Acts 4:32

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 saeculi - 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 (Act 4:32), 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 (Act 4:33): 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 megalē - 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 31:43): All that thou seest is mine; and Nabal (Sa1 25:11): 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, Act 4:32. 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 (Act 4:34) 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, Co2 8:14, Co2 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, Act 4:34. 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, Act 4:36. 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 paraklēsis, 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, Act 11:22-24. 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 (Mar 3:17); 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, Act 13:2. Thus, for the respect he showed to the apostles as apostles, he had an apostle's reward.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Christ’s prayer, Joh 17:20-23. Their desires and designs, their hopes and joys, were the same; neither said any of them — Ουδε’ εις ελεγεν, 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.)

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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, Zöckler, 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, Zöckler)—i.e., of consolatory discourse. A title given to Joseph from the sympathetic character of his preaching (Act_11:23). Barnabas afterwards became Paul’s companion on his missionary travels (Act_13:2). A Levite—A descendant of Levi, but not a priest. Of the country of Cyprus.—Rather, a Cyprian by birth—i.e., a Jew who had been born in Cyprus.

Act_4:37. Having land, or a farm belonging to him. Whether in Palestine (Holtzmann, Zöckler) 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 soul—“heart” 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 other’s 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 power—i.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 failure—never 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 Mark’s 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 people’s 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 Judæan 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 God’s 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 Christ—including, 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 Judæa. 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, men’s 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 Joseph—an honourable name in Israel. Barnabas, the son of exhortation or consolation—a 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 Christ’s 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.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

4:32-35 The sharing of early believers was remarkable (see also 2:44-45; cp. 6:1). Being united in heart and mind, they willingly offered anything they possessed to meet the needs of other believers. This sharing was voluntary and without coercion, and it related to pressing needs in the community and was prompted by Christian love and concern for one another.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Act 4:32. Ἡ καρδία καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ μία, one heart and soul) in all matters of belief and of practice (credendis et agendis). A remarkable character given of them.—οὐδὲ εἷς) Not even one, in so great a multitude. The highest degree of concord.—ἔλεγεν, was saying) By this very expression it is taken for granted, that ownership of property was not altogether abolished.—κοινὰ, 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.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act_4:32. Connections: Thus beneficial in its effect was the whole occurrence for the apostles (Act_4:31); bur (δέ) 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.

τοῦ δὲ πλήθους] of the multitude, i.e. the mass of believers. These are designated as πιστεύσαντες, having become believers, in reference to Act_4:4; but in such a way that it is not merely those πολλοί, 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 τὸ πλῆθος, 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 σύμψυχοι (Php_2:2) and ἰσόψυχοι (Php_2:20). Comp. 1Ch_12:38; Php_1:27. See examples in Elsner, p. 317; Kypke, II. p. 31.

καὶ οὐδέ εἷς and not even a single one among so many. Comp. on Joh_1:3.

αὐτῷ] belongs to ὑπαρχ. Comp. Luk_8:3; Tob_4:8; Plat. Alc. I. p. 104 A.

As to the community of goods, see on Act_2:44.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 4:32 . δέ 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 πλῆθος 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 . καρδία καὶ ψυχὴ μία : 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 ψυχή and καρδία occur as here with μία , 1Ch 12:38 , 2Ch 30:12 (Wetstein); but in each passage the Hebrew word is the same, לב , 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. δύο φίλοι , ψυχὴ μία , Plutarch, cf. instances in Blass, in loco , from Aristotle and Cicero. Grotius comments “erant ut Hebræi loquuntur כאיש אחד ”. καὶ οὐδὲ εἷς , “and not one of them said,” R.V., i.e. , not one among so many; cf. Joh 1:3 . οὐδὲ ἕν , “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.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They agreed both in counsel, will, and purposes.

An example of the true Church, wherein there is consent as well in doctrine as in charity one towards another: And the Pastors deliver true doctrine both sincerely, and constantly.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

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, και ουκ ην διακρισις εν αυτοις ουδεμια, 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, ερωτηθεις, τι εστι φιλος; being asked, What is a FRIEND? εφη, μια ψυχη δυο σωμασιν ενοικουσα 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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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, and then this love of ours must show itself by external effects. 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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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 Lord’s teaching (Luk_16:10-14), to think of themselves, not as possessors, but as stewards.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.)

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

All things were common. Happy would it be for society, if the rich of the present day were to imitate, in some degree, this charity of the first disciples, by distributing to those that want. Both would hereby become more happy; nor would the rich derive less pleasure from such actions, than the poor. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. xi. in Acts.) --- That cold and fatal word, mine, and thine, which has caused so many misfortunes and wars, was banished from among them. (Id. hom. de St. Philogon.) --- Some take this to be the origin of a monastic life: but according to the Fathers, it is rather its progress and increase; for it began in the family of Jesus Christ. The apostles, indeed, may be said to institute here that common life, which they led under Christ, our Lord, and of which Peter speaks: behold, we have left all. This life, by St. Augustine and others, is called apostolic, and there among all, wives are particularly specified. Cajetan thinks no vow was required: St. Augustine is of a different sentiment. (Serm. de diversis & alibi.)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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 Saviour’s 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Soul for of one soul, A.V. ; and not one of them said for neither said any of them, A.V. The great increase in the number of believers had been recorded in ver. 4. And the state of public feeling alluded to in ver. 21 makes it likely that yet more may have been converted to the faith. This was very important, no doubt; but it was scarcely less so that this great multitude were one in heart and soul, closely united in the bonds of Christian fellowship and love.

Vers. 32-37. Church unity.

We speak in these dark days of unity in Christ, of brotherly love, of the communion of saints. But what do we see when we look around at the multitude of them that believe? We see some forty or fifty denominations of Christians, all keeping apart from one another, not willing to meet together, to pray together, or to receive the Holy Communion together. These different bodies are constantly at different degrees of strife with each other; sometimes waging actual war one against another, at others engaged in bitter controversies, and carrying on a strife of tongues and pens. Even among those who belong to the same religious body what differences of opinion, what unbrotherly denunciations, what schisms, what party movements, are constantly breaking out! And yet we look with complacency upon this broken surface of Christendom, and make no great effort to correct it. Perhaps, if we can get a glimpse of true unity in Christ as it was seen for a while in the Church of Jerusalem, we shall be put to shame, and strive after something better.

IN THE CHURCH OF JERUSALEM, THEN, THE WHOLE MULTITUDE OF BELIEVERS WERE OF ONE HEART AND SOUL. Rich and poor, learned and simple, Pharisees and Sadducees, Levites and Jews, were so united in Christ that all other distinctions were lost. Selfishness was gone, for each loved his brother as himself. What each man had he held it not as his own, but as a steward of Christ for the good of all.

The love of money was swallowed up in the love of Christ. The ordinary worldly life seemed to have melted into the life of faith and godliness. Their wants were spiritual, their occupations were spiritual, their joys were spiritual. In this happy state, in this clear atmosphere of love, the great truths of the gospel shone out with marvelous brightness; the resurrection of Christ especially stood out in the lineaments of a distinct reality; and there was a rich glow of grace over the whole Church, The whole body received the apostles" doctrine, submitted to their rule, committed everything to their ordering. It were difficult to say whether the apostolic authority in the Church derived more of its vigor from the appointment of Christ, or from the love and reverence of the people. The two forces were concentred on the heads of the twelve, and gave them an invincible rower. Such was Church unity in those golden days. This is not the place to consider the causes which have broken to shivers that frame of heavenly beauty. But it may be a not unfitting opportunity to entreat all who may read these lines to dwell upon the beauty of the scene hero depicted by St, Luke, to contrast it with the miserable aspect of our schisms and party divisions, and to make every effort in their own sphere to forward unity and godly love, to put aside all stumbling-blocks and hindrances to Christian harmony, and to labor after that oneness of heart and soul which ought to result from fellowship in the redeeming love of Jesus Christ, and from having one and the same hope of sharing the resurrection of life through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Vers. 32-37. A glimpse of ideal social life.

Of life, that is, in the idea of the God of love. Such glimpses are given doubtless to stimulate our faith and our aspiration; and withdrawn because struggle, not perfect attainment, is the condition of actual life.

I SOCIAL UNITY. It rested on a common faith, a common ideal, a common sentiment. Union with God is the only basis of human social union. Here, from the depths of the spirit-life, this principle was for a brief space brought to light. What was then made visible fact is constantly the invisible fact and ground of the spiritual kingdom.

II ITS EXPRESSION. The abolition of property. Property is the most tenacious of institutions, because it is the product and the insurance of the person, the individual, the self of each man. Were the self-life, whose instinct is centrifugal and separates us from the commonalty, suspended, in that moment property must cease. For then the centripetal instinct, or love, must exert its force unfettered. This was what took place under the high tide of the Spirit"s life in Jerusalem. Men forgot the peculiar in themselves, knew and felt only the universal. One heart, one soul; the ideal of heroes, patriots, philanthropists, was for a fleeting period realized. The magnet of the Name that reconciles drew all wills to itself. Necessarily there was an extraordinary access of power to individuals, for they drank of the very central source of all power; as we are weak who think self-interestedly and unsympathetically. And joy must accompany this entire emancipation of the spirit from the fetters of self. Nor could there be that sense of indigence which makes us ashamed and cramps our energies. All is for each, as each is for all. Self-sacrifice is the last test of love, its only infrangible proof. When the pain of self-sacrifice ceases, there the triumph of love is complete. And in the pouring of men"s once private property at the apostles" feet, was the illustrious evidence of the conquest of the Prince of life over the human heart. As if to clench the argument, the special instance of Joseph"s sale of his field is given. There is art in this. One such definite fact suggests a multitude of others to the imagination. Christian ethics simply teach that the inducement to work for wealth is the power for social good. Whenever this is seen to be the theory of wealth acted on in our society, it will be evidence of a new stirring of Divine love in its heart. J.

Vers. 32-35. The host of God drawing together in readiness for action.

I A COMMON SPIRIT in the believing multitude.

1. The spirit of faith.

2. Of self-sacrifice.

3. Of fellowship.

4. Of service.

They were of one heart and soul to speak and work for the new kingdom.

II A COMMUNITY OF LIFE AND PROPERTY. The simple and natural expression of the common spirit. Not the modern communism, or anything like it, for that is man"s experiment to better himself; but the Christian communism was the believers" expedient to accomplish the will of God.

III A marvelous sign of the SPIRIT"S PRESENCE AND POWER. "Great grace upon all." Great power in apostles; great testimony given to Christ. An active, self-denying, speaking Church challenging the world. R.

Christian communism.

the multitude of them that believed," etc. The Bible not a book of politics or earthly legislation. Danger of misapplying its teaching, by forgetting that it does not dictate formal rules and creeds, but describes the working out of great principles. The social problem of human history reconciliation of individual advancement with social and organic progress; failure of all merely human attempts; danger of men"s experiments; despondency; revolution; selfishness of the higher classes; misery of the poor; necessity for change in the material condition of society; recognition of the primary law, the external facts coming forth from the internal life.

I The SPIRITUAL FACT set forth. One heart and soul" in the multitude.

1. Cannot be produced by mechanical means.

2. Is the root of all true strength and prosperity in society.

3. Is the gift of the Holy Ghost.

We should pray for it. The great spiritual revivals of history have brought about great moral and social changes. Reformation; revival of Wesleys and Whitefield, etc.; missionary spirit of the present century.

II The MORAL MIRACLE wrought. The universal self-denial. The confidence in a new state of things, though only at present at the threshold. The absorption of individuality in brotherhood. A new fact in Jerusalem; testimony to the power of Christ and his doctrine.

III The PRACTICAL TEACHING EMBODIED in the facts.

1. Depend upon spiritual forces, not on political expedients.

2. Let the multitude work out its own form of brotherhood, from the one heart and one soul; not trust to mere philosophical theorizing and dreams of enthusiasts.

3. Preach Christianity as the great uplifting and renewing power of the world; not revolutionary, not by wars and strifes, but by sanctification of the multitude of wills.

4. Hold up the gospel prophecy to the poor, not to excite in them envy of the rich, not to delude them with predictions of a speedy deliverance from necessary burdens, but to incite them to the prospect of a larger share in the progressive prosperity of mankind, and to co-operation in the work of uplifting their fellow-men. We should be of one heart and soul, rich and poor alike. R.

Vers. 32-35. A novel unanimity.

It is safe to say that this verse marks one of the world"s largest moral strides of progress. It is a landmark in itself, of widest significance. It is a moral landmark of deepest and most grateful omen. Travel through the whole history of the Old Testament, and you come to no spot that can show a sight like this. The nearest approach to it some finger-post prophetic, prophetic of nothing else than this. From this landmark the world has confessedly traveled on again far. But it is not either "taken away" or so much as "removed." It stands where it did, and it is what it was. And it has become also a beacon. Some beacons are for warning, but this for encouragement and for inspiration of the highest degree. In the unanimity so novel and surprising found in this passage of sacred history, there is no great difficulty in distinguishing the essential and permanent amid what was accidental and likely to be temporary. Eighteen centuries fled of the world"s and the Church"s history have not failed to throw on the subject all necessary light. They have shown that it was none of the genius of Christianity to reduce the complexity of human life and business to a simplicity that would show no problem at all. Christianity has far too much genius for this; its meaning and its resources alike justly more ambitious, almost by an infinite quantity. And they have shown that amid a multitude and a variety of elements and interests, of relationships and duties, Christian principle, motive, and love have been ever engaged, are still engaging themselves, in eliminating one fellowship, one family. Want shall not be more common than resource, nor demand than supply, nor prayer than the loving-kindness which hears and answers, prompt and bountiful. And these things not of physical miracle, but of the community of "kindred minds." Meanwhile we are permitted to examine the conditions of a fellowship that amounted to a unanimity most astonishing. We are permitted to study it not in theory but in actual fact. Notice

I THE REAL NATURE OF THIS UNANIMITY SO NOVEL. It is of a moral sort. It is not of an intellectual sort, nor indeed of any other possibly more open to view, but less deep and far-reaching than this. "They were of one heart and one soul. " They felt one, wished, hoped, purposed, and sought, as though, instead of being a "multitude," they were "all one.

II THE SOURCE OF THIS UNANIMITY SO NOVEL. One thing, one thing only, accounts for it. It comes from spiritual causes, and is of spiritual birth. It answers to the work of deepest impressions and influences made upon whatever was deepest found in certain men. It is true that certain some, who had "no depth" in them, and had experienced no deep influences, seemed caught by the contagion of it; hut what they were really caught by was the contagion of the appearance of it. Long before the sun rose to its "scorching heat" they were "withered away." No entrancing Utopian doctrine captivated the "multitude." The Holy Spirit wrought deep in their heart. No calculations of the doctrines of human society, of science, of economy, showed the way to this unanimity, but only the uncalculatingness of "souls" moved by that same Holy Spirit. The doctrinaire and the professed unbeliever may have their version to give of this unanimity, but to the believer in Scripture it is as important to note as it is impossible to disbelieve it, that this great phenomenon was the fruit of a supernatural Being working in men"s hearts. Of all lame philosophies of human life and human events, that is the lamest that leaves out the theology of the simplest version of Christianity.

III THE VISIBLE EFFECTS OF THIS UNANIMITY WERE NOVEL. These visible effects were practical in their nature. They were such as both pervaded and penetrated they dominated the life of those in whom they were shown forth. They consisted of good deeds. They were the good deeds of genuine "charity." They bespoke the extinction (at all events for the time) of selfishness, and they furnished a literal example of the fulfilling of "the second great commandment," viz. the loving of one"s neighbor as one"s self. They were effects that showed no labored attempt, nor even the consciousness of effort, and in these very features of them looked the more like "the fruits of the Spirit." Nor could they be confounded with mere detached and individual good deeds. They were systematic, and if they could be said to leave the giver poorer at all, they left him also poorer for all his life. He gave and gave all that he had to give in many instances, and therein notably differenced himself from the man who may work himself up or be worked up to the point of giving one large subscription, but who has never yet risen to the occasion of giving in one that largest and least himself, first to the Lord and then to his people." But this it is that was the attested outcome of the unanimity of these disciples, that they gave themselves to one another. And of this no account offers itself but one that carries with it the inevitable conclusion, that they had first given themselves to the Lord. However, it is the thing patent with which we have here to do, and that was not the profession of a Divine, but the proof of a mutual, love. Pointing to this unusual "multitude," we may say nay, all subsequent times have said works that they did bare witness of them." For the rich and those who had, by a voluntary leveling down, and by the simplest, most natural organization, put poverty, want, and their attendant evils to flight. Artificial distinction on the one hand, and envy on the other, sank swift below the horizon. Wonderful transformation to be wrought only by the Holy Spirit" While it lasted it showed a dispensation by itself, unique, "elect, precious." While it lasted, it exhibited the people of God as "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people," successfully showing forth "the praises of him" who had called them "out of darkness" into what certainly was "marvelous light.

IV EVERYTHING REMARKABLE IN THIS UNANIMITY WAS SO FAR FORTH INTENSIFIED IN THE MULTITUDE OF THOSE AMONGST WHOM IT WAS PROVED, The greater multitude of any people must carry so much greater variety. Varieties of age and character, of position and of past life, must in this multitude have been strikingly represented. But all these, whatever they were, did "that one and the selfsame Spirit work to a harmony and union unknown before. To think of the vast variety of opinion, and temper, and taste, and feeling, all meekly, obediently, gladly, lowering their pride! They sway themselves into a rest of peace that "the world knoweth not." And worthy of observation indeed is this. It shuts the mouth of the taunt that Christianity is the religion of a clique, of the weak, of the few. It is the open augury of a religion that is to convince, to unite, and to rule all; but its rule, the rule that is most binding of all rule that of love. B.

Nothing our own.

chief way in which at that time a member of the Church could express his unshaken devotion to the common cause, or his willingness to sacrifice to the last penny for the common weal, was by placing his realized capital at the disposal of the brotherhood. The endangered position of the little community (through the enmity of the Sadducean party) thus tended to inflame the fervor of its charity, and gave a new impetus to that common relief fund which had been started at Pentecost." "There can be no question that an expectation of Christ"s immediate return from heaven, acting along with the unity of thoughts and feelings, made these men willing to part with their possessions and goods." Such community of goods has always been part of theories of perfect commonwealths. In this case each member of the Church held his possessions only as a trust, and was prepared to yield them up, if the exigencies of the brotherhood demanded such a surrender. We have, then, in this picture of the early Church, a model of the spirit that should animate the members of Christ"s Church in all ages. We do not say models of conduct, because the application of such models in changing generations becomes uncertain. Models of the essential principles, and of the spirit, which we should cherish, are both more helpful and of more constant application. The early Church expressed Christian feeling in outward forms, just as childhood gets impulsive and unrestrained expression for its sentiments. rod emotions. Their new faith in Christ suddenly brought them close together, and made them conscious of new and binding sympathies. There was at first a great gush of impulsive brotherhood. Compare the intense feelings animating, and the extraordinary sacrifices made, when the year A.D. 1000 drew near, because of the expectation that Jesus would return on the first day of that year. The feeling was so far right, but the mode of its expression did not gain permanence. Compare the impulse for missions so often strongly felt by young Christians. What these men actually did we may not make a model. The spirit which led them to do it, and the spirit in which they did it, are a model for us all. There are three sentiments that may be cherished concerning our earthly possessions.

I WE MAY REGARD THEM AS OUR OWN. Illustrate by the parable of the rich fool, who says he will build greater barns, "where I may bestow all my fruit and my goods." This is both a false and an unworthy sentiment; for" what have we that we have not received?

II WE MAY REGARD THEM AS CHRIST"S. Compare the sentiment of St. Paul, who could say, "To me to live is Christ.

III WE MAY REGARD THEM AS OURS IN TRUST. Then they become talents for whose use we are responsible. And we learn to feel that they are not to be spent for self, but used for others; and self-denial, charity, and self-sacrifice are recognized as the first of virtues. Put alongside this sentiment of the early disciples concerning their property, the sentiment of the apostles concerning the disciples themselves are not your own;" and then we have the twofold feeling which Christians ought ever to cherish; and our anxiety concerns

(1) holding ourselves for the Lord, and

(2) holding our property at the service of others for Christ"s sake.

are not our own." Nothing that we have is our own. All is Christ"s. We are Christ"s. And then St. Paul argues back, that "rail thing are" really "ours" in Christ. R.T. (1Co_3:21-23)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And the multitude of them that believed - Every individual person were of one heart and one soul - Their love, their hopes, their passions joined: and not so much as one - In so great a multitude: this was a necessary consequence of that union of heart; said that aught of the things which he had was his own - It is impossible any one should, while all were of one soul. So long as that truly Christian love continued, they could not but have all things common.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

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.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THE UNIFICATION OF GOD’S PEOPLE

32. “Of the multitude of those who believed there was one heart and soul.” The power of God’s 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 devil’s 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 Satan’s 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.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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?"

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

32–35. The multitude of them that believed. All the church. Of one heart and soul. Perfectly united as one body and with one life. Neither said any of them. Note the language that follows. It does not describe a community of goods, but a miraculous benevolence: (1) the goods were not a common fund, but each one had goods that he possessed; (2) he did not say that his goods were his own; (3) they used all as if it belonged to all; (4) there were none that lacked, for (5) those that had houses and lands sold them and brought the proceeds to the apostles. It was a time when a great liberality was called for. Thousands of Jews from abroad had become Christians and must remain at Jerusalem until instructed in the gospel. It was a great emergency, and the church was equal to it, for they brought money, goods, and the proceeds of houses and lands to sustain those who lacked. This continued until God was ready to send them forth, and when the persecution arose about Stephen they “went everywhere preaching the word.”

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

were of one heart and soul

Here the word "heart" refers to the thoughts and the word "soul" refers to the emotions. Together they refer to the total person. AT: "thought the same way and wanted the same things" (See: Metonymy)

they had everything in common

"shared their belongings with one another." See how you translated this in Acts 2:44.

great grace was upon them all

Possible meanings are: 1) that God was greatly blessing the believers or 2) that the people in Jerusalem held the believers in very high esteem.

translationWords

believe

heart

soul

power

apostle

preach

testimony

resurrection

Jesus

grace

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

32–37. UNANIMITY AND LOVE AMONG THE FIRST CHRISTIANS

32. ἡ omitted before καρδία and ψυχὴ with אABD.

32. καρδία καὶ ψυχὴ μία, one heart and soul. This was a Hebrew form of expressing complete accord. So (1Ch 12:38) καὶ ὁ κατάλοιπος Ἰσραὴλ ψυχὴ μἱα τοῦ βασιλεῦσαι τὸν Δαυίδ. Also cf. such expressions as (1Sa 14:7; 2Ki 10:15) ὡς ἡ καρδία σοῦ καρδία μοῦ. In some MSS. there is an addition to this verse, καὶ οὐκ ἦν διάκρισις (some have χωρισμός) ἐν αὐτοῖς οὐδεμία. This is followed by several versions and quoted by the Fathers. It has not found its way into the Received Text, but is just such a marginal explanation as a scribe would be sure sooner or later to incorporate.

καὶ οὐδὲ εἶς κ.τ.λ., and not one of them said. This is much stronger than the rendering of the A.V. 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.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

32. τῶν πιστευσάντων] Much the same meaning as τῶν πιστευόντων, but with reference to their having become converts, and specially to those mentioned in ver. 4,—though the description is general. ‘Ubi regnum habet fides, animos ita conciliat ut omnes idem velint et nolint. Hinc enim discordiæ, quod non regimur eodem Christi Spiritu.’ Calvin. On the community of goods, see note at ch. 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 τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτῷ, not alienated) (to be) his own. (ἔλεγεν, dicebat: hoc ipso præsupponitur proprietatem possessionis non plane fuisse deletam. Bengel.)

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heart and soul. See on Mr 12:30.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.