Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 4:34
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,
34. Neither was there any among them that lacked ] The A. V. omits the word for, which is represented in the Greek and is needed for the sense. “ For neither was there, &c.” This was one reason for their favour among men. All could see and admire the spirit of self-sacrifice which was exhibited by what they were doing.
brought the prices of the things that were sold ] The language here expressly avoids saying that these men sold all they had. They sold some things, and the sum realized by what was sold was offered to the common store. We never hear that a similar fund was raised in any place except Jerusalem.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
That lacked – That was in want, or whose needs were not supplied by the others.
As many as … – The word used here is employed in a large, indefinite sense; but it would be improper to press it so as to suppose that every individual that became a Christian sold at once all his property. The sense doubtless is, that this was done when it was necessary: they parted with whatever property was needful to supply the needs of their poor brethren. That it was by no means considered a matter of obligations, or enjoined by the apostles, is apparent from the case of Ananias, Act 5:4. The fact that Joses is particularly mentioned Act 4:36 shows that it was by no means a universal practice thus to part with all their possessions. He was one instance in which it was done. Perhaps there were many other similar instances; but all that the passage requires us to believe is, that they parted with whatever was needful to supply the needs of the poor. This was an eminent and instructive instance of Christian liberality, and of the power of the gospel in overcoming one of the strongest passions that ever exist in the human bosom – the love of money. Many of the early Christians were poor. They were collected from the lower orders of the people. But all Were not so. Some of them, it seems, were people of affluence; but the effect of religion was to bring them all, in regard to feeling, at least, on a level. They felt that they were members of one family, and they therefore imparted their property cheerfully to their brethren. Besides this, they were about to go to other lands to preach the gospel, and they cheerfully parted with their property that they might go and proclaim the unsearchable riches of Christ. See the notes on Act 2:44.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 34. Neither was there any among them that lacked] It was customary with the Jews to call the poor together, to eat of the sacrifices, but as the priests, c., were incensed against Christ and Christianity, consequently the Christian poor could have no advantage of this kind therefore, by making a common stock for the present necessity, the poor were supplied; so there was none among them that lacked. This provision therefore of the community of goods, which could be but temporary, was made both suitably and seasonably. See Bp. Pearce, and See Clarke on Ac 2:44.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
So far forth as might relieve the present necessities of believers; not that every one parted with all that he had, for that had taken away (at least) the use and force of the eighth commandment; for where there is no propriety there can be no theft. Now Christ came not to dissolve any law, but to fulfil it: the meaning then is, that these early Christians would not only part with their revenue, but, rather than their brethren should want, they would and did sell their fee simple. See Act 2:44.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
31-37. place was shakenglorioustoken of the commotion which the Gospel was to make (Ac17:6; compare Ac 16:26),and the overthrow of all opposing powers in which this was to issue.
they were all filled with theHoly Ghost, and spake, c.The Spirit rested upon the entirecommunity, first, in the very way they had asked, so that they “spakethe word with boldness” (Act 4:29Act 4:31); next, in melting downall selfishness, and absorbing even the feeling of individuality inan intense and glowing realization of Christian unity. The communityof goods was but an outward expression of this, and natural in suchcircumstances.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Neither was there any among them that lacked,…. Bread to eat, or clothes to wear, or any of the necessaries of life; which shows their great charity, and gives a reason why they were in so much favour with the people, because they took so much care of their poor; and this flowed from the grace of God bestowed upon them:
for as many as were possessors of lands and houses; or “vineyards”, as the Ethiopic version reads, whether in Jerusalem or elsewhere;
sold them and brought the prices of the things that were sold; whether lands, houses, or vineyards.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
That lacked (). Literally, in need, old adjective, here only in the N.T.
Were (). Imperfect active of , to exist.
Sold them and brought ( ). Present active participle and imperfect active indicative. Selling they brought from time to time, as there was occasion by reason of need. Hence the wants were kept supplied.
Laid them (). Imperfect active again, repetition, of , late omega form for the usual .
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “Neither was there any among them that lacked:(oude gar endeestis hen en autois) “For not even one was needy among them who lacked,” anything in the way of material need, food, clothing, shelter or physical care, Act 2:44-45.
2) “For as many as were possessors,” (hossi gar huperchon kterores) “For as many as (were) owners,” possessors or title holders. Even eating and drinking are to be done to the glory of God, in respect to ones fellowman, 1Co 10:31.
3) “Of lands or houses sold them,” (chorion e oikon plountes) “Of lands or houses, selling them,” or sold them as general need arose, to meet the needs of their brethren, in harmony with the spirit of brotherly love on this occasion of special need, 1Jn 3:16-20; Jas 2:15-17.
4) “And brought the prices of the things that were sold,” (epheron tas timas ton piprasdomenon) “Brought the prices (receipts) of the things that were having been sold,” and made them available for the needy, of any needy one of their church company in that early post-Pentecost, period, Gal 6:1-2; They sought to bear one another’s burdens, fulfilling the law of Christ, the law of love, Rom 15:1-2; Gal 6:10.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
34. For so many as were. Although this be an universal speech, yet is it all one as if it were indefinite. And assuredly it is to be thought that there were many which did not diminish their possessions, and that may be gathered out of the text, [context.] For when he speaketh of Joses anon, undoubtedly he meant to note a notable example, passing all others. Therefore he saith, that all did that which many did every where; neither doth this disagree with the common use of the Scripture. Again, he meaneth not that the faithful sold all that they had, but only so much as need required. For this is spoken for amplification’s sake, that the rich men did not only relieve the poverty of their brethren of the yearly revenue of their lands, but they were so liberal, that they spared not their lands. And this might be, though they did not rob themselves of all, but only a little diminish their revenues; which we may gather again out of the words of Luke, for he saith that this was the end, that no man might lack. He showeth further, that they used great wisdom, (234) because it was distributed as every man had need. Therefore the goods were not equally divided, but there was a discreet distribution made, lest any should be out of measure oppressed with poverty. And, peradventure, Joses hath this commendation given him by name, because he sold his only possession. For by this means he passed all the rest.
Hereby it appeareth what that meaneth, that no man counted anything his own, but they had all things common. For no man had his own privately to himself, that he alone might enjoy the same, neglecting others; but as need required, they were ready to bestow upon all men. And now we must needs have more than iron bowels, seeing that we are no more moved with the reading of this history. The faithful did at that day give abundantly even of that which was their own, but we are not only content at this day wickedly to suppress that which we have in our hands, but do also rob others. They did and faithfully bring forth their own; we invent a thousand subtile shifts to draw all things unto us by hook or by crook. They laid it down at the apostles’ feet, we fear not with sacrilegious boldness to convert that to our own use which was offered to God. They sold in times past their possessions, there reigneth at this day an insatiable desire to buy. Love made that common to the poor and needy which was proper to every man; such is the unnaturalness of some men now, that they cannot abide that the poor should dwell upon the earth, that they should have the use of water, air, and heaven. (235)
Wherefore, these things are written for our shame and reproach. Although even the poor themselves are to blame for some part of this evil. For seeing goods cannot be common after this sort, save only where there is a godly agreement, and where there reigneth one heart and one soul; many men are either so proud or unthankful, or slothful, or greedy, or such hypocrites, that they do not only so much as in them lieth quite put out the desire to do well, but also hinder ability. And yet must we remember that admonition of Paul, that we be not weary of well-doing, (Gal 6:9.) And whereas, under color of this, the Anabaptists and fantastical [fanatical] men have made much ado, as if there ought to be no civil property of goods amongst Christians, I have already refuted this folly (236) of theirs in the second chapter. For neither doth Luke in this place prescribe a law to all men which they must of necessity follow, while that he reckoneth up what they did in whom a certain singular efficacy and power of the Holy Spirit of God did show itself; neither doth he speak generally of all men, that it can be gathered that they were not counted Christians which did not sell all that they had.
(234) “ Adhibitam fuisse prudentiam,” that prudence was used.
(235) “ Ut communem terrae habitationem, communem aquae, aeris, et coeli usum pauperibus invideant,” that they envy the poor a common dwelling on the earth, the common use of water, air, and sky.
(236) “ Delirium,” delirium.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(34) Neither was there any among them that lacked.Better, perhaps, any one in need.
Sold them, and brought the prices.Both words imply continuous and repeated action. It is possible that besides the strong impulse of love, they were impressed, by their Lords warnings of wars and coming troubles, with the instability of earthly possessions. Landed property in Palestine was likely to be a source of anxiety rather than profit, As Jeremiah had shown his faith in the future restoration of his people by purchasing the field at Anathoth (Jer. 32:6-15), so there was, in this sale of their estates, a proof of faith in the future desolation which their Master had foretold (Mat. 24:16-21).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
34. As many as The phraseology is not strictly universal, expressing all. It was the voluntary custom that whose had real estate should sell it, all or in part. (See Act 5:4.)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘For nor was there among them any who 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 at the apostles’ feet, and distribution was made to each, according as any one had need.’
Again we can compare and contrast with Act 2:45. There they sold their ‘possessions and goods’ and met each other’s needs, here they have advanced to selling ‘lands or houses’ and bring the money to the Apostles. The numbers were growing and the need was growing, and as the numbers grew, the need for funds grew, and larger assets had to be brought into account, and the requirement for administration was growing. So the spirit of unity and fellowship in Christ was nowhere better revealed than by the fact that whenever there was a lack of funds, which would be often, those who possessed larger evidences of wealth such as houses or lands would sell them and bring the prices obtained to the Apostles’ feet so that they might be distributed among the needy. Houses and lands were men’s most vital possessions. Yet they were prepared to fulfil the Lord’s command and yield even their most crucial possessions. These were the tests of discipleship and Jesus had promised that those who sacrificed such things would not lose their reward (‘houses — and lands’ – Mat 19:29; ‘house’ – Luk 18:29; ‘houses — and lands’ – Mar 10:29-30).
This is not to be seen as just a duplicate of chapter 2, but as an expansion in generosity as time went by, as the system of giving and of provision became more organised. It reveals how God’s grace and the church’s response was continually expanding in response to rapidly growing numbers. Spontaneous generosity and love had become real sacrifice, and thought through generosity and love. It is also an indication that the Gospel was expanding among the more well-to-do.
‘And laid them at the Apostles’ feet, and distribution was made to each, according as any one had need.’ And the Apostles then as best they could arranged for the needy to be helped. Thus the Gospel was advancing and progressing, and not only bringing spiritual blessing to all but also provision for every need.
But we can now begin to see how what at first was a simple means of meeting obvious need, and revealing God’s love practically, was becoming a large administrative task that would begin to take up all the Apostles’ time, and would make life impossible for them. They were neither trained for this task, nor had the time to do it properly. The neglect of Hellenist widows (Act 6:1) was not due to favouritism or lack of concern, it was due to inefficiency in organisation and planning, because no Hellenists were directly involved (which was the gap that the seven made up). As we learn in chapter 6, it could not go on. If it were to be done properly and efficiently, changes would have to be made.
This use of alms would not just be limited to Christians. It would also benefit needy Jews who were known to them. Of course, not all would be able sell lands and fields. They did not have them to sell. The examples are provided precisely because they were outstanding. Many had a responsibility to their families which they had to take into account. And not all would have spare houses to sell, and they would need somewhere to live with their families. But the point is that, because of their love for Christ, none withheld what they could reasonably, and even going beyond reasonably, spare, whenever need arose. And some went the whole way. Never before in the experience of many had such love and sacrifice been shown. Again it was a revelation of the presence of the Kingly Rule of God among men. There were to be no poor among them (Deu 15:4).
It is probably not correct to say that this was a failure or a mistake (how we love to show how superior our wisdom is). It was rather simply Christian love and compassion at work practically and without restraint. And Luke approved of it. There is no suggestion, in contrast with the foolish among the Thessalonians (2Th 3:11), that they ceased work or retired from business. They simply helped each other with their needs, and withheld nothing because of their love for each other. They actually did what Jesus had taught them to do (Mat 5:42 compare Luk 3:11). Nor are there any real grounds for saying that it led to the poverty of the Jewish church. That would be due more to outside circumstances and to religious ostracism, and it would give to the Gentile churches the opportunity to fulfil Scripture in bringing their wealth to Jerusalem.
Should the church be like this today? While the church is now too vast to operate solely on this basis, the principles here should surely be the pattern that we are following. Possibly we should not be neglecting the ‘forgotten’ Christians in the poorer and needier parts of the world, and in the light of these verses possibly it is we who need to learn a lot more of what it means to be self-giving.
Chapter 5:1-11 The Sin Of Ananias and Sapphira – The Kingly Rule of God Is Manifested By The Execution Of Those Who Withhold What Is His .
Knowing man’s human nature there had to come a time when the idyllic picture was broken. From the point of view of the world’s attitude to the Christian message that had happened when Peter and John were arrested. That was a reminder of the continuing threat from without. But now there would be something even worse, hypocrisy and dealing falsely with sacred things within the church, a trouble which had to be dealt with drastically in order to prevent it from spreading. The purity of the church had to be maintained. It is an indication of Luke’s practicality that he tempers his description of the early church with a recognition of treachery within. Yet only in order that it might be a prelude to greater blessing.
In order to understand this account we must see the position clearly in its context. The church was going forward as one. There was complete love and harmony. The Kingly Rule of God was being manifested. The temper of the new age was being made known. And then secretly and insidiously into this perfect harmony came two people with the equivalent of a spiritual time bomb, a bomb that could have destroyed all that had been accomplished. It was a root of evil that could destroy the whole. And behind it was Satan. It was he who was seeking to undermine the witness and life of the church by hypocrisy. And Ananias and Sapphira were his representatives.
When man first came into the world his desire for what was pleasant resulted in betrayal, and in his expulsion from God’s earthly Paradise (Genesis 3). When Israel were on the very verge of taking possession of the promised land a man, filled with greed, almost brought the whole project to a halt (Joshua 7). In both cases the crime was the same. They withheld from God what had been totally dedicated to Him. When Judas became disappointed with Jesus his love for money led him into betrayal, resulting in the crucifixion of Jesus and his own self-destruction. And now here again we have people whose love for money could well have proved the undoing of God’s people, another Adam and Eve, another Achan, another Judas. As the new creation, the new age, began they had had to choose between God and Mammon and they chose Mammon. But worse. They did it pretending that they were choosing God. Indeed they went a stage further. They took what had been wholly dedicated to God and kept it back for themselves.
The point of this incident is that it was a rejection of the Kingly Rule of God while professing to accept it, and that it was crucially at a time when all eyes needed to be fixed on the King because the world was about to reveal itself in a wholesale attack on the Gospel. And it was a withholding from God of what had become His right because they had dedicated it to Him. It cut right into the heart of the total dedication of God’s people. It is a reminder that the behaviour of each individual is of great concern to God. But thanks to Peter’s prompt action the church was kept pure and prepared. Had Ananias and Sapphira not been firmly dealt with, the outcome might have been very different. It was the first real test of the genuineness of the response of the early church, and the first evidence of what a serious matter it was to come under the Kingly Rule of God. And the final result was that the church continued to walk in awe of God and not of men.
There is a solemnity about this story that cannot be denied. It is clear that Peter was vividly conscious that God was directly involved in it. It is the only explanation for various elements within it. Why did Peter not admonish them and call on them to repent as he did later with Simon the sorcerer (Act 8:22)? Why was Ananias’ body dealt with so abruptly so that even his wife was not involved in his preparation for burial? Why was she not immediately informed? Why did Peter, or some friend, not give Sapphira a warning of what might be? Why was the whole affair deliberately made so public? There is only one explanation. The deed had already been committed in the mind. The crime had been done. The dedication had been drawn back on. God, Who knew all things, had already passed His sentence. And the thing had now to be made known to all. There was no going back. It was to be an example to the early church. Peter was simply appointed to be God’s executioner.
The similarity with the sin of Achan in Joshua 7, and it was the same sin, is striking, as is the harshness of the sentence. They had appropriated for themselves what had been fully and solemnly dedicated to God. They had broken their vow to the Most High which they should have brought to the Temple of the Lord (Psa 116:18-19; Ecc 5:4-5; Mal 1:14; Psa 50:14; Psa 76:11; Psa 116:14). In the very Temple of God they would lie to God Himself. Their sin was exposed in all its awfulness. And they were therefore to be made an example to the flock. The seriousness of their crime might best be expressed in the words of Mal 1:14, “But cursed be the deceiver, who — vows, and sacrifices to the Lord a corrupt thing, for I am a great King,” says the Lord of hosts, “and my name is dreadful among the nations.” And that was what they were doing. Seeking to deceive the great King.
In times of revival when God’s presence has been most vividly made apparent similar sudden deaths have been known. Ananias and Sapphira were greatly privileged in being present during the most powerful spiritual movement of all time. But great privilege and opportunity brings great responsibility.
The account begins with an example of one of Luke’s many contrasts. On the one hand was the godly man who came and gave his all. On the other was the couple who tried to keep back part of the price. It is salutary today to consider that most of the church is exemplified in the second.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 4:34-35 . ] adduces a special ground of knowledge , something from which the was apparent. For there was found no one needy among them, because, namely, all possessors , etc.
. . .] The present participle is put, because the entire description represents the process as continuing: being wont to sell, they brought the amount of the price of what was sold , etc. Hence also . is not incorrectly (de Wette) put instead of the aorist participle. See, on the contrary, Khner, II. 675. 5. The aorist participle is in its place at Act 4:37 .
] The apostles are, as teachers, represented sitting (comp. Luk 2:46 ); the money is brought and respectfully (comp. Chrysostom: ) placed at their feet as they sit. [162]
. . . ] See on Act 2:45 .
[162] The delivery of the funds to the apostles is not yet mentioned in Act 2:45 , and appears only to have become necessary when the increase of the church had taken place. With the alleged right of the clergy personally to administer the funds of the church, which Sepp still finds sanctioned here, this passage has nothing to do.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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,
Ver. 34. Neither was there any ] This got them so much favour among all. Heathens acknowledged that there was no such love as among Christians.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
34. ] gives a proof of God’s grace working in them, in that they imparted their goods to the poor: see especially 2Co 8:7 .
, the things which were being sold : the process of selling, as regarded the whole church, yet going on, though completed in individual cases; in the places cited by Wetst. from Demosth. and Appian the pres. retains its proper force, as here. In Appian, B. Civ. v. p. 1088, the expression is, .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 4:34 . : cf. Deu 15:4 , where the same adjective occurs; cf. Act 15:7 ; Act 15:11 , Act 24:14 , Isa 41:17 . No contradiction with Act 6:1 , as Holtzmann supposes; here there is no ideal immunity from poverty and want, but distribution was made as each fitting case presented itself: “their feeling was just as if they were under the paternal roof, all for a while sharing alike,” Chrys., Hom. , xi. , “non dicitur: omnes hoc fecerunt [aorist] ut jam nemo vel fundum vel domum propriam haberet, sed: vulgo [saepe] hoc fiebat [imperfect] ad supplendum fiscum communem pauperibus destinatum; itaque nunquam deerat quod daretur,” Blass, in loco, cf. remarks on Act 2:47 . , “the prices of the things which were being sold”. The language shows that we are not meant to infer that the men sold all that they had ( cf. Wetstein, especially Appian, B. Civ. , v., p. 1088, .). et . both imperfect (Blass), and see also Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses , p. 58. in N.T. only here, rarely elsewhere, see instances in Wetstein; not in LXX, but cf. Symmachus, Joe 1:11 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Neither = For neither.
was = were. Greek. huparchc. See note on Luk 9:48. The texts read en was.
that lacked = in need. Only here. Compare App-134.
possessors. Greek. ktetor. Only here. lands. Greek. chorion. See note on Mat 26:36.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
34.] gives a proof of Gods grace working in them, in that they imparted their goods to the poor: see especially 2Co 8:7.
, the things which were being sold:-the process of selling, as regarded the whole church, yet going on, though completed in individual cases; in the places cited by Wetst. from Demosth. and Appian the pres. retains its proper force, as here. In Appian, B. Civ. v. p. 1088, the expression is, .
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 4:34. , for neither was there any in need) So it ought to be in our days, even without goods being; in common,-a state of things which is suited only to the highest perfection (flower) of faith and love.-, selling) They laid out their wealth to good account, before that the Romans devastated the city. As the Israelites made gain from the Egyptians, so did the Christians from the Jews.[38]
[38] Viz. by selling their lands, which the Roman invasion would soon make worthless to the Jews.-E. and T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
was: Deu 2:7, Psa 34:9, Psa 34:10, Luk 22:35, 1Th 4:12
for: Act 4:37, Act 2:45, Act 5:1-3, Mar 10:21, Luk 12:33, Luk 16:9, 1Ti 6:19, Jam 1:27
Reciprocal: Lev 25:6 – General Lev 27:16 – of a field 2Ch 35:8 – his princes Mat 14:21 – about Luk 14:13 – call Luk 18:22 – sell Luk 19:8 – Behold Luk 21:4 – all Act 5:2 – laid Act 11:29 – to send 2Co 8:13 – not 1Ti 6:18 – ready Heb 6:10 – which
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4
Act 4:34. As to the merits of this community of resources, see the comments at chapter 2:44, 45. For the present verse and onward, we shall study the outworkings of the system with various kinds of disciples.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 4:34-35. And brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them at the apostles feet. We have here one of the few expressions in the New Testament where the personal dignity and rank which the apostles held in the community of the believers is directly mentioned (comp. Cicero, Pro Flacco, c. 28, where we read how a sum of money was laid at the Praetors feet in the Forum). The apostles, like the Roman magistrates, probably sat amongst their own people on a raised seat, on the steps of which, at their feet, the money thus devoted for the service of the Lords people was laid in token of respect. This seems to have been the customary way of the solemn dedication of property to the use of the Church, as it is mentioned again in the case of Barnabas (Act 4:37).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes on verse 32
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 34
Sold them; so far as there was any occasion. There is abundant proof, in the subsequent narrative, that property was still generally held as a private possession.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
4:34 {13} 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,
(13) True charity helps the need of the poor with its own loss, but in such a way that all things are done well and orderly.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The voluntary sharing described in Act 4:32 seems to have been customary, but the occasional selling mentioned here was evidently exceptional (cf. Act 2:45). The imperfect tense verbs here imply "from time to time" (NIV). The apostles were in charge of distributing help to those in need (cf. Act 6:1-4). The Christians were witnessing with their works (Act 4:32; Act 4:34-35) as well as with their words (Act 4:33).
Sincerity or insincerity could motivate these magnanimous deeds. An example of each type of motivation follows.