrifice, has in her own soul a sweet content.

If the Spirit of God administered in the Church of God, the entire membership would know the meaning of unity in sacrificial service.

But, alas for the professing church, we have introduced immediately

THE DESTROYING POWER OF SELF-DECEPTION

Joses, who by the Apostles was surname d Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the Apostles feet (Act 4:36-37).

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the Apostles feet.

But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God (Act 5:1-4).

How full a suggestion! They succeeded in deceiving themselves; they attempted to deceive the Apostles; they provoked the Spirit to their own destruction.

They succeeded in deceiving themselves. One can easily imagine the process of reasoning that took place between this man and his wife. Barnabas has given his entire place. We are equally well off, perhaps better. If we sold ours and gave as much as he, we would have an equal reputation with him, would stand just as high in the affection of our fellow Christians, and we could do it and keep back a considerable part. It is our own affair. No one need be the wiser. Our gift will be generous and if we lead Peter and the rest of the Apostles to think it is our all, our reputations will be secure. What a profound pity that one cannot give without the devil getting in his suggestions of selfishness, pride, arrogance! Yea, one may not even pray without having Satan interjecting opposite thoughts!

From the beginning of the church, this Ananias and Sapphira event has troubled many souls, but it involves no enigmas. God did not continue to exercise discipline in His church as He wrought it this day. It was fully essential that the one Spirit-filled church of the world should be retained long enough to become an ensample before it was permitted to be defiled; hence the judgment against this lie. But while God has changed His custom, yielding as He always does to mercy as against judgment, man has not changed his. The experience of Ananias has not sufficed to teach us the scarlet of his guilt. We go on after the Ananias manner. More lies are told by men in the matter of their contributions to the church than almost any single subject of Christian conversation. More deceptions are wrought over the proportion of ones income which he is putting on the altar, and more self-deception is practiced in this matter than in almost any other of church experience. Hundreds of people think and openly avow that they are tithing and more, who would not dare to keep books with the Lord. I had a dear friend in the South, who in his early life earned a most modest income, and his wife continually quarrelled with every contribution he made, affirming he was impoverishing his house by paying into the church. He finally gained her consent to the keeping of a strict account and laying aside one-tenth of every dollar as holy unto the Lord. The result was that he gave far more than had been his custom.

His fortune grew, the favor and goodness of God begat repentance in his wifes heart, and the last report I had from them they were contributing thousands of dollars per year and were the happiest couple in Texas.

And this self-deception is not only practiced in the matter of giving of ones means, but also of his time and his energy. As Joseph Parker writes, No man has done all he can do, and as he confesses, I could have done ten times more; I could have prayed more; I could have preached more; I could have suffered more. And when a man stands up in my presence and says, I have done all I could and God knows it, he makes me afraid. I was told of persons who were supposed to be worth 5 and 20,000 pounds, and at the communion of the Lords table, never contribute a coin, but put in the communion card alone. Is it possible? Thy money perish with thee! Keep it! Keep it! Take it in the coffin with thee! Make a pillow of it! Make a footstool of it! Make a lining of it! Thou whited sepulcher! Ananias lied without speaking. That is the worst form of falsehood. The blundering speaker of a lie may be converted, but the actor of a lie can only be killed.

They attempted to deceive the Apostles. They brought a certain part and laid it at the Apostles feet. They would be thought well of by the leaders. It would be an interesting thing, in great world movements and so-called Christian drives, to know how many men are animated solely by the desire to stand well with the leaders. I have known men to favor every single progressive movement put up by leaders; to talk for it and grow eloquent about it, and contribute nothing toward it. Ananias would have made a good member of a State Board; in fact, I have met him there many a time. Practically every Board is made up of two classesBarnabas on the one side, who is an advocate of progression and is willing to make all reasonable sacrifices for the same, and Ananias, who is equally an advocate of progress but will forever keep his eye on the first chance. Jacob is dead, but his sons are a multitude; and Ananias is buried, but his successors are like the sands of the sea or the stars for number. The professing church has men who can deceive even the very elect, but this is not the end. When man and wife agree together on such a course the case is almost hopeless. Adam and Eve agreed in sin and it lost to them the Garden of Eden, and since that day thousands of couples have consulted to connive and found themselves driven beyond the gates of Paradise. I am not intimating at all that Adam and Eve went to hell, nor am I saying that such was the final experience of Ananias and Sapphira. I do not believe it. God chastens His own children rather than bastards and might be utterly justified in destroying the body of His own to save the soul. We can readily understand that a lie on the part of a sinner would never be so offensive to the Holy Ghost as the saints deception; the falsehood of strangers does not hurt the fathers heart as the faithlessness of his children.

They provoked the Spirit to their own destruction. Temporal death against sin is its very first sentence. Up to the present hour few men have escaped it, and yet, when it comes suddenly and immediately upon the commission of a sin, it strikes the world dumb and brings amazement to the Church of God.

In the early days of the Church God attempted to keep it clean, and when a member disgraced it, He removed the member; but when apostasy involves the majority He removes the Church instead. You will remember what He said to the Laodicean Church, Because thou art lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spue thee out of My mouth, and to the Church of Ephesus, Repent and do the first works, or else I will come unto thee quickly and remove thy candlestick out of its place. As one great preacher has said, It is vain to attempt to keep up the outward, when the inward has given way. Is there anything more ghastly to the religious eye and spiritual imagination than a church out of which God has gone? The building stands there, of undiminished magnitude, and undimmed beauty of form and color, and undiminished commodiousness, but God has gone! The Bible is read, and not read. It is not the Bible that the man mumbles, but a book which he has found somewhere, out of which the Spirit has been driven. The very selfsame old hymns are sung that fifty years ago caused the walls to vibrate as with conscious joy, and though the music is exact in technicality and well performed as to mere lip service, the old passion is not there, and the hymn rises to the ceiling, bruises itself against the beams of the roof and falls back, a service unrecognized in Heaven. This accounts for all the results of statistics as to attendance upon places of worship; for all the dilapidated husbandry of the church; for all the boundless provision of mere space and accommodation and machinery without eliciting the sympathy and consent of the great heart of man. We have lost the Spirit or we have forgotten that there is diversity of operation even under the same Spirit, and we have been trying to maintain old economy without new inspiration. What has to be done? Not to mend the outside, but fall to praying and to bring to bear upon Heaven the violence of our impatient necessity and the sacred ambition of men who have found by prolonged and bitter experience that all answers worth having are to be had from Heaven only.

Finally, and all too briefly, I must state it,

THE EVANGELIZING POWER OF DIVINE HEALING

And by the hands of the Apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomons porch.

And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them.

And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women;)

Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.

There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits; and they were healed every one (Act 5:12-16).

The miracle always attracts a multitude. It was when signs and wonders were wrought among the people that the crowds came. We talk of the reason the churches are empty now, and wonder why people no longer flock to them; why in great spacious auditoriums a feeble few gather and attempt a sleepy service of praise. But the reason is not far to seek. When there is no sign of Gods presence, the people will not continue to patronize. You have to take your choice then between a few souls who cannot cease from their forms and ceremonies, and putting on a sideshow that would do credit to a street in Cairo, or the presence of God. But when and where was a miracle ever wrought manifestly from God without the immediate coming together of a veritable concourse? Hundreds of times have the Papists started the story that God was working a miracle at some place, and every time the crowds set in that way, and Rome profits accordingly. Why? After all, there are weary hearts by the thousand and tens of thousand that want to find God. The man, therefore, who attempts to take the miracle out of religion, if he succeeds, will take the heart out of it; he will take hope out of it, because he will take God out of it. God, instead of being the Author of natural law and forever limited by the same, never moves His hand, His foot, His tongue, without a miracle. The true miracle is the sign, the insignia, the positive proof of Divine Presence.

The miracle commonly results in converts. It would be interesting to study the record in the New Testament of the instant results of every miracle wrought. This Book of Acts abundantly illustrates that fact. When in the second chapter the miracle of tongues appeared, the people thronged to the place. When in the third chapter, Peter, in the Name of the Lord, healed the man at the Gate Beautiful, the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomons. When in the fifth chapter the miracle of judgment was wrought against Ananias and Sapphira, believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women. When in the ninth chapter, Dorcas was brought back from the burial shroud and it came to be known throughout Joppa, many believed on the Lord. When in the twelfth chapter, Herod is smitten by the hand of the Lord, the Word of God grew and multiplied.

The church that has God at work in it, manifesting His power by grace and by judgments, is the church upon which the people will attend and in which conversions will be accomplished. Little wonder that men doubt the experience of regeneration when they attend churches as complete in forms and ceremonies as they are destitute of God. If we would have the miracle of conversion come back, then we must bring back the Christ. His presence, His power, His work is always a wonder. Enthrone the Christ afresh and there will be no failure in the growth of the church.

Finally,

The immediate effect of the miracle is social service.

They brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.

There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one (Act 5:15-16).

Thousands of articles have been printed on How to Set the Churches to Work. Eloquent orations have been delivered on how to interest men in the bodies and souls of their fellows, or how to secure sacrificial endeavor for the sake of a needy world. It is all answered in one thought, Bring God in.

The moment His miraculous Presence is recognized and His miraculous, power is experienced, social service is sure. Men sometimes talk as if this social service propaganda were a novelty; as if the early church had no notion of doing ought than teach the great fundamentals. On the contrary, the fundamentals of Scripture, when properly apprehended and proclaimed, have never failed to produce the finest of social fruits. History is replete with illustrations of this fact. The apostolic commission and constitution are documents which throw much light upon this subject. No less an authority than Dr. Geo. T. Stokes says, These constitutions prove that the church in the third century was one mighty cooperative institution, and an important function of the bishop was the direction of that cooperation. The second chapter of the fourth book of the Apostolic Constitution lays down, Do you therefore, O bishops, be solicitous about the maintenance of orphans, being in nothing wanting to them, exhibiting to the orphans the care of parents; to the widows the care of husbands; to the artificer, work; to the stranger, an house; to the hungry, food; to the thirsty, drink; to the naked, clothing; to the sick, visitation; to the prisoners, assistance.

When once we give place in the church to the Holy Spirit, there will be no lack of social service. The spiritual church will forever be a serviceable church. Dear old Joseph Parker saw that fact gladly and said, The church can only do great social duties and continue with constancy in great social sacrifices in proportion as its heart is constantly inspired by the Holy Spirit.

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

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act. 4:32. The multitude of them that believed were not the new converts merely, but the general body of the disciples.

Act. 4:33. Grace.Not favour with the people, as in Act. 2:47 (Grotius, Olshausen, Holtzmann), but divine favour, as in Act. 11:23; Joh. 1:14 (Meyer, Alford, Zckler, Hackett), of which Act. 4:34-35 furnish proof.

Act. 4:36. For Joses read Joseph. Barnabas, the son of consolation, or son of exhortation (Holtzmann, Zckler)i.e., of consolatory discourse. A title given to Joseph from the sympathetic character of his preaching (Act. 11:23). Barnabas afterwards became Pauls companion on his missionary travels (Act. 13:2). A LeviteA descendant of Levi, but not a priest. Of the country of Cyprus.Rather, a Cyprian by birthi.e., a Jew who had been born in Cyprus.

Act. 4:37. Having land, or a farm belonging to him. Whether in Palestine (Holtzmann, Zckler) or in Cyprus (Hackett) is not said, but most likely in the former. Though the Levites had no share in the soil of Canaan, that destroyed not their right of private ownership within the forty-eight cities assigned them, or in the territory adjacent to these (see Jer. 32:7). The money.The price realised by the sale of his farm. At the apostles feet.As a voluntary contribution to the common fund, for distribution among the poorer brethren. The case of Ananias (Act. 5:1) shows that Barnabas was under no compulsion to either sell his farm or donate his money.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.Act. 4:32-37

The Apostles and the First Christians; or, the Effect of the First Persecution

I. It united the congregation.Contrary to the expectations of its instigators, the hostility directed against the followers of the Nazarene resulted in banding them more closely together.

1. In amity and concord. The multitude, by this time, numbering at least five thousand persons, were of one heart and soulheart representing the intellectual (Mar. 2:6; Mar. 2:8; Mar. 11:23; Luk. 2:35; Luk. 3:15; Luk. 6:45), and soul the emotional (Luk. 2:35; Luk. 12:22; Joh. 12:27) side of human nature. In their views of divine truth had emerged no divergence, in their regards for one another no estrangement, in their plans no division. As brethren they were of one mind (1Pe. 3:8), walked by the same rule (Php. 3:16), and cherished the same love, being of one accord and of one mind (Php. 2:2). All wished the one thing, to be blessed; all thought the one thing, to remain true to the Lord Jesus; all felt the one thing, the comfort of the Holy Spirit; and this oneness of heart in willing, thinking, and feeling was the moving soul in the action of the whole body (Besser). At the time of Constantine Eusebius was able still to write of Christians, One and the same power of the divine spirit goes through all members, in all is one soul and one liveliness of faith (Ibid.). Alas! that such cannot now be affirmed of the Christian community as a whole, or of Christian individuals, who are not only gathered into rival communities, but often filled with mutual jealousies and engaged in mutual strifes.

2. In self-sacrifice and beneficence. Not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things common. Thus they abolished property, as it were, without abolishing it, and possessed it as though they possessed it not. Everything, both heart, soul, and spiritual life, and also all property and worldly enjoyments were in common, so far as was lawful and expedient (Stier). They so considered each others needs that none were allowed to want. There were no beggars among the Christians. Owners of houses and lands, like Barnabas the Cypriote, sold these and cast the proceeds into a common treasury, out of which distribution was made to each disciple according to his need. That this was an attempt to establish communism as a rule of the Christian society cannot be made out (see on Act. 4:32). Most likely it was prompted by a desire to relieve the necessities of those who, in becoming believers, had been obliged to renounce their worldly goods.

II. It inspired the apostles.Instead of intimidating the leaders of the new society, the opposition of the Sanhedrim fired them with increased zeal.

1. To continue their work of preaching. Changing not their theme, manner, or place of preaching, they kept on repeating the old story of the resurrection of Jesus, knowing it to be true, and to contain the one Gospel for sinful men. The Church had prayed that they might be enabled to speak the word with boldness (Act. 4:29), and so abating nothing of either their confidence in the message they proclaimed, or the courage with which they set it forth, undaunted by fears or frowns, they gave witness of what they had seen and heard. As a consequence, their preaching was accompanied by great poweri.e., with deeply convincing effect; and no preaching will tell that lacks this element of boldness.

2. To undertake additional toil. Naturally, at first, the labour of distributing the common funds fell to the apostles as the heads of the community, and as persons in whom the community had confidence. Before long, however, it was seen that even apostles might be overburdened with work. Besides, the work in question was of a sort for which less than apostolic talent might suffice. Accordingly, another order of officers, the diaconate, was soon after called into existence to superintend this department of Christian activity (Act. 6:1-6).

III. It enriched both.Designed to dispirit them in their religious ardour and discredit them in public estimation, the persecution of the Jewish rulers had the contrary effect. It enriched them.

1. With divine favour. And great grace was upon them all,upon apostles and believers alike. There is no reason to depart from the ordinary sense of the term grace, though some (Grotius, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and Holtzmann) understand by it the favour of the people (compare Act. 2:47). That the apostles were recipients of this grace from Heaven was evidenced by the great power, or convincing effect with which they witnessed of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; that the disciples generally were not without experience of the same was attested by the munificent liberality which they displayed.

2. With popular acceptance. Though not the best meaning of the term grace, it need not be excluded. Instead of damping the cordiality of the people towards the apostles and disciples, the persecution of them and their cause on which the ecclesiastical authorities had entered rather helped to augment the same. In this respect persecution is always a failurenever killing, but rather strengthening the cause against which it is directed.

Learn.

1. The excellence of Christian unity.
2. The beauty of Christian charity.
3. The power of Christian truth.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act. 4:32. All Things Common; or, a Sermon on Christian Socialism.

I. How the early Christians were led to this experiment.

1. They were not in any way commanded or counselled so to act by the apostles. At least it does not appear from the narrative that they were. Who originated the proposal is not told.

2. Most likely the plan adopted was suggested by the necessities of the situation. In the course of a few weeks as many as five thousand men (possibly not including women and children) had passed over from Judaism into the Christian Church, in many instances, doubtless, not only snapping the ties that bound them to their kinsmen and relatives, but also throwing themselves out of their accustomed employments.

3. The plan would probably commend itself to them as desirable. As being in accordance with

(1) the precepts (Mat. 6:19-20; Mat. 19:21; Luk. 12:33), and

(2) the practice (Joh. 13:29) of Christ, who not only enjoined the renunciation of earthly goods but shared a common purse with the Twelve.

4. The movement may have sprung from the warm hearts of the richer members of the Church who compassionately regarded the destitution of their Christian brethren.

II. The exact character of this early experiment.

1. The sale of goods and lands was not compulsory, or binding on believers as a term of communion. The language of Peter to Ananias and Sapphira (Act. 5:4), and the case of John Marks mother who had a house in Jerusalem (Act. 12:12), show this. It is not needful to add that it was their own goods and not other peoples that these early Christians cast into the treasury.

2. It is not clear that all the Jerusalem Christians were placed upon this common fund. Possibly only those were who from age, infirmity, lack of employment, or want of friends were destitute of support (the mention of widows, Act. 6:1, points to this); and even of those it does not appear that all received an equal aliment (according as he had need, Act. 4:35, favours this).

3. Hence what wears the aspect of a universal sustentation fund was probably nothing more than a voluntary relief fund, to which those contributed who felt themselves able and were moved thereto by love to Christ and sympathy for their needy brethren, and out of which those were supported who were unable to maintain themselves.

III. Indications that this early experiment was not designed to be permanent.Even should it be conceded that the experiment in question was of a strictly communistic character, and that the apostles originally meant it to become a fixed practice, there is ground for thinking that they pretty soon changed their minds in this respect.

1. It was not mentioned at the First Council in Jerusalem as a method of living which might be imitated by the Gentile Churches. On the contrary, Paul and Barnabas were directed to remember the poor (Gal. 2:10)i.e., to lift collections from the rich Gentile congregations for the support of the poor disciples in the Judan metropolis.

2. It was probably found that the experiment had not been successful in Jerusalem, but rather hurtful. If it met an emergency, it appears to have been followed by the usual results which flow from common funds. It destroyed the independence of the Jerusalem Church, which became practically filled with lazy paupers, who sorned upon their wealthier brethren. The system of common property (among the New England Pilgrims), writes Bancroft, had occasioned grievous discontents; the influence of law could not compel regular labour like the uniform impulse of personal interest; and even the threat of keeping back their bread could not change the character of the idle (History of America, i., 238).

Christianity and Socialism.As a movement for the deliverance of the poor and their introduction to a good and happy life, the gospel of Gods love in Christ thoroughly agrees with socialism. Yet there is a broad line of distinction between the two.

I. Socialism insists on external and economic conditions for good; Christianity insists on the inward and moral, because all social disorders are spiritual at heart, and the spiritual is the ultimate root of all life.

II. Socialism makes the community the final and absolute proprietor of all wealth; Christianity makes God the proprietor and us His stewards for others.

III. Socialism too much seeks to enforce its doctrine of property by brute force; Christianity by the moral leaven of love in the soul of man.

IV. Socialism thinks by equalising human conditions to secure the greatest amount of comfort and happiness; Christianity, or Jesus Christ, teaches that all vital development must be spontaneous, and from within, that a change of character is to be sought rather than a change of conditions. Yet Christianity and socialism need not be spoken of as rivals; they are compatible, and should not be made parties in a quarrel. The fact is that socialism needs to be christianised, and that Christianity needs to be socialised.A. Scott Matheson.

Act. 4:33. The Christian Ministry.

I. Its personnel.No longer the apostles, but the pastors and teachers of the New Testament Church.

II. Its function.Witness-bearing. Not arguing or philosophizing.

III. Its theme.The resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christincluding, of course, all the connected facts and doctrines.

IV. Its influence.When rightly exercised it wields great dynamic force of a moral and spiritual kind.

V. Its reward.It attracts towards itself great grace both from God and man.

The Best Graces for a Church.

I. The grace of unity.

II. The grace of witness-hearing.

III. The grace of liberality.

Act. 4:33. The Risen Christ and the Power of the Gospel.

I. The resurrection.It is not so much with death as with resurrection that the apostles had to do, at least in Jerusalem and Juda. The death was a believed fact there, not needing witnesses.

II. The testimony.It was the testimony of apostles; and yet it was not as apostles, or with official authority that they testified, but as men of integrity and good sense, who saw with their eyes, and heard with their ears.

III. The power.With great power gave the apostles witness. The word which they spoke was in itself a word of power. But apart from this, the great power here spoken of was exhibited.

1. In the accompanying miracles, by which God identified Himself with the apostolic testimony, declaring that their testimony was His truth; for of this the miracles were the seal.
2. In the accompanying power exercised over, and in, mens souls.

IV. The grace.It is great grace; free love in no ordinary measure.H. Bonar, D.D.

Act. 4:36. Joses surnamed Barnabas.

I. The possessor of a good pedigree.He was a Levite, a member of the priestly tribe, though not himself a priest.

II. The owner of a good name.The son of exhortation, or the son of consolation, with reference to either his eloquence or his sympathy.

III. The author of a good deed.Having land he sold it, and laid the money at the apostles feet.

Joses Barnabas; or, the Consecration of Wealth.

I. The pious landowner.

1. His name and surname. Joses, or Josephan honourable name in Israel. Barnabas, the son of exhortation or consolationa more honoured surname in the Christian Church. 2. His character and ability. A good man and full of the Holy Ghost; also a talented man, as may be concluded from his rank alongside of the apostles, his power of eloquent speech, and his usefulness as a colleague of Paul.

3. His land and property.A native of Cyprus, and the possessor of a piece of ground in that island.

II. The great renunciation.He sold his land, that which men highly value, probably his patrimonial inheritance, and cast the proceeds into the common fund.

1. Out of love to Christ, whose disciple he was.

2. Under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, by whom his heart was filled.

3. From consideration of his fellow-Christians needs, whom he regarded as Christs brethren and his own.

III. The cheerful consecration.He laid it at the apostles feet.

1. No doubt without reluctance, as a cheerful giver.

2. Without reservation, keeping back no part of the price.

3. Without stipulation, leaving it for distribution entirely under the apostles control.

Act. 4:36-37. A Sermon on Wealth.Its right use exemplified by Barnabas.

I. Wealth possessed.No sin, at least not necessarily, but a great talent.

II. Wealth surrendered.Not an obligation imposed upon Christians, yet a sacrifice that may be freely offered.

III. Wealth consecrated.Whether retained or renounced it should be devoted to the service of God and Jesus Christ.

IV. Wealth distributed.One way of devoting wealth to God and Christ is to disperse it abroad and give to the poor (Psa. 112:9), to do good with it and to communicate (Heb. 13:16; 1Ti. 6:18).

Act. 4:31-37. The True Blossoms of a Christian Congregation.

I. Where the preaching of Christ flourishes there living faith flourishes. The multitude believed.

II. Where living faith flourishes there genuine love flourishes. One heart and one soul.

III. Where genuine love flourishes, there true prosperity flourishes. No one lacked.Gerok.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

(32) And the multitude of them that believed.Literally, And the heart and the soul of the multitude of those that believed were one. Of the two words used to describe the unity of the Church, heart represented, as in Hebrew usage, rather the intellectual side of character (Mar. 2:6; Mar. 2:8; Mar. 11:23; Luk. 2:35; Luk. 3:15; Luk. 6:45, et al.), and soul, the emotional (Luk. 2:35; Luk. 12:22; Joh. 12:27, et al.). As with most like words, however, they often overlap each other, and are used together to express the totality of character without minute analysis. The description stands parallel with that of Act. 2:42-47, as though the historian delighted to dwell on the continuance, as long as it lasted, of that ideal of a common life of equality and fraternity after which philosophers had yearned, in which the rights of property, though not abolished, were, by the spontaneous action of its owners, made subservient to the law of love, and benevolence was free and full, without the nicely calculated less or more of a later and less happy time. The very form of expression implies that the community of goods was not compulsory. The goods still belonged to men, but they did not speak of them as their own. They had learned, as from our Lords teaching (Luk. 16:10-14), to think of themselves, not as possessors, but as stewards.

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

5. Second Repose Period Community of Goods , Act 4:32-37 .

The heart of the Church, confirmed by trial, is now expanded still more largely with the spirit of Christian liberality described in Act 2:44-47. The laws of property are not founded in sin, but belong to the primitive nature of man. But, inasmuch as a rightful self-love remains after selfishness is purified away, so, even when the rights of ownership are undisturbed, property may in the spirit of a perfect liberality be so freely imparted as that its use becomes practically common. (See note on Act 2:44.)

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

32. One heart one soul It is the outpouring of the Spirit, melting every heart in Christian love, which produces oneness. And that same melting of heart causes the stream of benevolence to flow.

Said his own The very term said implies that the law of property still remained while the surrender was in language and spirit. When men have virtually surrendered their lives, and are calmly standing in hourly danger of losing all earthly things, it is not so difficult to hold their property as not their own.

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

‘And the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul: and not one of them said that anything of all which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.’

Compare Act 2:44, although note the slight difference in emphasis. Here it is on the fact of their total unity with each other in heart and mind as they have grown to know each other, there it was a spontaneous ‘togetherness’. There is a growing together in love. It had been Jesus’ dictum that all men would know Christians by the love that they showed to one another (Joh 13:34-35; Joh 15:12; Joh 15:17). This was first fully manifested in this early Jerusalem church by togetherness and now by growing unity in heart and mind. They were a new and unique group, probably ostracised by many Jews, especially those with high positions in the various synagogues and the Temple, but now drawing together more and more in their new-found faith and hope and fellowship. They rejoiced in Jesus Christ, shared food together (Act 2:42; Act 2:46), prayed together, learned the truth together, witnessed together, and were becoming ‘of one heart and one soul’. They constantly revealed their love for one another.

For the reasons given above there would be many who were in need, and thus there would need to be a common sharing of food and money so that all could be provided for (Act 6:1). Here this is deliberately portrayed in terms which express a kind of divine perfection. The Kingly Rule of God is being manifested on earth, that Kingly Rule under which all food and clothing would be provided by God to those who sought the Kingly Rule of God and His righteousness (Mat 6:19-34). They were letting their light so shine before men that they would see their good works and glorify their Father Who was in heaven (Mat 5:16).

‘Not one of them said that anything of all which he possessed was his own.’ They had gained a new outlook on their possessions. Instead of clinging on to them they recognised that they belonged to God and were therefore to be at His disposal. And that also meant that they should be available to any in need.

‘Had all things in common.’ Many people piously tell God that they see what they possess as belonging to Him and at His disposal. But it is a different matter when it comes to following it up. Having ‘given’ it to God they cling tightly onto it. Here, however, the new community put it into practise. They actually in practise treated their possessions as available to any who needed them. They were not ‘in common’ literally, for they did not live together, but they expressed it practically in their concern for one another and provision for each other. The idea is that they did not hold anything back from each other. If any was in need he could ask and it would be provided, with none denying his right to ask. And yet it was all voluntary. There was no constraint on any.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Kingly Rule of God Is Evidenced On Earth In The Lives of Believers (4:32-35).

The description that follows, which is an amplification of and expansion on Act 2:44-45, was intended to further convey the idea of the Kingly Rule of God as being evidenced on earth, and as constantly growing. They had now become a ‘multitude’. Their prayers for the expansion of the word of God was being answered, so that they were becoming large enough to require larger scale provision.

What is also being brought out here is that the first enthusiasm had now become settled practise, and the spontaneous generosity of chapter 2 had become an established and thought through pattern. Here was the ideal existence of the people of God, an existence full of mutual love and self-giving and sharing in common, and almost parallel with the descriptions of peace and concord among the animals in Isa 11:5-9; Isa 65:25. But here was an even more difficult thing, continual harmony amongst men and women. Here too poverty was being eradicated by a common sharing (see Deu 14:28 to Deu 15:11). The life of the community was becoming more organised, and meanwhile the Kingly Rule of God was continually being proclaimed externally through the witness of the Apostles.

But there is no thought that they became a community separated off from others like the Qumran community, or that the sharing in common was compulsory. They continued to live normally in the world, but were bound together by their common faith and love for one another. It was a spiritual oneness.

The Jerusalem church was unquestionably at this stage in a unique situation. Jerusalem was a place to which many devout people ‘retired’, including many widows, so that they could die in the Holy City. Many devout people, especially the widowed, would be poor and supported by the different Jewish synagogues where almsgiving to fellow-Jews was seen as a major function of the synagogue. (Jerusalem was also a place of ‘hangers-on’ and beggars hoping to benefit from the religious atmosphere). But once some of these devout people turned to Jesus Christ, and there were probably many, they may well have found themselves cut off from the synagogue and from its generosity. And being a Christian would not make them popular with the religious authorities who controlled the funds donated for the poor in the Temple. Thus it would behove the newly formed ‘church, congregation’ to support them (see Act 6:1-3), and for this funds would need to be available.

Furthermore as a result of constant famine and economic conditions, a situation which would later greatly increase in severity, the ordinary people of Jerusalem and the surrounding area went through times of continual difficulty economically, again resulting in a need for support for many people. And prices were higher in Jerusalem than in the countryside. Later on, in fact, support would be needed from Gentile churches because of the great sufferings of the Jewish church in Jerusalem as a result of a period of famine lasting some years (compare Act 11:28-29; 1Co 16:1-3; 2 Corinthians 8-9).

But all such situations could only result in the fellowship of Christians, filled with the love of God, making their utmost effort to ensure that none of their number were in need. It was an expression of practical Christian love. It was probably helped on by the expectancy that Jesus Christ must return soon, but we must not limit it to that. It was rather the practical outworking of what Jesus had taught. It was spontaneous self-giving resulting from the love of Christ within.

Both the summary in Act 2:42 –47 and here are thus intended by Luke not only to express how the church grew and became more Christlike, and how they revealed that they were living under the Kingly Rule of God, and how they were now large enough to require large scale provision, but also to indicate the passage of time and a period of spiritual consolidation following, in the first case, Pentecost and Peter’s first notable speech in the Temple, which had resulted in the ‘three thousand’. and here, after Peter’s second major speech in the Temple, which resulted in an increase to five thousand men, and which was followed by the reaffirmation of Pentecost in Act 4:23-30. Each step forward was being followed by consolidation, while emphasising that continual expansion also took place. The new believers were not being left to themselves. Great care was being taken of their spiritual and practical welfare.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Witness of Church Growth and Persecution In Act 4:32 to Act 5:42 Luke records testimonies of the unity, power, miracles, and persecutions of the early Church.

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. The Witness of the Unity of the Church Act 4:32-37

2. The Witness of the Power of the Church Act 5:1-11

3. The Witness of the Miracles of the Church Act 5:12-16

4. The Witness of Persecution of the Church Act 5:17-42

Act 4:32-37 The Witness of the Unity of the Church: Daily Life Among the Believers In Act 4:32-37 we have the testimony of the daily life of the early Church as they shared all things in common.

Act 4:36 “And Joses” – Comments Scholars say a number of ancient manuscripts have “Joseph” in the place of “Joses.” (See Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes)

Act 4:36 “ who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas” Comments Strong says the name “Barnabas” is derived from two Hebrew words (H1247) (son) and (H5029) (a prophet). His name means “the son of consolation, or comfort,” or, in the Greek “ .” Evidently, Barnabas comforted others, especially with the gifts of utterance. Jerome (A.D. 342 to 420) tells us a little about this man.

“Barnabas the Cyprian, also called Joseph the Levite, ordained apostle to the Gentiles with Paul, wrote one Epistle, valuable for the edification of the church, which is reckoned among the apocryphal writings. He afterwards separated from Paul on account of John, a disciple also called Mark, none the less exercised the work laid upon him of preaching the Gospel.” ( Lives of Illustrious Men 6)

Act 4:37  Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Act 4:36-37 Comments The Gift of Barnabas – This sacrificial giving by Barnabas was recognized above many givers. His giving was such a blow to the kingdom of darkness that it stirred Satan up to corrupt the Church offerings by using Ananias and Sapphira. His gift brought Barnabas into recognition, and positioned him to become a great servant in the mission field.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The unity and charity of the Church:

v. 32. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

v. 33. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; and great grace was upon them all.

v. 34. Neither was there any among them that lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

v. 35. and laid them down at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

v. 36. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

v. 37. having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

There was now a multitude of believers, a congregation of some five thousand men, not counting women and children. And of them all Luke records the highest praise which can be given to a Christian congregation. They were believers, since they adhered closely to the doctrine of the apostles, that is, the teaching of Christ. Because of this faith they were one heart and soul; there was perfect harmony in both affection and thought; there was true unity of spirit. It may seem remarkable that people from such a variety of social relations and conditions could be so thoroughly agreed and so completely harmonious, but such is the power of faith in Jesus. And there was another manifestation of the faith in, and the love toward, their Lord to be noted, namely, an unselfishness which prompted them to take care of their neighbor’s need with the same love and care as their own. The goods of every member were at the disposal of the other members, as they had need of assistance. No one claimed the right of absolute possession. This was not the expression of fantastic and illusory socialistic theories or of an absolute communism, but a spontaneous manifestation of Christian love. This spirit was kept alive and strengthened by the fact that the apostles with great power gave witness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was the spirit, the love, of the risen Christ that lived in the disciples, that actuated them and prompted them to give such evidence of true and unselfish love. It was the result of their acceptance of the resurrected Lord by faith that brought great grace upon them all, favor with God in the consciousness of His mercy, and favor with men on account of the unheard-of unselfishness and pure charity that was practiced by them. Luke repeats that there was no need for any one of them to be in want or to suffer, for the richer members, those that possessed lands or houses, freely and without any urging sold them and brought the proceeds of the sale to the apostles, in order that distribution might be made to all such as were in need. The congregation at this time voluntarily yielded to the teachers the right to take charge of these moneys and supervise their proper distribution. Of the well-to-do disciples, the example of one is recorded as especially noteworthy. This was the case of one Joseph, whom the apostles had surnamed Barnabas (the son of consolation). He was a Jew and had been a Levite before his conversion. He hailed from the island of Cyprus, where he was the owner of a field. The Levites had originally not been permitted to hold possessions in land, Num 18:20; Deu 10:9, but since the Babylonian exile the distribution of land and the maintenance of the Levites was no longer so strictly observed according to the Mosaic Law, Neh 13:10-14. Besides, they could hold land by purchase or inheritance, Jer 32:7-12. Barnabas, filled with love for his needy brethren, sold his land and brought the money to the apostles, just as most of his fellow-Christians did. Note: The enmity of the world does not result to the detriment of the Church. In the midst of cross and tribulation, of hardships and difficulties, the Church is established, and faith and love are rendered strong. When the world begins to rage and to threaten, the true Christians cling all the more firmly to the Word, and this Word shows its power, binding their hearts together ever more firmly.

Summary. Peter and John, arraigned before the Sanhedrin, defend themselves and their cause to the confusion of their judges; they report the matter to the congregation, which lays the threatening enmity before God in prayer, and is more soundly established in faith and love.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Act 4:32. Of one heart and of one soul: This is a proverbial expression for the most intimate and endearing friendship.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Act 4:32 . Connections : Thus beneficial in its effect was the whole occurrence for the apostles (Act 4:31 ); bur ( ) as regards the whole body of those that had become believers , etc. (Act 4:32 ). As, namely, after the former great increase of the church (Act 2:41 ), a characteristic description of the christian church-life is given (Act 2:44 ff.); so here also, after a new great increase (Act 4:4 ), and, moreover, so significant a victory over the Sanhedrim (Act 4:5-31 ) had taken place, there is added a similar description, which of itself points back to the earlier one (in opposition to Schleiermacher), and indicates the pleasing state of things as unchanged in the church now so much enlarged.

] of the multitude , i.e. the mass of believers. These are designated as , having become believers , in reference to Act 4:4 ; but in such a way that it is not merely those , Act 4:4 , that are meant, but they and at the same time all others, who had till now become believers . This is required by , which denotes the Christian people generally , as contrasted with the apostles. Comp. Act 6:2 . The believers’ heart and soul were one , an expression betokening the complete harmony of the inner life as well in the thinking, willing, and feeling, whose centre is the heart (comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 250), as in the activity of the affecttions and impulses, in which they were (Phi 2:2 ) and (Phi 2:20 ). Comp. 1Ch 12:38 ; Phi 1:27 . See examples in Elsner, p. 317; Kypke, II. p. 31.

and not even a single one among so many. Comp. on Joh 1:3 .

] belongs to . Comp. Luk 8:3 ; Tob 4:8 ; Plat. Alc. I. p. 104 A.

As to the community of goods , see on Act 2:44 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. (33) And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. (34) Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, (35) And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (36) And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, (37) Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

What a golden age to the Church must this have been! How sweetly the love of God in Christ wrought upon the heart, when the streams of such a fountain diffused themselves in all directions! And how graciously the Lord gave testimony to the word of his grace, when the Apostles were enabled to shew miracles in witness of the truth; and the people with one heart and soul shewing forth no less the miracle of mercy wrought in them by the Holy Ghost. Oh! for the renewal of such Pentecost seasons, if it were the Lord’s will and pleasure! Oh! for many, many such as Barnabas to arise, as sons of consolation, in the distressing times of the present day. And, oh! that the Lord the Spirit would return to this our sinful land, and thereby fulfill that sweet promise, that by a pure language his people might all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent, Zep 3:9 . Nothing short of this can do to restore health to Zion. No arm, but the arm of Jehovah the Spirit, can cut Rahab, and wound the dragon, Isa 51:9 . Without the outpouring of the Spirit, no heart of stone can be softened, nor the Christ-despising generation in which we dwell be removed. But, if the Lord in rich mercy will pour out of his holy Spirit upon us from on high, then will our wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted for a forest, Isa 32:15 . Reader! shall we not then say to the Holy Ghost, in his own most blessed words, Awake! awake! put on strength, 0 arm of the Lord! Awake, as in the ancient days, in generations of old, Isa 2:9 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

Ver. 32. Were of one heart ] In primitiva Ecclesia, saith Tertullian, Christiani animo animaque inter se miscebantur, et omnia praeter uxores, indiscreta habebant. Sed fraternitas omnis hodie extincta est, et unanimitas primitiva non tantum diminuta (de quo Cyprianus suis temporibus queritur) sed e medio penitus sublata esse videtur. One ancient Greek copy hath these words added to the ordinary reading, “Neither was there any controversy at all among them.” (Patric. Jun. in Not. ad Clem.)

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

32 37 .] THE STATE OF THE CHURCH AT THIS TIME. This passage forms the conclusion of this division of the history and the transition to ch. 5.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

32. ] Much the same meaning as , but with reference to their having become converts , and specially to those mentioned in Act 4:4 , though the description is general. ‘Ubi regnum habet fides, animos ita conciliat ut omnes idem velint et nolint. Hinc enim discordi, quod non regimur eodem Christi Spiritu.’ Calvin. On the community of goods, see note at ch. Act 2:45 . We have the view there taken strikingly confirmed here by the expressions used. No one called (reckoned) any thing of his goods (which were still , not alienated) ( to be) his own . ( , dicebat : hoc ipso prsupponitur proprietatem possessionis non plane fuisse deletam. Bengel.)

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 4:32 . marks no contrast between the multitude and the Apostles; it introduces a general statement of the life of the whole Christian community, cf. Act 15:12 ; Act 15:30 . On St. Luke’s frequent use of words expressing fulness, see Act 4:32 . Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien , p. 59 (1897), points out that in the inscriptions with a genitive has a technical significance, not only in official political life, but also in that of religious communities, cf. Luk 1:10 ; Luk 19:37 , Act 2:6 , but especially Act 15:30 ; so too Act 4:32 , Act 6:2 ; Act 6:5 , Act 15:12 , Act 19:9 , Act 21:22 , where the word = not Menge or Masse , but Gemeinde . : it is difficult to distinguish precisely between the two words, but they undoubtedly imply entire harmony in affection and thought according to a common Hebrew mode of expression; cf. passages in the LXX in which both and occur as here with , 1Ch 12:38 , 2Ch 30:12 (Wetstein); but in each passage the Hebrew word is the same, , and it would include not only affection and emotion, but also understanding, intelligence, thought; cf. Phi 1:27 ; Phi 2:2 ; Phi 2:20 . “Behold heart and soul are what make the together!” Chrys. , , Plutarch, cf. instances in Blass, in loco , from Aristotle and Cicero. Grotius comments “erant ut Hebri loquuntur ”. , “and not one of them said,” R.V., i.e. , not one among so many; cf. Joh 1:3 . , “not even one thing”; cf. Rom 3:10 ; see above on Act 2:45 and J. Lightfoot, Hor. Heb., in loco . On the difference between the classical and N.T. use of the infinitive after verbs of declaring, see Viteau, Le Grec du N. T. , pp. 51, 52, 153, 155 (1896); except in Luke and Paul the infinitive tends to disappear, whilst these two writers retain the more literary usage.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Acts

THE WHEAT AND THE TARES

Act 4:32 . – Act 5:11 .

Once more Luke pauses and gives a general survey of the Church’s condition. It comes in appropriately at the end of the account of the triumph over the first assault of civil authority, which assault was itself not only baffled, but turned to good. Just because persecution had driven them closer to God and to one another, were the disciples so full of brotherly love and of grace as Luke delights to paint them.

I. We note the fair picture of what the Church once was.

The recent large accessions to it might have weakened the first feelings of brotherhood, so that it is by no means superfluous to repeat substantially the features of the earlier description Act 2:44 – Act 2:45. ‘The multitude’ is used with great meaning, for it was a triumph of the Spirit’s influence that the warm stream of brotherly love ran through so many hearts, knit together only by common submission to Jesus. That oneness of thought and feeling was the direct issue of the influx of the Spirit mentioned as the blessed result of the disciples’ dauntless devotion Act 4:31. If our Churches were ‘filled with the Holy Ghost,’ we too should be fused into oneness of heart and mind, though our organisations as separate communities continued, just as all the little pools below high-water mark are made one when the tide comes up.

The first result and marvellous proof of that oneness was the so-called ‘community of goods,’ the account of which is remarkable both because it all but fills this picture, and because it is broken into two by Act 4:33 , rapidly summarising other characteristics. The two halves may be considered together, and it may be noted that the former presents the sharing of property as the result of brotherly unity, while the latter traces it ‘for,’ Act 4:34 to the abundant divine grace resting on the whole community. The terms of the description should be noted, as completely negativing the notion that the fact in question was anything like compulsory abolition of the right of individual ownership. ‘Not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own.’ That implies that the right of possession was not abolished. It implies, too, that the common feeling of brotherhood was stronger than the self-centred regard which looks on possessions as to be used for self. Thus they possessed as though they possessed not, and each held his property as a trust from God for his brethren.

We must observe, further, that the act of selling was the owners’, as was the act of handing the proceeds to the Apostles. The community had nothing to do with the money till it had been given to them. Further, the distribution was not determined by the rule of equality, but by the ‘need’ of the recipients; and its result was not that all had share and share alike, but that ‘none lacked.’

There is nothing of modern communism in all this, but there is a lesson to the modern Church as to the obligations of wealth and the claims of brotherhood, which is all but universally disregarded. The spectre of communism is troubling every nation, and it will become more and more formidable, unless the Church learns that the only way to lay it is to live by the precepts of Jesus and to repeat in new forms the spirit of the primitive Church. The Christian sense of stewardship, not the abolition of the right of property, is the cure for the hideous facts which drive men to shriek ‘Property is theft.’

Luke adds two more points to his survey,-the power of the Apostolic testimony, and the great grace which lay like a bright cloud on the whole Church. The Apostles’ special office was to bear witness to the Resurrection. They held a position of prominence in the Church by virtue of having been chosen by Jesus and having been His companions, but the Book of Acts is silent about any of the other mysterious powers which later ages have ascribed to them. The only Apostles who appear in it are Peter, John, and James, the last only in a parenthesis recording His martyrdom. Their peculiar work was to say, ‘Behold! we saw, and know that He died and rose again.’

II. The general description is followed by one example of the surrender of wealth, which is noteworthy as being done by one afterwards to play a great part in the book, and also as leading on to an example of hypocritical pretence. Side by side stand Barnabas and the wretched couple, Ananias and Sapphira.

Luke introduces the new personage with some particularity, and, as He does not go into detail without good reason, we must note his description. First, the man’s character is given, as expressed in the name bestowed by the Apostles, in imitation of Christ’s frequent custom. He must have been for some time a disciple, in order that his special gift should have been recognised. He was a ‘son of exhortation’; that is, he had the power of rousing and encouraging the faith and stirring the believing energy of the brethren. An example of this was given in Antioch, where he ‘exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.’ So much the more beautiful was his self-effacement when with Paul, for it was the latter who was ‘the chief speaker.’ Barnabas felt that his gift was less than his brother’s, and so, without jealousy, took the second place. He, being silent, yet speaketh, and bids us learn our limits, and be content to be surpassed.

We are next told his rank. He was a Levite. The tribe to which a disciple belongs is seldom mentioned, but probably the reason for specifying Barnabas’ was the same as led Luke, in another place, to record that ‘a great company of the priests was obedient to the faith.’ The connection of the tribe of Levi with the Temple worship made accessions from it significant, as showing how surely the new faith was creeping into the very heart of the old system, and winning converts from the very classes most interested in opposing it. Barnabas’ significance is further indicated by the notice that he was ‘a man of Cyprus,’ and as such, the earliest mentioned of the Hellenists or foreign-born and Greek-speaking Jews, who were to play so important a part in the expansion of the Church.

His first appearance witnessed to the depth and simple genuineness of his character and faith. The old law forbidding Levites to hold land had gradually become inoperative, and perhaps Barnabas’ estate was in Cyprus, though more probably it was, like that of his relative Mary, the mother of Mark, in Jerusalem. He did as many others were doing, and brought the proceeds to the assembly of the brethren, and there publicly laid them at the Apostles’ feet, in token of their authority to administer them as they thought well.

III. Why was Barnabas’ act singled out for mention, since there was nothing peculiar about it?

Most likely because it stimulated Ananias and his wife to imitation. Wherever there are signal instances of Christian self-sacrifice, there will spring up a crop of base copies. Ananias follows Barnabas as surely as the shadow the substance. It was very likely a pure impulse which led him and his wife to agree to sell their land; and it was only when they had the money in their hands, and had to take the decisive step of parting with it, and reducing themselves to pennilessness, that they found the surrender harder than they could carry out. Satan spoils many a well-begun work, and we often break down half-way through a piece of Christian unselfishness. Well begun is half-but only half-ended.

Be that as it may, Peter’s stern words to Ananias put all the stress of the sin on its being an acted lie. The motives of the trick are not disclosed. They may have been avarice, want of faith, greed of applause, reluctance to hang back when others were doing like Barnabas. It is hard to read the mingled motives which lead ourselves wrong, and harder to separate them in the case of another. How much Ananias kept back is of no moment; indeed, the less he retained the greater the sin; for it is baser, as well as more foolish, to do wrong for a little advantage than for a great one.

Peter’s two questions bring out very strikingly the double source of the sin. ‘Why hath Satan filled thy heart?’-an awful antithesis to being filled with the Spirit. Then there is a real, malign Tempter, who can pour evil affections and purposes into men’s hearts. But he cannot do it unless the man opens his heart, as that ‘why?’ implies. The same thought of our co-operation and concurrence, so that, however Satan suggests, it is we who are guilty, comes out in the second question, ‘How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart?’ Reverently we may venture to say that not only Christ stands at the door and knocks, but that the enemy of Him and His stands there too, and he too enters ‘if any man opens the door.’ Neither heaven nor hell can come in unless we will.

The death of Ananias was not inflicted by Peter, ‘Hearing these words’ he ‘fell down and’ died. Surely that expression suggests that the stern words had struck at his life, and that his death was the result of the agitation of shame and guilt which they excited. That does not at all conflict with regarding his death as a punitive divine act.

One can fancy the awed silence that fell on the congregation, and the restrained, mournful movement that ran through it when Sapphira entered. Why the two had not come in company can only be conjectured. Perhaps the husband had gone straight to the Apostles after completing the sale, and had left the wife to follow at her convenience. Perhaps she had not intended to come at all, but had grown alarmed at the delay in Ananias’ return. She may have come in fear that something had gone wrong, and that fear would be increased by her not seeing her husband in her quick glance round the company.

If she came expecting to receive applause, the silence and constraint that hung over the assembly must have stirred a fear that something terrible had happened, which would be increased by Peter’s question. It was a merciful opportunity given her to separate herself from the sin and the punishment; but her lie was glib, and indicated determination to stick to the fraud. That moment was heavy with her fate, and she knew it not; but she knew that she had the opportunity of telling the truth, and she did not take it. She had to make the hard choice which we have sometimes to make, to be true to some sinful bargain or be true to God, and she chose the worse part. Which of the two was tempter and which was tempted matters little. Like many a wife, she thought that it was better to be loyal to her husband than to God, and so her honour was ‘rooted in dishonour,’ and she was falsely true and truly false.

The judgment on Sapphira was not inflicted by Peter. He foretold it by his prophetic power, but it was the hand of God which vindicated the purity of the infant Church. The terrible severity of the punishment can only be understood by remembering the importance of preserving the young community from corruption at the very beginning. Unless the vermin are cleared from the springing plant, it will not grow. As Achan’s death warned Israel at the beginning of their entrance into the promised land, so Ananias and Sapphira perished, that all generations of the Church might fear to pretend to self-surrender while cherishing its opposite, and might feel that they have to give account to One who knows the secrets of the heart, and counts nothing as given if anything is surreptitiously kept back.

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 4:32-35

32And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. 33And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. 34For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales 35and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.

Act 4:32 “who believed were of one heart and soul” The spirit of unity among the believers (cf. Act 1:14) reflected the unity of the Triune God (cf. Joh 17:11; Joh 17:21; Joh 17:23; Eph 4:4-6). These very words are used in Mar 12:30 to reflect the first commandment in Deu 6:4-5.

“all things were common property to them” They felt and acted like a family. This was the church’s first attempt to finance ministry. It was voluntary and mutual, not mandatory. Love and concern, not government or social leveling, was the motive!

Act 4:33 “were giving testimony to the resurrection” This was the central truth of their message ( cf. 1 Corinthians 15). Jesus was alive!

“and abundant grace was upon them all” We learn from Paul’s letters that at a later time this church was very poor (cf. Rom 15:3; Gal 2:10). Abundant grace, like abundant living (cf. Joh 10:10) has little to do with material things. Notice this abundance was upon all of them, not just the leaders, the possessors of certain gifts, or those of a certain socio-economic level.

Act 4:34 The church felt a responsibility for one another. Those who had, gave freely to those in need (cf. Act 4:35). This is not communism, but love in action.

Act 4:35 “lay them at the apostles feet” This is a cultural idiom of giving something to another. They laid their goods and money at the Apostles’ feet because they had laid their lives at Jesus’ feet.

“they would be distributed” This is an imperfect passive indicative, which shows continual action in past time. This follows the synagogue pattern of helping the poor and needy.

“as any had need” There is an interesting comment in Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard’s Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, pp. 451-453, that Marx’s manifesto contains two quotes from Acts:

1. “from each according to his ability” Act 11:29

2. “to each according to his need”

The hermeneutical problem is that modern people try to use the Bible to support that which the Bible itself never addressed or realized. The Bible cannot mean to us what it never meant to the original author or hearer. We can apply the text in different ways to our cultural and existential situation, but our application must be inseparably linked to the original author’s intended meaning. Every biblical text has only one meaning, but many applications or significances. (See my Biblical Interpretation Seminar at www.freebiblecommentary.org )

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

the multitude, &c. = of the full number (Greek. plethos) of the believing ones.

soul. App-110. Act 4:1.

neither = and not even.

any = one.

ought = any one. Greek. tis. App-123.

the things which he possessed = his possessions. Greek. huparcho. Compare Luk 9:48 with Luk 12:15.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

32-37.] THE STATE OF THE CHURCH AT THIS TIME. This passage forms the conclusion of this division of the history and the transition to ch. 5.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Act 4:32. , one heart and soul) in all matters of belief and of practice (credendis et agendis). A remarkable character given of them.- ) Not even one, in so great a multitude. The highest degree of concord.-, was saying) By this very expression it is taken for granted, that ownership of property was not altogether abolished.-, common) This was required by the Divine direction; as also by the number of believers, which was indeed great, but not so great as it was afterwards; as also by the change of the Jewish state which was impending. The magistrates did not at that time interfere to prevent the Church and individual Christians from disposing of their resources according as they themselves pleased: Act 4:34-35; Act 6:1-2; Act 11:30; Act 24:17; 1Co 16:1.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Act 4:32-37

UNITY OF THE CHURCH;

POSSESSIONS FOR COMMON GOOD

Act 4:32-37

32 And the multitude of them that believed-The disciples of Christ now numbered several thousand; they were all in and around Jerusalem; they had not been scattered at this time. The entire company were united; they were of one heart and soul. They were many in number, but one in spirit. One of the most striking things that may be said about the early church was its perfect oneness of heart and soul. It is not possible to make a clear distinction between heart and soul. Kardia, as used here, means not only the seat of the affections, but the center of the entire complex being, physical, moral, and intellectual. Psuche is frequently used in the New Testament to mean life. (Mat 2:20 Mat 20:28; Act 20:10; Rom 11:3.) Those who owned property regarded it not as their own, but freely used it for the common weal of others; they had all things common. The property was held for the common use, but the rights of property were not abolished, nor the individual holding of property declared to be wrong. This was an emergency, and all were willing and anxious to use whatever they possessed for the common good.

33 And with great power gave the apostles their witness- The apostles bore witness to the resurrection with great power; the resurrection was the offensive doctrine to the Sadducees; it was the very heart of the gospel; hence, the apostles bore witness to what they had seen and heard. They kept on giving their witness with power after the answer to their prayer. Great power means the force of argument accompanied with spiritual power. Great grace was upon them all. The entire membership of the church found favor with each other and with others. The lives that they were now living commended them to others. The original word for grace is the same as the word for favor in Act 2:47. Hence, the same idea is expressed; therefore, great favor was felt toward the Christians on the part of the people generally.

34-35 For neither was there among them-No one among them was allowed by his brethren to be in want, for no one among them was in want. Those who owned the property sold it and used the money to relieve those who were in destitute circumstances. It should be remembered that a great company of Jews had assembled in Jerusalem for the Passover, and then remained over for the Pentecost feast. They brought possessions enough to last them until this feast had passed. But many of them had been converted and continued their sojourn in Jerusalem until their supply had been exhausted. They were now new creatures in Christ; they had begun a new life; they had new hopes and new purposes; they had not learned the full meaning of Christianity. Some of them were in need, not because they had been idle, neither because they had squandered their possessions, nor yet because they were shiftless; but their means had been exhausted and they now were in need. In this emergency those who had possessions were ready to distribute as each had need. There is no communism practiced here; there was no denial of property rights, nor an encouragement to idleness; but an emergency had arisen and they had enough of the spirit of Christ to supply the needs of those who were in distress.

36-37 And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas-Barnabas is derived from two Hebrew words which mean son of teaching or preaching; the two Greek words, here translated son of consolation, may also mean son of preaching or exhortation. His name was Joseph; he is here mentioned as one illustration of those who are mentioned in verse 34, who sold his possessions and brought the money to the apostles for them to distribute it as there was need. The apostles named this Joseph Barnabas, and he is known better by this name than any other. It seems clear from this fact that all did not actually sell their property, but were ready to do so as the need arose; but Barnabas actually sold his field and gave to the apostles the price. It is very likely that as a preacher his gift was in persuasion and exhortation. In Act 11:23 the very word parekalei, which means exhorted, is used of Barnabas. Paul describes such a preacher in 1Co 14:3. He is in a broad sense of the word called an apostle. (Act 14:14.) He was of the tribe of Levi and a native of Cyprus, which was an important island in the Mediterranean Sea. He was a Levite and a man of Cyprus by race, which means that he was a Jew and was born in Cyprus of Jewish parents; the Greek literally means a Levite, a Cyprian by birth; he was both a Jew and a Cyprian.

Questions on Acts

By E.M. Zerr

Acts Chapter 4

Who are “they” of verse one?

What persons came upon them?

Describe their state of mind.

Did not the Jews believe in the resurrection?

Then what caused their grief here?

What did they do to the apostles?

Does’ this mean a religious ceremony?

What was done now with Peter and John?

Did this cut off all their good fruits?

How many believed?

Who gathered next day?

Where did they gather ?

Who was set in their midst?

What is meant by “this” in verse seven ?

State their inquiry of the apostles.

Who spoke in answer?

With what was he filled?

Was his answer evasive?

Was the information to be held confidentially?

To what name does he ascribe the deed?

Of what does he accuse them?

What part had God bad in the work?

By what object is Christ illustrated?

What had the builders done to it?

Who were the builders?

What had the stone become?

State what is in this stone only.

How exclusive is this name?

State the literary rank of the apostles.

In spite of this, what did they manifest?

What conclusion did this suggest to the crowd?

State what fact they could not deny.

What manner of conference was held?

Who are “them” of the 15th verse?

What difficulty confronted the council?

Tell what they did as last resort.

What did they hope to affect by the threat?

Name the antecedent of “this” in the 17th verse.

Relate the orders then given the apostles.

Did it intimidate them?

To what were they restricted in speaking?

Why were the apostles then let go?

What was done before being let go?

Tell what attitude the people took.

What gave emphasis to the miracle?

When released, to whom did the apostles go?

State the report they made.

How Was the report received?

What prophecy was brought to their mind?

Name the rulers who assembled against Christ.

In so doing what did they fulfill?

Did the disciples pray for freedom from trials?

Give the substance of their prayer.

Through what means might signs be done?

What demonstration followed the prayer?

With what were they filled?

How and what did they speak?

What was their condition as to unity?

How did they arrange their possessions?

Had this been commanded?

To what did the apostles give witness?

Who had charge of the treasury?

In what form was the property presented?

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

14. GRACE, GENEROSITY, AND GREED

Act 4:32 to Act 5:11

In the Book of Acts the Holy Spirit gives us a detailed picture of the early church. Like the church today, it was a mixed multitude. Tares grew with the wheat. Goats were mingled with the Lord’s sheep. Among the people of God there were, even in those early days, covetous, idolatrous hypocrites. Every Sunday school child has heard about Ananias and his wife, Sapphira. Their story begins in chapter four, at verse thirty-two and continues through chapter five, verse eleven. In this story the Spirit of God gives us a striking contrast between true faith in Christ and a mere hypocritical profession of faith. True faith surrenders all to Christ. Religious hypocrisy merely pretends to surrender all to Christ. If you will carefully read these few verses of Inspiration, three things will catch your attention.

AN ATTITUDE OF GRACE – The first thing the Holy Spirit directs our attention to in this passage is an attitude of grace among the people of God (Act 4:32-35). Believing hearts are gracious hearts. True faith really converts sinners. The person who is born again by the Spirit of God is no longer a selfish, self-centered, self-seeking, self-serving person, but a grateful, thoughtful, generous, serving person. All who live unto God die unto the world. The person who finds his life in Christ loses his life to Christ (Mat 10:39). These early disciples show by their example that faith lives not for material gain, but for spiritual good. Faith seeks not temporal riches. Faith loves not the things of this world, which are passing away, but the things of that world which is to come, which are eternal (2Co 4:18). Faith seeks the kingdom of God and his righteousness, not the mammon of unrighteousness (Mat 6:24; Mat 6:31-33). Faith in Christ produces an attitude of grace in the heart. Those who have experienced the grace of God are gracious. Is this not the teaching of these four verses?

Faith unites the people of God. Luke tells us that “the multitude of them that believed were of one accord” (Act 4:32). All of God’s people truly are one in Christ. We are one family (Eph 3:14-15), a family of sinners saved by grace. Our hearts love one Person supremely, the Lord Jesus Christ (1Pe 1:8; 1Jn 4:19). We are devoted to one cause, the kingdom of God (Mat 6:10). We seek one thing above all other things, the will of God (Mat 6:6). We have one dominating, ultimate goal, the glory of God (Joh 12:28). These things are true of all believers! Many other things, regrettably, may divide us while we live in this body of flesh and sin. But here we are one. Let every child of God endeavor, therefore, to keep “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:1-6).

Faith in Christ makes men and women generous with their possessions – “Neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common” (Act 4:32). These men and women were so taken up with the cause of Christ and with their love for one another that they placed no value upon personal property, personal wealth, or personal advantages. These believers were truly indifferent to such things. They did not even look upon their own possessions as their own. In their hearts’ affection they had forsaken all to follow Christ. They recognized that all earthly, material things are only temporary. They were so thoroughly united to one another in love that they each looked upon their own property as the common property of God’s people.

These men and women had learned what every child of God in this world must learn – All that we have in this world belongs to God. God has entrusted each of us with certain of this world’s goods to use as stewards in his house. We are responsible to use them wisely for the advancement of his kingdom, the furtherance of his gospel, the comfort of his people, and the glory of his name. These men and women were willing to rob themselves of comfort, convenience, and personal satisfaction for one another’s good. Is it any wonder that the Apostles preached with such power, “when such great grace was upon them all” (Act 4:33)?

True faith actually causes God’s saints to prefer each other above themselves. This is manifest in Act 4:34-35. These men and women sold their possessions, their houses and their lands rather than allow their brothers and sisters in Christ to be in need of the necessities of life! The grace of God still produces this kind of graciousness, mercifulness, and love (Php 2:1-8; Jas 2:14-17; 1Jn 3:16-18).

Their gifts were free, voluntary sacrifices of love. No one told them to give. No one told them how to give. No one told them how much to give. In the church of God giving is not regulated by law, but by love (2Co 9:7). The only constraint these people felt was the constraint of love (2Co 5:14). They saw what the needs of the church were and willingly met those needs, without the least pressure to do so. Notice also that the people of God trusted the servants of God to distribute their gifts under the direction of the Spirit of God (Act 4:35). Where the Spirit of God rules the hearts of men there is trust and trustworthiness! The Apostles of Christ were not (and his servants are not) greedy men. They took only what they needed to sustain themselves. Everything else was distributed as needs demanded.

AN ACT OF GENEROSITY – The Spirit of God inspired Luke to tell us about one man specifically, who was an example of the rest. Barnabas performed a great deed, an act of generosity (Act 4:36-37). As one that was ordained of God to be a preacher of the gospel, Barnabas disentangled himself from the affairs of this world (2Ti 2:4; 1Co 9:6-14). Perhaps Barnabas did not know it at this time, but God was preparing him for the work of preaching the gospel. Indeed, all who are called of God to preach the gospel are prepared, equipped, and qualified by him to do so (1Ti 3:1-7; Tit 1:6-9). Barnabas was just the kind of man God uses in the work of the ministry. God had made him such a man by his Spirit and by his grace. He was a peaceful man, one who comforted and encouraged the saints. He was a generous man, an example of Christian charity. He was willingly submissive to the Apostles, the servants of Christ (Heb 13:7; Heb 13:17). Barnabas was a man of good report, who in the providence of God gained the love and respect of God’s people. Then, after God prepared him for it, he was made a preacher of the gospel (Act 13:2).

AN ACT OF GREED – There was a wicked, hypocritical couple in the church, Ananias and Sapphira. When Ananias saw how greatly Barnabas was admired by God’s people, he was filled with envy. So he and his wife agreed to lie to God. (Hypocrisy is lying to God!). They made a great gift to the church, but their gift was an act of greed. They gave because they wanted recognition. At first glance they appear to have done a great thing. They sold a piece of property to help the church. They gave a handsome amount of money, perhaps much more than Barnabas had given. But God looks on the heart (1Sa 16:7). The gift Ananias and Sapphira brought revealed a graceless, greedy heart. They pretended to give all, when in fact they had given nothing. No one asked them to give anything. Theirs was an unwilling sacrifice, given only in a hypocritical pretense, a sham, a show, a mockery. Their gift was an act of covetousness and greed, not of grace and love. They hoped to gain by giving, to gain the applause of men! Their gift was an abomination to God (Luk 16:15). Beware of covetousness and hypocrisy!

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

the multitude: Act 1:14, Act 2:1, Act 5:12, 2Ch 30:12, Jer 32:39, Eze 11:19, Eze 11:20, Joh 17:11, Joh 17:21-23, Rom 12:5, Rom 15:5, Rom 15:6, 1Co 1:10, 1Co 12:12-14, 2Co 13:11, Eph 4:2-6, Phi 1:27, Phi 2:1, Phi 2:2, 1Pe 3:8

ought: Act 2:44-46, 1Ch 29:14-16, Luk 16:10-12, 1Pe 4:11

Reciprocal: Exo 36:29 – coupled Lev 25:6 – General Deu 15:11 – Thou shalt 2Sa 19:14 – even 1Ch 12:17 – knit 2Ch 5:13 – as one Ezr 3:1 – as one Job 31:17 – have Psa 72:7 – In his days Son 7:9 – the best Isa 35:2 – the excellency Isa 52:8 – see Mat 13:44 – for joy Mat 19:21 – go Mat 25:35 – I was an Joh 4:38 – sent Joh 13:35 – General Rom 12:10 – kindly Rom 12:16 – of the Eph 4:13 – we all Col 2:2 – being Col 2:19 – knit 1Th 4:9 – touching Heb 13:1 – General

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

The Marks of a Genuine Faith

Act 4:32-37

INTRODUCTORY WORDS

We come today to a most interesting, and inside view of the lives and ministry of the early saints. May the impact of this message call each of us to a more blessed Christian walk. We who, as followers of the Lord, are living twenty centuries later than the first disciples, should have a deeper realization of our own relationship toward God, toward one another, and toward all men.

I. A UNITY OF HEART AND OF SOUL MARKED THE EARLY BELIEVERS

1. The expression “of one heart” suggests the tender affection that the early Christians had one for another. Christianity is not a cold, formal faith-a mere federation and amalgamation based upon “duty.”

Christianity is a warm, tender love of saints,-a federation and amalgamation based upon heart-throbs.

John may have been, by nature, “a son of thunder,” but when grace found him, he became the gentle and considerate father, who knew the deeper meaning of the word “beloved.”

Paul may have been by nature, the austere youth filled with heartless cruelty toward the Christians of his day-a self-seeker in every sense of the word. That was, however, when Paul was commonly known as Saul, of Tarsus. Paul the redeemed, and Paul the preacher of the Gospel, was of quite a different type. He could write to saints, “I have you in my heart”; and “I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.”

This is true to so great an extent, that the Spirit of God bore witness that a supreme test of real and vital Christianity is based on the prevalence of love. “We know we have passed from death unto life, because we LOVE the brethren.”

The first believers manifested, therefore, the genuineness of their salvation, by the fact of their unity-they were of one heart. They loved God and one another with a pure heart, fervently. They seemed to live, each for the other, and all for God.

2. The expression “of one mind” suggests the oneness of faith that pervaded the early Christians.

Schism and division had not yet separated the saints. When Luke wrote, in Spirit, that wonderful first chapter of his Gospel, concerning Jesus Christ and His Virgin Birth, he wrote of the “things which are most surely believed among us,”

Some of the Christians did not believe one story of the birth of Christ, and another group, another story. They were of one mind. They knew but “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.”

Satan never worked better than when he began to divide Christians into various sects. One began to say, “I am of Paul”; another said, “I am of Apollos”; another, I am of Cephas, and another, I am of Christ. That spirit of contention, played havoc with the Church. It was brought about because men walked in the flesh and were carnal.

What grief is ours. Men have become followers of men. Today, fidelity is centered around denominational names with their distinctive creeds and operations, instead of around Christ. Christendom is torn by strife, while Satan stands off and laughs.

We would not for a moment decry fidelity to the faith, and we know that each one should remain true to their conceptions of truth. That is pleasing to God. However, why should we allow denominational names to divide us? We are firmly of this conviction, that, separated by different names, and walking under divisive creeds, multitudes of believers who in mind are one in the faith, are withal, sadly estranged.

We may well divide, separating ourselves from those who walk contrary to the great verities of the Birth, Death, Resurrection and Return of Christ. However, what right have we to separate ourselves from those who hold to the same vitals of faith.

When Christ prayed, “That they all may be one,” He meant one in heart and soul. We join in His prayer and long for a return of all the orthodox under One Shepherd and in one flock.

II. A UNITY IN POSSESSIONS MARKED THE EARLY BELIEVERS

How strikingly strange are the concluding words of Act 4:32. “Neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.”

These words are so foreign to the spirit that dominates us all in this period of latter-day self-seeking, that we feel we must stop and ponder. If there had been any Divine command for such a course, we would have marveled at the willingness with which so strange a precept was obeyed; but when we remember that there was no command, no orders from above, but that this action of the saints was born of a spontaneity of mutual love we marvel yet the more.

There are two outstanding sentiments in this Scripture:

1. A renounced ownership. “Neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own.” To this we all readily agree. All that we hold is held under stewardship. The cattle on a thousand hills are the Lord’s. The silver and the gold are His. The very land that composes our farms, or home properties are included in the word, “All things were created by Him; and for Him.” The Lord divided unto the nations their inheritances. What have we that we did not receive from Him. Surely we are not our own, and nothing that we possess is, in reality, our own. “Lord, I am Thine, and all that I have is Thine.”

When we tithe our income, and when we bring to God an offering beyond our tithes, we are only giving unto God of that which is His.

Theoretically, we suppose, all Christians acknowledge God’s ownership of all of their possessions; yet, practically, we usually keep our hand tightly closed upon all that He has entrusted to us. That is to say, we acknowledge Divine ownership as long as it does not interfere with our own dogmatic authority in that we possess.

2. A renounced possession. “But they had all things common.” This expressed a surrender of personal properties, and it was the climax of the reality of their position that all that they had was God’s.

We do not take the position that all saints should follow this example, for even those early saints were not acting under Divine command. We do however, believe that the spirit that prompted the actions of the early saints should dominate us.

Christians hold their belongings too tightly. Those who labor should always labor that they may have to give to him that hath need. He who has this world’s goods and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion against him, is acting altogether contrary to the spirit that dominated the love of God.

We believe that there should be a far more liberal bestowal of our bounty toward those who are in need.

There is a Scripture that runs like this: “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich.” There is another Scripture which we delight in placing beside this one. Here it is, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ * * be with you.”

If the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ caused Him to become poor for us, should not that specific manifestation of grace be found in us? Should we not also be willing to become poor, that others might be rich? Suppose we do give our all, did not Christ give His all?

He made many rich; for the most part, we make only ourselves rich. He gave, we hang on. Oh, yes, we give something, but we usually see to it that our gifts never impoverish ourselves. Out of our abundance we may give much, but these saints gave all.

III. A POWERFUL WITNESS FOLLOWED THE EARLY SAINTS

Act 4:33 reads, “And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.”

A power backed the witness of the servants of God, who lived in those early days. They not only professed faith in Christ, but they manifested their faith. Their deeds went far to corroborate their testimony. They spoke that they did know; they testified what they had seen. They did not ask others to do what they would not themselves do. They practiced what they preached.

Would not the testimony of the church of our own day, be more vital, if the Church lived the life which the pulpit proclaimed. The true preacher may be ever so zealous for the faith, but unless the pew backs the pulpit with a consecrated and separated walk, the hands of the preacher are tied.

Some one may seek to remind us that the power of the witness of the early Church lay in the Holy Ghost. That is true. Yet, the Holy Ghost operates only in and through those who obey Him.

There is another great statement in this Scripture: The witness of the early Church was the witness of Christ’s resurrection. This was the great undergirding theme which the early saints presented. Why was this? One should remember that the Lord Jesus had but a little while before been nailed to the tree. On that tree, He died. From that tree He was taken down and laid in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. The death of Christ had its miraculous manifestations; nevertheless, the shame and the sorrow, the mockings and the madness of the populace against the Christ as He hung on that cross, were abiding memories.

In the minds of the populace Christ had died forsaken of the Father, and disowned of men. In the tomb of Joseph where Jesus lay, was also laid all of the hopes of the disciples.

In the resurrection lay all that stood for victory. The empty tomb placed the approval of God upon the work of Christ. The empty tomb acclaimed Christ as Deity. The empty tomb approved of Christ as Saviour and Lord.

Therefore the theme of the resurrection put terror into the hearts of Christ-rejecters, and joy into the hearts of those who believed.

It was His resurrection, that made sure their own resurrection, and the resurrection of the dead who slept in Jesus.

The witness of the ever-increasing host of the saved as to the resurrection of Christ, was, during those first decades of Church ministry, an unchallenged witness. No man ever dared to deny that Christ had risen. With such power and assurance did the disciples give testimony to the resurrection, that even, the members of the Sanhedrin never dared, in any large way, to contradict their testimony.

IV. THE APOSTLES WERE MADE THE RECIPIENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN’S BOUNTY

Let us now read our final verses for this sermon.

“Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, “And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

“And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, “Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet” (Act 4:34-37).

Under the great grace that rested upon the Christians every man sold his land or his properties and brought the prices of the thing’s that were sold and laid the money at the Apostles’ feet, Judas, the only one among the twelve who was a thief, had hanged himself. The rest of the Apostles were men of unquestioned honor. They had no wealth of their own, yet, to them fell the responsibility of dispensing the wealth of others. That they dealt wisely and with consistent fairness, is seen in the expression, “Neither was there any among them that lacked.” The reason is thus stated, “Distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.”

One would have thought that Millennial blessedness had come, In those days every man will sit tinder his own vine and fig tree. The Lord will hear the cry of the widow and of the orphan. He will deal with equity and with righteousness. He will hear the cry of the poor.

The noble “communism” that prevailed among the early Christians, thus, antedated the Millennium by two thousand years. Their actions seemed a prophecy of good times to come.

It was not for long that this spirit dominated the children of God. However, we do read that the saints of Macedonia gave to their impoverished brethren willingly, of themselves. They gave as they were able, yea, and beyond that they were able, even intreating Paul and others to take upon them this ministering to the saints.

We would that a like grace might be upon us ail.

When the head of the great Salvation Army wanted, several years ago, to send greetings to America, he cabled the one word. Others. This should ever be the supreme aim of our lives-Christ and Others.

How quickly would every problem of church finances be solved if the spirit of grace that fell upon the early Church, fell also upon us? May we examine our lives in the light of this call of God.

Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water

2

Act 4:32. Was his own (personally), but that it was to be deposited in the common stock of money. For a complete discussion of this subject, see chapter 2:44, 45.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Act 4:32. And the multitude of them that believed. From the personal details connected with the leading followers of Jesus of Nazareth, related in the third and fourth chapters,from recounting their words, their great miracle, and the persecution which followed,the historian of the first days of the Church passes to the inner life of the new society, and shows how the same quiet peace, the same spirit of self-sacrifice which at first (see chap. Act 2:44-47) prevailed, still reigned in the now greatly enlarged community, which now numbered, we are told (chap. Act 4:7), 5000 men; and of the inner life of the Church in those early days, the writer of the history dwells on two particulars(1) the relations of believers one with another; (2) the relation of believers towards the outer world.

Of one heart and one soul. This expression was one significant of a close and intimate friendship. A harmony complete and unbroken reigned at first in the Church of Jesus: greed, jealousy, and selfish ambition were unknown as yet in the community, and this enthusiasm of love found its first expression in a voluntary cession of all possessions on the part of each individual believer in favour of the common funds of the society.

Neither said any of them that ought of the things that they possessed was his own, but they had all things common. The various points connected with the community of goods in the early Church, the confined area over which the practice extended, the many exceptions to the rule which existed even in the first few years of the Churchs history, etc., are discussed in Excursus B of Chapter 2. This voluntary poverty was no doubt an attempt on the part of the loving followers of Jesus to imitate as closely as possible the old life they had led while the Master yet walked with them on earth, when they had one purse and all things common. The changed conditions after the ascension, at first they failed to see; the great and varied interests with which they soon became mixed up, the vastly enlarged society, and above all, the absence of the Master, soon rendered impracticable the continuance of a way of life to which they were attached by such sweet and never-to-be-forgotten memories. It is clear, then, that this was an attempt to graft the principle of a community of goods on the Church of Christan attempt which utterly failed in practice, and which was given up altogether after a very short experience. This is indisputable, for we find all the epistles written upon the supposition that the varied orders of master and slave, of rich and poor, continued to exist side by side in the Christian community.

The rigid and unswerving truthfulness of the author of the Acts, in dwelling upon this grave mistake of the first years, seems to have escaped general notice. Long before the Acts were edited, the error was acknowledged and corrected; yet St. Luke makes no attempt to conceal or even to gloss over the mistaken zeal of those brave apostles and martyrs who laid so well and so faithfully the early stories of the great Christian Temple.

And this uncompromising truthfulness runs through the entire history; the early chapters tell us of the short-sighted policy which loved to dream of equality among men; the memoirs, as they proceed, conceal nothing: they tell us of the jealous disputes among the poor converts, the Greek and Hebrew Jews, the persecuting rage, the youthful ambition of Paul of Tarsus, the favouritism of Barnabas, the weakness and timidity of Mark, the narrow sectarian spirit of Peter. Nothing is veiled; the same calm unimpassioned hand writes in the same section of the glories and the shame of the early Church; then, as now, we see darkness alternating with light; we feel we are indeed reading a true history.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Sharing Blessings

Perhaps because Peter and John had overcome this first threatening act of the religious leaders, the church was united. Early Christian unity is very evident in the way they readily shared what they had with their fellow believers. Note, this was voluntary and not forced upon them by some governmental or church order. Instead, each Christian thought of his blessings as gifts from God to be used to the benefit of all the brethren. Interestingly, the generosity of individual members served to enhance the power of the apostles’ preaching of the resurrection gospel ( Act 4:32-33 ).

In spite of the teachings of some, it cannot be shown that the church was a commune or that the apostles had control of everyone’s property. Yet, individual believers sold land and brought the money to the apostles to be distributed as needed among the family of God. Apparently, Joses, or Joseph, was so well known for such acts of kindness and encouragement, that he was nicknamed Barnabas, or son of consolation, by the apostles ( Act 4:34-37 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Act 4:32-35. And the multitude of them that believed All the individuals, male and female, that, having believed on Jesus, had joined themselves to the Christian Church, numerous as they were; were of one heart and one soul Were perfectly united in love to God and one another, according to the full meaning of Christs prayer, Joh 17:20-23. Their desires and designs, their hopes and joys, were the same; neither said any of them , not so much as one of them, in so great a multitude, said, that aught of the things which he possessed was his own A natural consequence this of that union of heart which they had with each other; but they had all things in common Each was as welcome to participate of them as the original proprietor could be, being, in those new bonds of Christian fellowship, as dear to him as himself. And with great power That is, with a divine force of eloquence and of miracles; gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus That main pillar and chief corner-stone of Christianity, supporting and connecting the whole fabric of it in all its parts. And great grace was upon them all A large measure of the inward power of the Holy Ghost, directing and influencing all their tempers, words, and works. Neither was there any among them that lacked Though many of them were far from their habitations, and many others in low circumstances of life. We may observe, this is added as a proof that great grace was upon them all; and it was the immediate, necessary consequence of it; yea, and must be to the end of the world. In all ages and nations the same cause, the same degree of grace, could not but, in like circumstances, produce the same effect. For as many as were possessors of lands, &c., sold them Not that there was any particular command for this; but there was great grace and great love, of which this was the natural fruit. And brought the prices, and laid them at the apostles feet To be disposed of as they should direct; and distribution was made First by the apostles themselves; afterward by them whom they appointed, with the strictest fidelity; unto every man according as he had need For his present relief; the apostles deeming themselves sufficiently happy, while living in the same plain manner with their brethren, in the opportunity which the divine goodness gave them, of being so helpful to others, both in things temporal and spiritual.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

32-35. From this brief account of the first conflict of the young congregation, Luke again turns, to view more minutely the internal condition of the Church. Their religious life was now more fully developed, than at the period glanced at in the close of the second chapter, and his description is more in detail. (32) “Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did one of them say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. (33) And with great power the apostle gave testimony concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was upon them all. (34) Neither was there any among them who lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands, or houses, sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, (35) and laid them at the feet of the apostles; and it was distributed to each, as any one had need.”

Considering the immense numbers of this congregation, and that they were so suddenly drawn together from every class of society, it is certainly remarkable, and well worthy of a place in this record, that they were “of one heart and of one mind.” But the most signal proof of the power of the gospel among them was the almost entire subsidence of selfishness. Among the heathen nations of antiquity, systematic provision of the wants of the poor was unknown; and even among the Jews, whose law was watchful for the welfare of the poor in many respects, those who became insolvent were sold into temporary bondage to pay their debts. It was, therefore, a new thing under the sun, to see a large community selling houses and lands to supply the wants of the poor. It could but give additional weight to all that was said by the apostles, and for this reason Luke breaks the thread of his statements concerning it, to throw in the remark, that “With great power the apostles gave testimony concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was among all.” This remark does not mean that the testimony of the apostles was more distinct or positive, or that it was sustained by more signal miracles than before; for neither of these is possible. But it means that their testimony had more power with the people; and this is attributed to the harmony observed within the Church, together with their unheard-of benevolence, which combined to give them “great favor” with the people.

The fact that distribution was made to each as he had need, shows that it was only the needy who received any thing, and that there was no equalization of property. The sale of property and consecration of the proceeds was voluntary with each individual, and not an established law of the Church. This is evident from the question of Peter to Ananias, below: “While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?”

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

THE UNIFICATION OF GODS PEOPLE

32. Of the multitude of those who believed there was one heart and soul. The power of Gods salvation to literally unify all its recipients, regardless of race, color, sect or nationality, has been the puzzle of wicked people and counterfeit professors in all ages. God made religion, which is the same in all hearts, in every land, beneath every sky, whether the sable children of Ham with unshod feet treading the burning sands of Africa, or the brown sons and daughters of Shem, populating the time-honored empires of the Orient, or the beautiful children of Japheth thronging the mighty cities of Europe and spreading over the virgin soils of America. While the grace of God is uniform in every nation, church and people, the devils counterfeit religion, which is sectarianism, is heterogeneous, contradictory and false, bringing to its votaries only disappointment, ruin and damnation. Man is a trinity, consisting of body, mind and spirit. False religions all recognize man as a duality consisting of but the two elements, thus eliminating the third story of humanity, depriving him of his immortal spirit, which is homogeneous to God, and the element on which the Holy Spirit operates, through the human spirit reaching the mind and body. False theologies identify mind and spirit, thus eliminating the latter and substituting mentalities for spiritualities, and thus ignoring the absolute necessity of supernatural intervention in the plan of salvation. Since man is a trinity, consisting of body, mind and spirit, and none but his spirit suffered total ruin in the Fall, a residuum of mentality and materiality survived the catastrophe of Satans victory in Eden. Therefore men and devils in all ages have been building up systems of counterfeit religion on this residuum of mind and body which survived the Fall; such religion being destitute of true spirituality, and of course independent of the Holy Ghost. Such are the great popular religions of the world today, whether Pagan, Moslem, Papal or Protestant. Their stock consists in fine edifices, pomp and ceremony, intellectual culture and eloquent sermons. All this is a superstructure built on the residuum of mind and matter which survived the Fall. Since it is destitute of true spirituality, it is independent of the Holy Ghost, and always ready to wage an exterminating war against the true religion, which comes only through the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is clear on total depravity, everywhere recognizing the sinner as dead

(Eph 2:1). The word for regenerate is zoo-opoieoo, which is a compound word and means to create life. Hence the conversion of a sinner is a de facto creation as real as the creation of a world. As there is but one Creator, therefore God alone can regenerate a soul. Popular religions in all ages have practically eliminated the supernatural, which alone has salvation. The true religion is not morality, philanthropy nor churchanity. It is all spirituality wrought by the personal Holy Ghost in the heart. Consequently, Holy Ghost religion is the only one in all the world characterized by true spiritual life. Between the living and the dead religions of the world there has always been an irrepressible conflict, an exterminating war, and always will be. Whenever a church dies spiritually, she is ready to fight Holy Ghost religion, from the simple fact that she is possessed of the devil, who is the uncompromising enemy of God. The soul, as used in the Bible, means the mind; the heart means the affections, and is really included in spirit, which is a much more comprehensive term, signifying the immortal being, the highest element of humanity homogeneous to God Himself. While the animals all have souls, i. e., minds, they are not immortal. The reason the human soul is immortal in contradistinction to the animals, is because the immortality is conferred by the human spirit. When God created man, he consisted of soul or mind and body, homogeneous to the animal creation. Subsequently God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, thus imparting to him His immortal Spirit, as the Hebrew word ruach not only means spirit, but breath, the symbol of the spirit. Of course man had animal life before this divine inbreathing imparted to him a living spirit, conferring life and immortality on his soul. The human spirit is constituted of three faculties, i. e., the conscience, which survived the Fall, and is the voice of God in the soul; the will, which is the king of the man and in the hands of Satan while a sinner, but in conversion wrested from the devil and turned over to God forever to rule; and the affections, which are the predilections, inclinations and incentives constituting the heart. These are only conquered in regeneration and retained, subordinated to the regenerated will, by grace, it being reserved for the wonderful efficacy of the cleansing blood in entire sanctification to radically expurgate them of all native evil and the refining fire of the Holy Ghost, in the one baptism (Eph 4:5), to consume all the surviving debris of the Fall. The unpardonable sin and the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Mat 12:31) supervene when the devil succeeds in blowing off this third story of the human superstructure by the tornadoes sent up from the bottomless pit. In these latter days of superabounding infidelity and abnormal wickedness, millions on all sides are actually permitting the devil to destroy this third story of their being by grieving away the Holy Spirit, thus crossing the dead line and sealing their doom in hell, while yet reveling amid the sunshine of temporal prosperity and sensual delectation. In this way the world is fast ripening for the awful tribulation. The mind consists of the intellect, the memory, the sensibilities, and the judgment. In case of salvation, the mind with its wonderful resources is attracted up to the spirit, identified with it and subordinated to it, with its mighty resources of both mind and spirit, all consecrated to God for time and eternity. In case of the wicked, in the awful ultimatum of the sad forfeiture of their spiritual susceptibilities, and the transcendent achievements and glories of gracious possibilities, this third story of humanity, which God built for His own occupancy, being blown off by the devil, the vast resources of mentality are dragged down and subordinated to the body, which in ipso is a mere animal. In that case man becomes a demonized brute, unfortunately immortal and capable only of misery to himself and others, all focalized in demonized self, in which is concentrated not only the ruin of the Fall, but the very virus of Satan and the torments of hell.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Act 4:32-35. The State of the Church (cf. Act 2:42-44).The expression the multitude of the believers (about 5000 according to Act 4:4) was one heart and soul, is proverbial for entire harmony. None took a selfish view of his property; all was common. The apostles fulfilled their commission of bearing witness to the Resurrection of Jesus (Act 1:22, Act 2:32) with great emphasis, and the community afforded an attractive spectacle. The prophecy of Deu 15:4 was fulfilled to them; this was the secret of their attractiveness; it was attained by the voluntary generosity of the rich members (Act 2:44 f.), who sold their goods and made over to the apostles the price obtained, they dividing the proceeds to the needy.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 32

All things common; that is, their property was surrendered, so far as was necessary, with the utmost readiness and freedom.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

4:32 {12} And the multitude of them that believed were of {o} one heart and of one soul: neither said any [of them] that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

(12) An example of the true Church, in which there is equal consent both in doctrine and in charity toward one another: and the pastors deliver true doctrine both sincerely and constantly.

(o) They agreed in counsel, will, and all plans.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The unity of the church 4:32-35

This brief pericope illustrates what Luke wrote earlier in Act 2:44-46 about the early Christians sharing and selling their possessions as well as giving verbal witness. Luke recorded this description to emphasize the purity and unity in the church that resulted from the Spirit’s filling (Act 4:31).

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

The unity of the believers extended beyond spiritual matters to physical, material matters (cf. Mat 22:37-39). They owned personal possessions, but they did not consider them private possessions. Rather they viewed their belongings as common (Gr. koina, cf. koinonia, "fellowship") property. Customarily they shared what they had with one another (cf. Act 2:44; Act 2:46; Deu 15:4). Their unity manifested itself in a sense of responsibility for one another. Love, not law, compelled them to share (cf. 1Jn 3:17-18).

"Their generosity sprang not from coercive legislation (as modern Socialists and Marxists demand) but from a true union of hearts made possible by regeneration." [Note: Kent, p. 50. Cf. Witherington, p. 206.]

The economic situation in Jerusalem was deteriorating at this time due to famine and political unrest. [Note: Jeremias, Jerusalem in . . ., pp. 121-22.] Employment opportunities were declining, and unsaved Jews were beginning to put economic and social pressure on the Christians.

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

2. Internal compromise 4:32-5:11

As was true of Israel when she entered Canaan under Joshua’s leadership, failure followed initial success in the early church. The source of that failure lay within the company of believers, not their enemies.

"The greater length of the story of Ananias and Sapphira should not lead to the conclusion that it is the important incident, the preceding section being merely an introduction to give it a setting; on the contrary, it is more likely that Act 4:32-35 describes the pattern of life, and is then followed by two illustrations, positive and negative, of what happened in practice." [Note: Marshall, The Acts . . ., p. 108.]

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

Chapter 10

THE COMMUNITY OF GOODS.

Act 4:32-35

THE community of goods and its results next claim our attention in the course of this sacred record of primitive Church life. The gift of tongues and this earliest attempt at Christian communism were two special features of apostolic, or perhaps we should rather say of Jerusalem, Christianity. The gift of tongues we find at one or two other places, at Caesarea on the first conversion of the Gentiles, at Ephesus and at Corinth. It then disappeared. The community of goods was tried at Jerusalem. It lasted there a very short time, and then faded from the ordinary practice of the Christian Church. The record of this vain attempt and its manifold results embodies many a lesson suitable to our modern Christianity.

I. The book of the Acts of the Apostles in its earliest chapters relates the story of the triumph of the Cross; it also tells of the mistakes made by its adherents. The Scriptures prove their Divine origin, and display the secret inspiration and guidance of their writers, by their thorough impartiality. If in the Old Testament they are depicting the history of an Abraham or of a David, they do not, after the example of human biographies, tell of their virtues and throw the mantle of obscurity over their vices and crimes. If in the New Testament they are relating the story of apostolic labours, they record the bad as well as the good, and hesitate not to tell of the dissimulation of St. Peter, the hot temper and the bitter disputes of a Paul and a Barnabas.

It is a notable circumstance that, in ancient and modern times alike, men have stumbled at this sacred impartiality. They have mistaken the nature of inspiration, and have busied themselves to clear the character of men like David and the holy Apostles, explaining away the plainest facts, -the lie of Abraham, the adultery of David, the weaknesses and infirmities of the Apostles. They have forgotten the principle involved in the declaration, “Elijah was a man of like passions with ourselves”; and have been so jealous for the honour of scriptural characters that they have made their history unreal, worthless as a living example. St. Jerome, to take but one instance, was a commentator upon Scripture whose expositions are of the greatest value, specially because he lived and worked amid the scenes where Scripture history was written, and while yet living tradition could be used to illustrate the sacred narrative. St. Jerome applied this deceptive method to the dissimulation of St. Peter at Antioch of which St. Paul tells us in the Galatians; maintaining, in opposition to St. Augustine, that St. Peter was not a dissembler at all, and that the whole scene at Antioch was a piece of pious acting, got up between the Apostles in order that St. Paul might have the opportunity of condemning Judaising practices. This is an illustration of the tendency to which I am referring. Men will uphold, not merely the character of the Scriptures, but the characters of the writers of Scripture. Yet how clearly do the Sacred Writings distinguish between these things; how clearly they show that God imparted His treasures in earthen vessels, vessels that were sometimes very earthy indeed, for while in one place they give us the Psalms of David, with all their treasures of spiritual joy, hope, penitence, they in another place give us the very words of the letter written by King David ordering the murder of Uriah the Hittite. This jealousy, which refuses to admit the fallibility and weakness of scriptural personages, has been applied to the doctrine of the community of goods which finds place in the passage under review. Some expositors will not allow that it was a mistake at all; they view the Church at Jerusalem as divinely guided by the Holy Spirit even in matters of temporal policy; they ascribe to it an infallibility greater and wider than any claimed for the Roman Pontiff. He claims infallibility in matters pertaining to faith and morals, when speaking as universal doctor and teacher of the Universal Church; but those writers invest the Church at Jerusalem with infallibility on every question, whether spiritual or temporal, sacred or secular, because the Holy Ghost had been poured out upon the twelve Apostles on the day of Pentecost. Now it is quite evident that neither the Church of Jerusalem nor the Apostles themselves were guided by an inspiration which rendered them infallible upon all questions. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit which was granted to them was a gift which left all their faculties in precisely the same state as they were before the descent of the Spirit. The Apostles could make moral mistakes, as Peter did at Antioch; they were not infallible in forecasting the future, as St. Paul proved when at Ephesus he told the Ephesian elders that he should not again visit the Church, while, indeed, he spent much time there in after years. The whole early Church was mistaken on the important questions of the calling of the Gentiles, the binding nature of the Levitical law, and the time of Christs second coming. The Church of Jerusalem, till the conversion of Cornelius, was completely mistaken as to the true nature of the Christian dispensation. They regarded it, not as the new and final revelation which was to supersede all others; they thought of it merely as a new sect within the bounds of Judaism.

It was a similar mistake which led to the community of goods. We can trace the genesis and upgrowth of the idea. It cannot be denied that the earliest Christians expected the immediate return of Christ. This expectation brought with it a very natural paralysis of business life and activity. We have seen the same result happening again and again. At Thessalonica St. Paul had to deal with it, as we have already noted in the second of these lectures. Some of the Thessalonians laboured under a misunderstanding as to St. Pauls true teaching: they thought that Jesus Christ was immediately about to appear, and they gave up work and labour under the pretence of preparing for His second coming. Then St. Paul comes sharply down upon this false practical deduction which they had drawn from his teaching, and proclaims the law, “If any man will not work, neither shall he eat.” We have already spoken of the danger which might attend such a time. Here we behold another danger which did practically ensue and bring forth evil fruit. The first Christian Pentecost and the days succeeding it were a period of strained expectation, a season of intense religious excitement, which naturally led to the community of goods. There was no apostolic rule or law laid down in the matter. It seems to have been a course of action to which the converts spontaneously resorted, as the logical deduction from two principles which they held; first, their brotherhood and union in Christ; secondly, the nearness of Christs second advent. The time was short. The Master had passed into the invisible world whence He would shortly reappear. Why should they not then, as brethren in Christ, have one common purse, and spend the whole time in waiting and watching for that loved presence? This seems a natural explanation of the origin of a line of policy which has been often appealed to in the practical life of modern Europe as an example for modern Christians; and yet, when we examine it more closely, we can see that this book of the Acts of the Apostles, while it tells of their mistake, carries with it the correction of the error into which these earliest disciples fell. The community of goods was adopted in no other Church. At Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, we hear nothing of it in those primitive times. No Christian sect or Church has ever tried to revive it save the monastic orders, who adopted it for the special purpose of cutting their members off from any connection with the world of life and action; and, in later times still, the wild, fanatical Anabaptists at the Reformation period, who thought, like the Christians of Jerusalem, that the kingdom of God, as they fancied it, was immediately about to appear. The Church of Jerusalem, as the apostolic history shows us, reaped the natural results of this false step. They adopted the principles of communism; they lost hold of that principle of individual life and all exertion which lies at the very root of all civilisation and all advancement, and they fell, as the natural result, into the direst poverty. There was no reason in the nature of its composition why the Jerusalem Church should have been more poverty-stricken than the Churches of Ephesus, Philippi, or Corinth. Slaves and very humble folk constituted the staple of these Churches. At Jerusalem a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith, and the priests were, as a class, in easy circumstances. Slaves cannot at Jerusalem have constituted that large element of the Church which they did in the great Greek and Roman cities, simply because slavery never reached among the Jews the same development as in the Gentile world. The Jews, as a nation, were a people among whom there was a widely diffused comfort, and the earliest Church at Jerusalem must have fairly represented the nation. There was nothing to make the mother Church of Christendom that pauper community we find it to have been all through St. Pauls ministry, save the one initial mistake, which doubtless the Church authorities found it very hard afterwards to retrieve; for when men get into the habit of living upon alms it is very difficult to restore the habits of healthy independence.

II. This incident is, however, rich in teaching for the Church of every age, and that in very various directions. It is a significant warning for the mission field. Missionary Churches should strive after a healthy independence amongst their members. It is, of course, absolutely necessary that missionaries should strive to supply temporal employment to their converts in places and under circumstances where a profession of Christianity cuts them off at once from all communication with their old friends and neighbours. The primitive Church found it necessary to give such temporal relief, and yet had to guard against its abuse; and we have been far too remiss in looking for guidance to those early centuries when the whole Church was necessarily one great missionary organisation. The Apostolic Canons and Constitutions are documents which throw much light on many questions which now press for solution in the mission field. They pretend to be the exact words of the Apostles, but are evidently, the work of a later age. They date back in their present shape, at latest, to the third or fourth century, as is evident from the fact that they contain elaborate rules for the treatment of martyrs and confessors, -and there were no martyrs after that time, -directing that every effort should be made to render them comfort, support, and sympathy. These Constitutions prove that the Church in the third century was one mighty co-operative institution, and an important function of the bishop was the direction of that co-operation. The second chapter of the fourth book of the Apostolic Constitution lays down, “Do you therefore, O bishops, be solicitous about the maintenance of orphans, being in nothing wanting to them; exhibiting to the orphans the care of parents; to the widows the care of husbands; to the artificer, work; to the stranger, a house; to the hungry, food; to the thirsty, drink; to the naked, clothing; to the sick, visitation; to the prisoners, assistance.” But these same Constitutions recognise equally clearly the danger involved in such a course. The wisdom of the early Church saw and knew how easily alms promiscuously bestowed sap the roots of independence, and taught therefore, with equal explicitness, the absolute necessity for individual exertion, the duty of Christian toil and labour; urging the example of the Apostles themselves, as in the sixty-third Constitution of the second book, where they are represented as exhorting, “Let the young persons of the Church endeavour to minister diligently in all necessaries; mind your business with all becoming seriousness, that so you may always have sufficient to support yourselves and those that are needy, and not burden the Church of God. For we ourselves, besides our attention to the Word of the Gospel, do not neglect our inferior employments; for some of us are fishermen, some tent-makers, some husbandmen, that so we may never be idle.” In the modern mission field there will often be occasions when, as in ancient times, the profession of Christianity and the submission of the converts to baptism will involve the loss of all things. And, under such circumstances, Christian love, such as burned of old in the hearts of Gods people and led them to enact the rules we have now quoted, will still lead and compel the Church in its organised capacity to lend temporal assistance to those that are in danger of starvation for Christs sake; but no missionary effort can be in a healthy condition where all, or the greater portion, of the converts are so dependent upon the funds of the mission that if the funds were withdrawn the apparent results would vanish into thin air. Such missions are utterly unlike the missions of the apostolic Church; for the converts of the apostolic age were made by men who went forth without purse or scrip, who could not give temporal assistance even had they desired to do so, and whose great object ever was to develop in their followers a healthy spirit of Christian manliness and honest independence.

III. Then, again, this passage teaches a much-needed lesson to the Church at home about the methods of poor relief and almsgiving. “Blessed,” says the Psalmist, “is he that considereth the poor.” He does not say, “Blessed is he that giveth, money to the poor,” but, “Blessed is he that considereth the poor.” Well-directed, wise, prudent almsgiving is a good and beneficial thing, but indiscriminate almsgiving, almsgiving bestowed without care, thought, and consideration such as the Psalmist suggests, brings with it far more evil than it prevents. The Church of Jerusalem very soon had experience of these evils. Jealousies and quarrels soon sprang up even where Apostles were ministering and supernatural gifts of the Spirit were present, – “There arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily ministrations”; and it has been ever Since the experience of those called to deal with questions of temporal relief and the distribution of alms, that no classes are more suspicious and more quarrelsome than those who are in receipt of such assistance. The chaplains and managers of almshouses, asylums, charitable funds, and workhouses know this to their cost, and ofttimes make a bitter acquaintance with that evil spirit which burst forth even in the mother Church of Jerusalem. Time necessarily hangs heavy upon the recipients hands, forethought and care are removed and cease to engage the mind, and people having nothing else to do begin to quarrel. But this was not the only evil which arose: hypocrisy and ostentation, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, deceit, thriftlessness, and idleness showed themselves at Jerusalem, Thessalonica, and other places, as the Epistles of St. Paul amply testify. And so it has been in the experience of the modern Church. I know myself of whole districts where almsgiving has quite demoralised the poor and eaten the heart out of their religion, so that they value religious ministrations, not for the sake of the religion that is taught, but solely for the sake of the temporal relief that accompanies it. I know of a district where, owing to the want of organisation in religious effort and the shattered and broken character of Protestant Christianity, the poor people are visited and relieved by six or seven competing religious communities, so that a clever person can make a very fair income by a judicious manipulation of the different visitors. It is evident that such visitations are doing evil instead of good, and the labour and money expended are worse than useless. The proper organisation of charitable relief is one of the desirable objects the Church should set before it. The great point to be aimed at should be not so much the ministration of direct assistance to the people as the development of the spirit of self-help. And here comes in the action of the Christian state. The institution of the Post Office Savings Bank, where the State guarantees the safety of the depositors money, seems a direct exposition and embodiment of the principle which underlay the community of goods in the apostolic Church. That principle was a generous, unselfish, Christlike principle. The principle was right, though the particular shape which the principle took was a mistaken one. Experience has taught the Church of Christ a wiser course, and now the system of State-guaranteed Savings Banks enables the Church to lead the poor committed to her care into wiser courses. Parochial and congregational Savings Banks ought to be attached to all Christian organisations, so as to teach the poor the industrial lessons which they need. We have known a district in a most thriftless neighbourhood where immense sums used to be wasted in indiscriminate almsgiving, and yet where the people, like the woman in the Gospels, were never one whit the better, but rather grew worse. We have seen such a district in the course of a few years quite regenerated in temporal matters, simply by the action of what is called a parochial Penny Savings Bank. Previously to its institution the slightest fall of snow brought heartrending appeals for coal funds, blankets, and food; while a few years of its operation banished coal funds and pauperism in every shape, simply by teaching the people the magic law of thrift, and by developing within them the love and the power of self-respecting and industrious independence. And yet efforts in this direction will not be destructive of Christian charity. They tend not to dry up the springs of Christian love. Charity is indeed a blessing to the giver, and we should never desire to see the opportunity wanting for its display. Ill indeed would be the worlds state if we had no longer the poor, the sick, the needy, with us. Our sinful human nature requires its unselfish powers to be kept in action, or else it quickly subsides into a state of unwholesome stagnation. Poor people need to be taught habits of saving, and this teaching will require time and trouble and expense. The clergy and their congregations may teach the poor thrift by offering a much higher interest than the Post Office supplies, while, at the same time, the funds are all deposited in the State Savings Bank. That higher interest will often demand as much money as the doles previously bestowed in the shape of mere gifts of coal and food. But then what a difference in the result! The mere dole has, for the most part, a demoralising tendency, while the money spent in the other direction permanently elevates and blesses.

IV. But there is a more important lesson still to be derived from this incident in the apostolic Church. The community of goods failed in that Church when tried under the most favourable circumstances, terminating in the permanent degradation of the Christian community at Jerusalem; just as similar efforts must ever fail, no matter how broad the field upon which they may be tried or how powerful the forces which may be arrayed on their behalf. Christian legislatures of our own age may learn a lesson of warning against perilous experiments in a communistic direction from the disastrous failure in Jerusalem; and there is a real danger in this respect from the tendency of human nature to rush to extremes. Protestantism and the Reformation accentuated the individual and individual independence. The feeling thus taught in religion reacted on the world of life and action, developing an intensity of individualism in the political world which paralysed the efforts which the state alone could make in the various matters of sanitary education and social reform. In the last generation Maurice and Kingsley and men of their school raised in opposition the banner of Christian socialism, because they saw clearly that men had run too far in the direction of individualism, -so far, indeed, that they were inclined to forget the great lesson taught by Christianity, that under the new law we are members one of another, and that all members belong to one body, and that body is Christ. Men are so narrow that they can for the most part take only one view at a time, and so now they are inclined to push Christian socialism to the same extreme as at Jerusalem, and to forget that there is a great truth in individualism as there is another great truth in Christian socialism. Dr. Newman in his valuable but almost forgotten work on the Prophetical Office of the Church defined the position of the English Church as being a Media Via, a mean between two extremes. Whatever may be said upon other topics, the office of the Christian Church is most certainly a Via Media, a mean between the two opposite extremes of socialism and individualism. Much good has been effected of late years by legislation based upon essentially socialistic ideas. Reformatory and industrial schools, to take but one instance, are socialistic in their foundations and in their tendencies. The whole body of the state undertakes in them responsibilities and duties which God intended individuals to discharge, but which individuals persistently neglect, to the injury of their innocent offspring, and of society at large. Yet even in this simple experiment we can see the germs of the same evils which sprang up at Jerusalem. We have seen this tendency appearing in connection with the Industrial School system, and have known parents who could educate and train their children in family life encouraged by this well-intentioned legislation to fling their responsibilities over upon the State, and neglecting their offspring because they were convinced that in doing so they were not only saving their own pockets, but also doing better for their children than they themselves could. It is just the same, and has ever been the same, with all similar legislation. It requires to be most narrowly watched. Human nature is intensely lazy and intensely selfish. God has laid down the law of individual effort and individual responsibility, and while we should strive against the abuses of that law, we should watch with equal care against the opposite abuses. Foundling hospitals as they were worked in the last century, for instance, form an object-lesson of the dangers inherent in such methods of action. Benevolent persons in the last century pitied the condition of poor children left as foundlings. There was, some sixty years ago, an institution in Dublin of this kind, which was supported by the state. There was a box in which an infant could be placed at any hour of the day or night; a bell was rung, and by the action of a turn-stile the infant was received into the institution. But experience soon taught the same lesson as at Jerusalem. The Foundling Hospital may have temporarily relieved some deserving cases and occasionally prevented some very painful scenes, but the broad results upon society at large were so bad, immorality was so increased, the sense of parental responsibility was so weakened, that the state was compelled to terminate its existence at a very large expense. Socialism when pushed to an extreme must necessarily work out in bad results, and that because there is one constant and fixed quantity which the socialist forgets. Human nature changes not; human nature is corrupt, and must remain corrupt until the end, and so long as the corruption of human nature remains the best-conceived plans of socialism must necessarily fail.

Yet the Jerusalem idea of a voluntary community of goods was a noble one, and sprang from an unselfish root. It was purely voluntary indeed. There was no compulsion upon any to adopt it. “Not one of them said that aught that he possessed was his own,” is St. Lukes testimony on the point. “While it remained did it not remain thine own? And after it was sold was it not in thy power?” are St. Peters words, clearly testifying that this Christian communism was simply the result and outcome of loving hearts who, under the influence of an overmastering emotion, had cast prudence to the winds. The communism of Jerusalem may have been unwise, but it was the proof of generous and devout spirits. It was an attempt, too, to realise the conditions of the new life in the new heaven and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness, while still the old heaven and the old earth remained. It was an enthusiasm, a high, a holy, and a noble enthusiasm; and though it failed in some respects, still the enthusiasm begotten of fervent Christian love succeeded in another direction, for it enabled the Apostles “with great power to give witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.” The union of these two points in the sacred narrative has profound spiritual teaching for the Church of Christ. Unselfishness in worldly things, enthusiasm about the kingdom of Christ, fervent love to the brethren, are brought into nearest contact and united in closest bonds with the possession of special spiritual power over the hearts of the unbelievers.

And then, again, the unselfishness existed amongst the body of the Church, the mass of the people at large. We are sure that the Apostles were leaders in the acts of self-denial. No great work is carried out where the natural and divinely-sent leaders hang back. But it is the love and enthusiasm of the mass of the people which excite St. Lukes notice, and which he illustrates by the contrasted cases of Barnabas and Ananias; and he connects this unselfish enthusiasm of the people with the possession of great power by the Apostles. Surely we can read a lesson suitable for the Church of all ages in this collocation. The law of interaction prevails between clergy and people still as it did between the Apostles and people of old. The true minister of Christ will frequently bear before the throne of God those souls with whom the Holy Ghost has entrusted him, and without such personal intercession he cannot expect real success in his work. But then, on the other hand, this passage suggests to us that enthusiasm, fervent faith, unselfish love on the peoples part are the conditions of ministerial power with human souls. A people filled with Christs love, and abounding in enthusiasm, even by a mere natural process produce power in their leaders, for the hearts of the same leaders beat quicker and their tongues speak more forcibly because they feel behind them the immense motive power of hallowed faith and sacred zeal. But we believe in a still higher blessing. When people are unselfish, brimming over with generous Christian love, it calls down a supernatural, a Divine power. The Pentecostal Spirit of love again descends, and in roused hearts and converted souls and purified and consecrated intellects rewards with a blessing such as they desire the men and women who long for the salvation of their brethren, and are willing, like these apostolic Christians, to sacrifice their dearest and their best for it.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary