And having been let go, they came to their own [company], and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them.
Israel's ruling council has just ordered Peter and John never to speak again in the name of Jesus. Then it lets them go. Where they went first shows who they now belonged to. The ESV says they went "to their friends"; older translations read more literally, "to their own company."
So what made this group "their own"? One writer points to who had gathered them:
It was the Spirit of God who had gathered them to the name of the risen Christ. The people of Israel — their leaders at least — were now becoming enemies of the apostles, just as they were enemies of Christ. A new people was taking shape... They knew the One on high who had accomplished and secured everything. So they were drawn more and more to the circle of those who confessed Him. And they were pulling away from their old belongings and their old boast — in principle, and more and more in heart.
The council could let the apostles go. But a company was already waiting in Jerusalem for them to go to.
At that time in Jerusalem there were many people who formed a company. So when the hostile authorities released the apostles, they knew where to go. The church of God is a company distinct from the world. That has been forgotten. Through the years the aim of the adversary has been to mix the church with the world... The church is not a part of the world's religious system. The church is a called out company. That is what the word translated church, or assembly, really means.
A chapter later, the same believers are simply called the assembly:
They now belonged to a new association, separate from the old congregation of Israel. In Acts 5:11 it is plainly called the assembly — not that it came into being then, but clearly as something already there and known.
Peter and John did not keep the threat to themselves or plan their next move alone. They brought it to the whole group.
They did not act like strong-minded men with dogged determination, set on their course despite every obstacle. Like men of God, they admitted their own weakness and turned to prayer. But they did not pray alone, as Elijah did, for example. They acted as members of the body of Christ, and reported affairs to "their own company." Then the whole assembly prayed as one company... It is an early example of the shared prayer that should always mark what an assembly does.
The news from the council could have crushed the group. It did the opposite.
"They went to their own company." A precious relief from the company of the ungodly! Their report of the ominous threats of the chief priests and elders does not dismay the disciples at all. Instead, they lift up their hearts and voices in praise to the Lord... But in beautiful triumph the disciples add, "to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." The vanity of man's hostility and pride is tragic: it is God in control, not they.
When the pressure lifts, where do we go? That answer shows where our real companionship lies.
When you see someone who claims to be a Christian going on in fellowship with the world, you may be sure he is going wrong. Must we not do business in the world? Certainly. But to find congenial society in the world that cast out the Son of God is another thing... So they went to their own company, and they told them everything that had happened to them... They brought the matter into the presence of God. That is always where we find our help and our hiding place.
The same lesson shapes everyday life:
This verse takes for granted that, like the apostles who "being let go... went to their own company" (Acts 4:23), we also find our society and companionship among the people of God. It also means we watch over one another's souls and care about one another's spiritual growth... We are far more influenced by the company we keep than many of us like to admit.
- Released — the council let them go. Their first free steps showed where their loyalty lay.
- Returned — "their own company" was a new association, separate from the old congregation of Israel. The Spirit had gathered them around the name of the risen Christ.
- Reported — they told the whole assembly instead of acting alone. They moved as members of one body.
- Prayed — the report brought praise, not fear. They saw God's hand and plan behind the hostility of rulers.
- Recognised — the line between this called out company and the world still stands. Where we go when we are free shows which side we are on.
And they, having heard [it], lifted up [their] voice with one accord to God, and said, Lord, *thou* art the God who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them;
Released from the council's threats, Peter and John go back to the believers, and the whole group turns straight to God. Commentators dwell on the name these believers give Him, and on the one voice they give it in.
No one told the two apostles where to go. What formed that circle drew them back to it.
What made these believers "their own company"? What drew the two apostles to them by instinct, the moment the council let them go? It was the Spirit of God, who had gathered them to the name of the risen Christ. The people of Israel, or at least their leaders, were now becoming enemies of these believers, as they were enemies of Christ. A new people was taking shape... So they were drawn more and more to the circle of those who confessed Him. They were detached in principle, and more and more in heart, from their old belongings and their old boast.
They prayed as one body, not as people who happened to be in the same room. The older wording below, "with one accord," is "together" in the ESV.
They did not act like strong-minded men pushing ahead whatever the obstacles. Like men of God, they admitted their own weakness and turned to prayer. But they did not pray singly, as Elijah did. They acted as members of the body of Christ and reported matters to "their own company." Then the whole assembly prayed as one company: "they lifted up their voice to God with one accord."
A group cannot produce one mind in prayer on the spot. It grows out of what they already are to each other.
The apostle shows clearly that to glorify God with one mind, we must be "like-minded one toward another." We see these two things marking the saints in Pentecostal days. We read that "they lifted up their voices with one accord to God." These same believers, who could glorify God with "one mind," were "of one heart and of one soul." They were one-minded toward God because they were like-minded toward one another.
The word behind "Sovereign Lord" is not the usual word for "Lord." Its other uses show what it carries.
Notice that the word used here for "Lord" is not the usual one. The same term occurs in Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24, Jude 4. It means the Lord as "sovereign master." It is also used in 2 Peter 2:1: "even denying the Master who bought them." This is not the nearness in which we know Him as "our Lord." It is the general relation of authority in which the Lord is Master of the whole world — of all men, whether bad or good.
They turn to God as the Maker of everything. Israel had learned to lean on that name after human help ran out.
Their faith, confirmed and purified through their trials, rises to the full height of what Jehovah had revealed of Himself to Israel: the One who created heaven and earth. Jehovah, as His people knew Him, was the all-powerful God. So the apostles, with the company of believers gathered at Pentecost, "lifted up their voice to God with one accord."... It is as happy for us as for Israel when we come to the end of all human resources. Then we learn that our help is in the name of our God alone.
Many voices, one prayer, and not a word of it prepared in advance.
What they said is a remarkable outpouring to God. It proves how badly they err who imagine that there can be no agreement in prayer unless everyone holds a form written in advance. Such a form seriously interferes with the power of the Holy Spirit, and in practice denies it... They called Him "Master," in the sense of Sovereign owner and disposer of all. They acknowledge His glory in creation. Then they turn at once to His prophetic word through David at the start of Psalm 2.
- One company. The Spirit gathered these believers around the name of the risen Christ. The freed apostles went straight back to them — a new people, letting go of its old boast.
- One heart. They could pray with one mouth because they were already like-minded toward one another. Agreement in prayer starts before the prayer.
- One Master. The title they used means sovereign owner. It is the Lord's authority over the whole world, not the nearness of "our Lord."
- One Creator. Threatened by rulers, they climbed to the highest ground they knew: the God who made heaven, earth and sea. That is where faith lands when human resources are gone.
- One Spirit. They needed no written form. The same Spirit who made them one gave them the words, carrying them from creation straight into the prophecy of Psalm 2.
who hast said by the mouth of thy servant David, Why have [the] nations raged haughtily and [the] peoples meditated vain things?
The ruling council has just ordered the believers to stop speaking in the name of Jesus. They answer by praying, and they pray in words God had spoken through David long before: why do the nations rage?
One sentence names three: God speaks, the Holy Spirit carries the words, David's mouth says them. That settles what the Old Testament is.
We learn from Acts 1:16 that the very same Holy Spirit for whom the disciples were waiting, and who came at Pentecost, was the One who spoke by the mouth of David in the Psalms. Let us avoid thinking of the Old Testament as a mere collection of Hebrew religious books.
David is called God's "servant" here. The same Greek word is used of Jesus a few verses later.
In Acts 4:27, 30 the word is pais, which is translated "servant" as often as "child," since the word means both. In these verses it would be much better to translate "your holy servant Jesus"; David is also called "servant" in Acts 4:25.
The psalm does not just report hostility. It calls the plot empty.
The people plot a vain, futile thing (Psalm 2:1), as though they can possibly banish God from His place of sovereign power and glory!... God's anointed King, who was once cast out and crucified, will be the object of their hatred, for they know they have not really got rid of Him. Though they rejected Him from the earth, heaven has received Him, though they don't like to admit it.
The psalm's opening lines matched something that had just happened in their own city. Enemies who despised each other joined forces.
Pilate and Herod, who had been enemies, could bury their hatred and agree in rejecting the Son of God. And the Jews, who usually spoke of the Gentiles with contempt as "the uncircumcised," could join them in heaping insult and shame on Christ.
The match is not loose. Commentators say these words fit one event and no other, and that the plot ended in the enemy's loss.
To no event since the Psalm was written can the opening words apply except to the one just before them... There are great principles in Scripture, but also prophecies that belong to one person alone. The disciples do see in it a conspiracy directed by Satan, in which evil seemed to have its own way unchecked, even to the crucifying of the Lord of glory. Yet they are clear that the enemy with all his hosts has in fact gained nothing but defeat.
Commentators separate what a passage will finally mean from how it can be used today.
In their prayer they were led to the Word of God. Psalm 2 shed its light on the situation that confronted them. Its interpretation points to the last days, but they saw an application that fitted their own days. The early church submitted to the Word, and found in it all the light and guidance they needed.
A whole company prayed the same words together, yet nobody had handed them a script.
Their utterance is a remarkable outpouring to God. It shows how wrong those are who think a company cannot agree in prayer unless they all use a form written beforehand... For it was the Holy Spirit who guided them as they spread their present circumstances out before God without preparation. They did so in line with the written word, and in striking identification with the Lord Jesus.
Another writer says their circumstances carried them straight into the psalm.
The circumstances around them so shape the mind of the disciples (under the Holy Spirit, surely) that their souls are at once brought into fellowship with Psalm 2. Without effort or delay, they find the proper expression of their hearts through it.
- Spoken — The words are God's, carried by the Holy Spirit, voiced through David. The Spirit who came at Pentecost is the Spirit who wrote the Psalms.
- Servant — David is God's servant here. The same word marks Jesus a few verses on, better rendered "your holy servant Jesus."
- Vain — The plot is empty because it aims to unseat a God no one can unseat.
- Applied — The psalm's full interpretation belongs to the last days. The praying company still found its light for their own day, and let the Word govern them.
- Prayed — Their united prayer was spontaneous, not recited. The plot it described had already ended in the enemy's defeat.
The kings of the earth were there, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ.
The council had just ordered the believers to stop speaking in the name of Jesus. They answered with prayer, taking up words David wrote long before about rulers who band together against God and His Anointed.
Under threat, the gathered believers did not first describe their danger. They named God as Maker of everything, then turned to what He had already said.
Their words are a remarkable outpouring to God. They prove how wrong those are who think there can be no agreement in prayer without a set form written out beforehand... They acknowledge His glory in creation, but turn at once to His prophetic word through David at the start of Psalm 2. They apply it directly to the unnatural alliance Jerusalem had just seen: Gentiles with Jews, Herod with Pontius Pilate, against Jesus the Messiah.
The kings and rulers of the psalm were real men the disciples could name. They were not natural allies.
Pilate and Herod had been enemies, yet they could bury their hatred and be at one in rejecting the Son of God. The Jews usually spoke of the Gentiles with contempt as "the uncircumcised," yet they could join with them in heaping insult and shame on Christ... Satan is well able to bring about unity to accomplish his dreadful purposes.
One event in history fits the opening lines of the psalm.
Since the Psalm was written, its opening words can apply to no event except the one these men had just witnessed. They speak with precision of that strange union and daring guilt, where Jew and Gentile with their rulers set themselves against the Lord and His Anointed as never before or since.
The phrase does not mean men standing in one room. The Gospels place them in different rooms, and that shapes how we read the word.
Scripture says they were gathered "together." Yet Scripture also shows, as every reader of the Gospels knows, that they met in quite different places. The chief priests and scribes led Christ to their own council — to Annas first and then to Caiaphas. The whole crowd of them led Him to Pilate at the Praetorium. Pilate then sent Him on to Herod. In the end Pilate had Him whipped in his own place, before the cross.
The refusal ran deeper than turning down a Saviour.
God sent His Son into this world as the Anointed One, the rightful ruler, and the world has cast Him out. Can this be a matter of indifference to God? On the contrary, it is a matter of deepest importance. God sees the world as a place guilty of rejecting His Son as its rightful Lord, and He expects the believer to see it the same way... The guilt pressed home on the Jews as a people was not that of refusing a Saviour, which was their own individual loss. It was the guilt of rejecting God's Anointed, which brought condemnation on their nation.
The disciples were not praying in despair. They saw a plot that looked like a success, and called it a defeat.
The disciples see in it a conspiracy directed by Satan. In it evil seemed to have its way without check, even to the crucifying of the Lord of glory. Yet they are clear that the enemy with all his hosts gained nothing but defeat. The others never thought of this when they held their council and condemned Jesus to the death of the cross. But Him who is higher than the highest gathered them, to do whatever His hand and His counsel had decided beforehand.
The psalm found a real fulfilment at the cross. It did not find its whole fulfilment there.
The rejection of Jesus at His first coming fulfilled these words, at least in principle. That showed most of all in the resistance offered in Jerusalem to the Holy Spirit. As the Spirit of grace, He first brought His testimony there to the men who had betrayed and murdered that Jesus... The passage has clearly received a partial fulfilment in those events. But later testimonies of the same Spirit make it quite plain that a fulfilment of these words, still more awful and decisive, has yet to take effect.
- Conspiracy. Herod and Pilate, Jew and Gentile despised each other. They united against God's Anointed.
- Counsel. God Himself gathered them, to carry out what His hand and counsel had decided beforehand.
- Collapse. The conspiracy looked like victory. It was total defeat, and the enemy gained nothing.
- Charge. The world's guilt is more than refusing a Saviour. It has cast out God's rightful ruler.
- Coming. The cross fulfilled these words in part; a fuller and more decisive fulfilment is still ahead.
For in truth against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hadst anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with [the] nations, and peoples of Israel, have been gathered together in this city
The council has just released the believers with orders to stop speaking about Jesus. They answer with prayer. In that prayer they name exactly who had stood against their Master, and why it happened.
Jesus is called God's "holy servant" here. The Greek word behind that title can be read two ways:
In Acts 4:27, 30 the word is pais, which is translated 'servant' as often as 'child,' the word signifying both. In these verses it would be much better to translate 'your holy servant Jesus.' David is also called 'servant' in Acts 4:25.
The title also shows how far the apostles' preaching had gone by this point.
The Messiah was rejected on earth. The Jews went furthest in urging the deepest shame and disgrace for Him who was born King of the Jews... But, as Peter preached, God raised Him up and made the very Jesus whom His people crucified both Lord and Christ. No apostle went beyond this until now. In Acts 3:13 and Acts 4:27 it is still the Messianic title of "servant" (not "Son").
The prayer quotes David first. It then matches his words, line by line, to what the city had just watched happen.
They acknowledge His glory in creation, but turn at once to His prophetic word through David in the beginning of Psalm 2. They apply this plainly to the unnatural alliance Jerusalem had just seen: Gentiles with Jews, Herod with Pontius Pilate, against Jesus the Messiah.
Kelly presses further. This is not a general rule about opposition, but a prophecy with one owner.
Since David wrote the Psalm, its opening words fit no event except the one just before them. They speak with precision of that strange union and daring guilt. There Jew and Gentile, with their rulers, lined up against Jehovah and His Anointed as never before or since. There are great principles in Scripture, but also exclusively personal prophecies.
The prayer names four parties. Two of them were enemies; the other two despised each other by habit.
How solemn! Pilate and Herod had been enemies. Yet they could bury their hatred and agree together in rejecting the Son of God. The Jews usually spoke of the Gentiles with contempt as "the uncircumcised." Yet they could join with them in heaping insult and disgrace on Christ... Satan is well able to bring about unity for the accomplishment of his dreadful purposes.
Bellett puts it as a standing rule, not just a past event.
The world has power to combine very different elements when an unworldly Christ stands out as a common enemy. Herod and Pilate were made friends together. A society may hold the secular and the religious, even the unbeliever and the superstitious. But let an unworldly Christ appear, and they will all challenge Him as their common enemy.
Some press the phrase to mean meeting in a single location. Kelly shows from the trial itself that it cannot carry that weight.
It is very certain that this gathering "together" of Herod and Pilate, of the Gentiles and of Israel, does not say, or support the idea, that they were all assembled "in one place"... Yet Scripture clearly shows, as every reader of the Gospels knows, that they met in quite different places. The chief priests and scribes led Christ to their own council — to Annas first and then to Caiaphas. The whole crowd of them led Him to Pilate and the Praetorium. Then Pilate sent Him on to Herod.
The verse begins with human plotting. It does not end there.
The disciples see in it a conspiracy directed by Satan. In it evil seemed to have its way unchecked, even to the crucifying of the Lord of glory. Yet they are clear that the enemy and all his hosts have really gained nothing but defeat. The others did not think so at all when they held their council and sentenced Jesus to the death of the cross. But He who is higher than the highest gathered them.
This is what makes the verse steadying when everything looks dark.
Take the worst act the world has ever seen — the crucifixion of Christ... If we may read the hand and foreordination of God in this act, then we may read it in all acts whatever. In this way alone, no darkness is left without relief.
- Gathered against — Herod, Pilate, Gentiles and Israel shared nothing but their opposition to Christ. Rejecting Him turned enemies into friends.
- Gathered apart — "together" does not mean one place. The trial ran from Annas to Caiaphas to Pilate to Herod, yet Scripture calls it one gathering.
- Gathered by God — One higher than the plotters was gathering them, and they never guessed it.
- Named as Servant — the Greek word can mean "servant" or "child", and here "servant" fits best; at this stage Peter still preaches the Messianic title, not "Son".
- Turned into prayer — under threat, the disciples read Psalm 2 back to its Author and applied it to their own city.
to do whatever thy hand and thy counsel had determined before should come to pass.
The believers in Jerusalem had just been threatened and told to stop speaking in the name of Jesus. The believers answered by praying. In that prayer they looked back at the killing of Jesus and called it the very thing God's hand and plan had already settled. That raises the hardest question in the verse: if God settled it beforehand, what becomes of the guilt of the men who did it?
The men who condemned Jesus thought they were disposing of Him. The prayer says otherwise: a higher hand had gathered their council. (Older translations say God's "counsel" where the ESV says His "plan.")
The disciples see in it a conspiracy directed by Satan. In it evil seemed to have its way without check, even to crucifying the Lord of glory. Yet they are clear that the enemy with all his hosts in fact gained nothing but defeat. The others never thought of this when they held their council and condemned Jesus to the death of the cross. But He who is higher than the highest gathered them, to do whatever His hand and His counsel had determined beforehand.
The prayer names God as Maker of all, then turns at once to the second Psalm. The believers saw that Psalm coming true in front of them.
"Master," they said, in the sense of Sovereign owner and disposer of all... They acknowledge His glory in creation, but turn at once to His prophetic word through David at the beginning of Psalm 2. They apply it directly to the unnatural alliance Jerusalem had just seen: Gentiles with Jews, Herod with Pontius Pilate, against Jesus the Messiah.
The same act was God's settled purpose and the guilt of the men who carried it out.
God delivered Him up to this according to His "determinate counsel and foreknowledge." God knows how to make the wrath of man praise Him and carry out His designs of blessing. Yet this does not lessen man's responsibility in the matter. Here is a clear instance of how the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man do not clash, when it is a question of practical results. We may still find the two hard to reconcile as a matter of theory.
God's purpose does not blunt our moral judgment of the deed. Both sides in the verse acted out what they were.
Everything is in its place, not one side only but both. God has His determinate counsel and foreknowledge. The Jews played their evil part, the Gentiles theirs. They differed in thoughts and feelings, yet together they showed their characters and their guilt. In that very same act they fulfilled the prophets. And it gave occasion for the display of God's holiest judgment and for the carrying out of His work of grace.
God foreknew what men would do. He did more than permit it — He steered it.
God was not responsible for the evil in the hearts of men. But He showed His supremacy over all. First He restrained that evil for a while. Then the hour came, and it poured out in unrestrained and determined hatred against Him. At that point He turned it into the channel by which it became the means of glorifying Him, and, more wonderful still, the way of blessing for men. He knew what men would do, and predetermined that their act should turn into a triumph of His love.
The cross is the extreme case. What holds true there holds true everywhere else.
Take the worst act the world has ever seen — the crucifixion of Christ... If we may read the hand and foreordination of God in this act, then we may read it in all acts whatever. Only in this way does the darkness everywhere stop being unrelieved.
- Plot — Herod, Pilate, Gentiles and Jews joined against Jesus, and the praying believers saw Psalm 2 coming true in that alliance.
- Plan — God had settled beforehand what the council carried out. The enemy, with all his forces, gained nothing but defeat.
- Guilt — God's foreknowledge takes nothing off man's responsibility. In practice the two never clash, even when theory struggles to hold them together.
- Grace — God held that evil back until the hour came. Then He turned it into the channel of His own glory and man's blessing.
- Gaze — if we can read God's hand in the worst act ever done, we can read it in every act. No darkness stays unrelieved.
And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings, and give to thy bondmen with all boldness to speak thy word,
The rulers have just hauled Peter and John in, warned them to stop speaking in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Their friends' response is a prayer — and the striking thing is what they ask for, and what they refuse to ask for.
Their first response was not to fight back or lobby for better laws.
Notice verse 29. All they say about their enemies is, "look upon their threats." They bring the matter before God and leave it to Him. They do not try to get better laws, or anything of that kind. The Lord had said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting" (John 18:36).
Behind that restraint lies confidence that God is the one deciding how far opposition may go.
Their hearts were content that the Lord should look upon the threats of those who wanted to harm them. He knew best what to allow and what to hold back. And He could rescue them. For themselves they asked for grace to speak His word with all boldness or liberty.
What their prayer leaves out is remarkable.
Those gathered in prayer knew what kind of times they were living in, and they asked for what they needed. What was that? Shelter from persecution? Power to crush their enemies? No. They asked to speak the Word with all boldness, and for God to stretch out His hand — not to shield them, but to heal others.
No one asked for relief. One writer traces the reason to what they valued most:
They were marked too by far more concern for the honour of the Name of Jesus than for their own ease and comfort. They did not ask for persecution and opposition to stop. They asked for boldness in speaking the word, and for miraculous support that would exalt His Name.
Prayers in the Psalms do call on God to deal with the wicked. This prayer does not.
So praying saints today do not ask God to take vengeance on their enemies, as we find in the Old Testament, and above all in the Psalms, which show the deepest feelings of the godly people concerned... Many dare to think, in ignorant presumption, that these prayers against the wicked — as in Psalms 6, 10, 54, 59, 83, and the like — are vindictive. They are not. They are judicial, meant for the time when God's instruments are in place to pour out His wrath on all who despise Him. But now it is the day of grace and salvation, the accepted time.
The second petition turns inward.
Their second petition is for boldness. They cry to be moved themselves; and that has its application to some of us. We may pray for others to be moved, but how are we moved ourselves? To act with power on those around us, we need to be right ourselves. What a short prayer! Only four petitions! Yet they were "of one accord," and in earnest, waiting for the answer.
Kelly points to the opposite danger:
It is easy for Christians to sit over the word rather than let the word rule them, admiring the things they know, and criticising those who do not know the wonderful counsels and ways of grace.
God answered on the spot.
That memorable day in Jerusalem ended with a remarkable prayer meeting (Acts 4:23-31). When they were let go, Peter and John went back to their own people. They reported everything that had passed between them and the chief priests and elders. The assembly at once turned to God with one accord. When they had prayed, God gave open proof of His presence among them: He shook the place where they had gathered. "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness."
- Threats — they hand the danger to God instead of fighting it, and say no more about their enemies than "look upon their threats."
- Ask — not for shelter, not for the crushing of enemies, but for courage to keep speaking. God stretches out His hand to heal others, not to shield them.
- Grace — no call for vengeance. This is the day of grace and salvation, not the judicial hour of the Psalms.
- Themselves — they ask God to move the praying company, not the opposition. To act with power on others, we must be right ourselves.
- Answer — God shook the place, filled them all with the Holy Spirit, and sent them on speaking His word with boldness.
in that thou stretchest out thy hand to heal, and that signs and wonders take place through the name of thy holy servant Jesus.
The council has just ordered the believers to stop speaking in the name of Jesus. Their prayer does not ask for safety. It asks God to act for other people, through the name of His holy servant.
Notice where the power they ask for is aimed. They ask God to stretch out His hand, but not over themselves.
Those gathered in prayer saw what kind of times they were in. They asked for what they needed. What was that? Shelter from persecution? Power to crush their enemies? No. They asked to speak the Word with all boldness. They asked God to stretch out His hand — not to shield them, but to heal others — and to do signs and wonders in the name of His holy servant Jesus. Their earnestness must impress us. They knew how serious their position was, yet the threats did not dismay them, nor did the power that might be called out against them.
What they asked for shows what they wanted for their enemies.
Their first request laid before Him was the testimony, the word of God. They wanted mercy and blessing for their enemies, not revenge. The proofs of power they asked from His hand were not fire from above, or the earth opening to swallow the enemy. They asked for "healing". And if "signs and wonders", they asked for them "through the name of His holy Servant Jesus". They asked this way because their hearts were set on the honour of the Son, just as they honoured the Father.
Older English Bibles put "child" here. Later revisers made a different choice.
In Acts 3:18, 26, as in Acts 4:27, 30, the Revisers are right to give "servant," not Son or Child. The word refers back to Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 12:18; Isaiah 52:13; Isaiah 53:11.
The title says how Jesus lived, not only who He is.
There was nothing of independence seen in God's Servant; He was in everything obedient to God, and all that He did was by the Holy Spirit with which He was anointed.
These opening chapters of Acts keep calling Jesus God's servant. Not every preacher after them started there.
Notice the emphasis in these early chapters, that Jesus is the servant of God, the Messiah. Paul, as soon as he was converted, preached Him as the Son of God (Acts 9:20). He had seen Him in heaven: they had known Him in His blessed path of service on earth.
The healing they asked for did more than relieve sickness. It had an audience.
Their faith, according to the word of the Lord (Mark 16:17-18), counted on more than spiritual blessing. They asked for the sick and the disabled to be healed in His name, as a precious and meaningful sign to unbelievers. The Master had worked this way when He was here. His servants would do the same, as a witness to His gracious power. He was now risen and in heaven, and He had defeated Satan. The Lord worked with them and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.
Do such signs continue? Commentators read the promise as real but not permanent.
The more you weigh the matter, the more fitting it seems. He who granted miracles at the beginning did not tie them to the church or to His servants as a permanent inheritance. He promised that they would follow "those that believe"; and so they did. He never said they would follow forever, or in every case.
They asked for one thing. God gave more.
When they had prayed, the place shook. Better still, "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit." They had not asked for that. They had asked for boldness, and they got it.
- Threat — The council warned them. They took the threat straight to God, and never asked Him for protection.
- Request — They asked God to stretch out His hand toward others: healing, not shelter. Mercy for enemies, not fire from heaven.
- Name — They asked for that power through "His holy Servant Jesus". Older Bibles read "child"; the better word is Servant, the One Isaiah spoke of.
- Purpose — The signs confirmed the word in front of unbelievers. Writers say they were never promised as permanent.
- Answer — They asked for boldness. They got it, and more: the place shook, and all of them were filled with the Holy Spirit.
And when they had prayed, the place in which they were assembled shook, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and spoke the word of God with boldness.
Peter and John are free again, under orders never to speak in the name of Jesus again, so the believers pray together. The answer comes at once, and it raises two questions: what had they prayed for, and what does "filled" mean here?
Their prayer left out the requests we might expect:
Those gathered together in prayer recognised the character of the times, and asked for what they needed. What was that? Shelter from persecution? Power to crush their enemies? No. They asked that God would stretch out His hand — not to shield them, but to heal others — and that with all boldness they might speak the Word, and that signs and wonders might be done in the name of His holy servant Jesus.
The filling itself was never on their list:
We ought not to be surprised that our souls are filled with blessing. When they had prayed, the place was shaken. Better still, "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit." They had not asked for this; they had asked for boldness, and they got it.
Commentators differ on what the shaking meant. One reads it as the Creator answering those who had appealed to Him:
How certain the answer is, when the Lord and His interests are what the prayer is all about! God assures them at once that He has heard: He shakes the very place where they are gathered. This is the answer of the Creator, whom they had appealed to. He will yet "shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land, and shake all nations," to bring in Christ (Hag. 2:6-7).
Another sees the shaken building as a picture of what was happening inside them:
Their prayer was united and real, and God answered in a striking way: He shook the building they were in. This pictures the deep stirring of the Spirit of God in their souls. They were all filled with the Spirit, which gave boldness in speaking the word of God. Such a miracle today would likely excite us so much that we would forget to proclaim the word.
Scripture also speaks of people being full of the Spirit, and the two phrases are not interchangeable:
In a few cases we have the word "full" of the Spirit, but in most it is "filled." The difference seems to be this. "Full of the Spirit" describes the habitual state of a soul always controlled by the Spirit — as our blessed Lord was, and Stephen and Barnabas in their measure. "Filled with the Spirit" is very often for some special service, prophecy, or testimony. I do not think that the opposite of "filled" is necessarily "empty." For instance, the apostles were filled again and again. It would not be fair to conclude that in between they were in a lower spiritual state. Rather, God gave special power as special emergencies arose.
This filling also differs from the Spirit's permanent home in the believer:
On the day of Pentecost the disciples did not simply receive the Spirit to live in them. "They were all filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:4). When a believer is filled with Him, no force inside is active to check His power. This filling of the Spirit is not permanent like His indwelling. Peter was filled with the Spirit again in Acts 4:8, and yet again in verse 31 of the same chapter.
Boldness was not the only result. The verses that follow trace a second effect back to the same cause:
All of them were filled with Him. The very building where they met was shaken, and God answered their prayer for special boldness at once. And He gave them what they had not asked for: they all were "of one heart and soul." This of course flowed from the "one Spirit" filling every one of them. If all believers today were filled with the Spirit, oneness of mind and heart would mark them. It is the only way such oneness can be brought about.
The scene is exceptional, but the experience is open to ordinary believers too:
No doubt we know we are born of the Spirit, and are sealed with the Spirit; but to be filled with the Spirit goes further. This blessing is not confined to the apostles… In Ephesians 5 we are urged to be "filled with the Spirit." Is that an impossible thing? Or is the exhortation not needed? We all should seek to be "filled with the Spirit," which means our whole being under His control.
- Ask — under threat they did not pray for safety or for power over their enemies. They asked for boldness to keep speaking, and for God's hand to heal others.
- Answer — God replied at once, and gave more than they had asked. The place shook, and He filled them all with His Spirit.
- Sign — some read the shaking as the Creator's own answer to those who had appealed to Him. Others see a picture of the Spirit stirring their souls.
- Filling — "filled with the Spirit" means special power for a particular moment. It is not the same as the habitual state of being "full of the Spirit," nor the same as His permanent indwelling.
- Effect — one Spirit filled them all, and two things followed: bold speech, and one heart and soul among them. Believers today are urged to seek the same filling.
And the heart and soul of the multitude of those that had believed were one, and not one said that anything of what he possessed was his own, but all things were common to them;
Luke describes a company so closely joined that no one called his property his own. Two questions follow. What produced this? And is it a pattern the church should copy?
This unity was not organised. Commentators trace it to the Holy Spirit. He alone can silence the self-will that keeps people apart.
Never before Pentecost had such a time appeared on earth... It is the Holy Spirit Whose energy works everything that pleases God and everything that builds up people. Without Him there would have been only so many separate people. The Spirit joins us to Christ, and by that He also gives practical unity, as here... Such unity could not have existed without one supreme, absorbing object — Christ Himself. But the Spirit's power also had to shut out the activity of each separate will. For flesh loves to differ, and seeks its own things.
The two words are not repetition. Writers take them to cover the whole inner life: how these believers thought, how they felt, how they loved.
In thought and feeling, as well as in affection, they were completely one. They kept proving it by still holding everything in common. This was the picture the Christian community presented to anyone watching. Happiness, confidence, and love reigned among them.
Notice what the verse does not say. It does not say they owned nothing. It says none of them called what he owned his own. Commentators press hard on that distinction.
There was no communistic law among these believers. It would have spoiled everything if there had been. It was a unity of heart that kept them all from saying that what was really theirs belonged to them. Selling lands and houses was optional, and no one asked for it. We can see that from the very naming of those who did it. So no one gave up personal ownership as a rule. Instead there was a love that held nothing back from another's need. It came from the instinct of hearts that had found their real possessions in the place Christ had risen into.
Nothing was demanded of anyone. Peter makes that plain later when he confronts Ananias.
As Peter says to Ananias, no one ever demanded that they give their goods to the assembly. No one even mentioned it to them. It was the free power of the Holy Spirit working in love to others. Nobody set up a community of people or goods at all. What happened was a voluntary giving up of what was one's own, where that could be useful. And most blessed it was. Acting in that spirit will always be blessed, even though there are no apostles at whose feet I can lay what I have to give away. Riches are as dangerous now as then, devotedness as acceptable now as then.
There is also a simple reason this worked here and nowhere else. Every Christian on earth lived in one city.
Remember one thing about this having of things in common. All the Christians in the world were there together in that one city. When God extended the testimony to other cities we never find anything of the sort... They were a family, and they felt that they were one family. But once God was working here and working there, the day for community of goods was clearly past.
The picture did not last. Writers hold it up against the divided state of Christians ever since, and they name one cause.
Unity, unity in visible display, is the next effect produced... and so the Lord's desire for His people — that they all might be one — was answered for the moment. A blessed sight, we might well say, surrounded as we are, on every side, with divisions and schools of opinion... The root, then, of all discords in the Church of God is the lack of the Spirit's power. Where He is ungrieved, He works without hindrance in a company of believers. There unity must follow: unity in feeling, unity in thought and judgment, and unity in display.
- Spirit first. No one organised this oneness. The Holy Spirit's energy shut out each separate will in hearts absorbed with one object: Christ.
- Heart then hand. One heart and one soul came first; shared possessions were the proof that followed, not the arrangement that produced it.
- Free, not forced. No law required it. No one asked for it. No one gave up ownership as a rule. Love refused to hold back from another's need.
- Local, not universal. It suited a moment when every believer on earth lived in one city. When the testimony spread, that form passed. The devotedness behind it never did.
- Lost, and why. The unity faded. Wherever it is missing, writers name one cause: the Spirit's power lacking or grieved.
and with great power did the apostles give witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
God has just answered the prayer of the gathered believers: the building shook and they spoke with fresh boldness. This verse joins two things — what the apostles said in public, and what God was doing in the whole company.
One writer presses the point: a message that ends at Christ's death is a message cut short.
Do we need to argue that the apostles were right, and not the modern preachers who speak of the Lord in His service, or in His death, and stop there? These men cut the true witness short of its full blessing. All their preaching suffers — and, we may add, their faith too. Why separate the resurrection from the death of Christ? If He "has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain... you are still in your sins." Without His resurrection there is no proof that our sins are gone, that we are justified, and that God is glorified.
Preached in Jerusalem, that testimony had a sharp edge for the men who had condemned Jesus:
To preach the resurrection of Christ was to convict the Jews of sin in putting Him to death. It announced that God had defeated all their plans. At the same time it stripped off the cloak of religious zeal they had tried to wrap around their conduct. It left them without excuse. And it pointed to the ground of the preaching of forgiveness of sins: God had accepted the sacrifice.
No one disputed that Jesus died. His resurrection was another matter — and that is where the apostles pushed hardest:
Everyone admitted His death, and about that they only had to explain its meaning. But His resurrection they fiercely contested. Here the apostles faced the point of strongest opposition. They knew this: if the Spirit of God carried their testimony home and broke resistance here, the whole position of unbelief gave way.
The verse names power and grace together. One writer links the two:
The power seen in the apostles' testimony was tied to the state of the assembly — we might even say it was the result of it. To seek out special servants, and to hold special prayer meetings for the gospel, may be excellent things. But God may use His word in sovereign power for a moment, while the lasting power of the testimony will always depend on the state of God's people it comes from.
One writer notes who "them all" takes in:
The great grace, we read, was upon them all — that is, upon the whole Christian community.
Kelly refuses to reduce the phrase to public popularity. He reads the next verse as a sample of how that grace worked, not as the reason people liked them:
It is painful that anyone should reduce this "great grace" to "popular favour". The next verse does not tell us why the people looked kindly on them. It does not say they were liked because no needy person was left among them, as if the church were a good benefit club! Verse 34 simply shows one special way in which the great grace upon them worked.
This grace does more than save. It makes those who receive it gracious, and no command is needed:
God raised from the dead the One who made Himself responsible for our sins and went down into death under divine judgment for our sakes. That God is the Saviour God, and His great grace reproduces itself in those who know Him in this way. Love is not the fruit of a command or of an effort to love. His grace creates graciousness in those who know themselves loved by Him.
Can such days be brought back? One writer gives a warning:
It is little wonder that many have longed for a return of those days. But too many have sought it in vain, and that is the tragedy. Human energy can never reproduce this. There have been many imitations, and all of them have failed.
- Great fact. The apostles centred their witness on Christ risen. A message that stops at His death gives no proof that our sins are gone.
- Great opposition. Everyone admitted His death; His resurrection they fiercely contested. That is where unbelief had to break.
- Great power. Special meetings do not manufacture power. It flows out of the condition of the people the testimony comes from.
- Great grace. More than public popularity. It rested on the whole community, and the sharing in the next verse is only one sample of how it worked.
- Great result. Grace reproduces itself. Those who know they are loved become loving, and no command is needed. Human energy has never copied it.
For neither was there any one in want among them; for as many as were owners of lands or houses, selling them, brought the price of what was sold
No one among the believers in Jerusalem was left in need. Two questions follow: what produced such open-handedness, and was it meant to be copied as a system?
The verse before speaks of great grace resting on them all. One commentator warns against shrinking that grace down to public popularity.
It is painful that anyone should, from Acts 2:47, reduce this "great grace" to "popular favour." Verse 34 does not give the reason why the people thought well of them. It is not saying, "because they allowed none of their number to be in need" — as if the church were a charity club! Verse 34 merely shows a special way in which the great grace upon them worked.
Nothing here was organised or demanded. The wording — as many as were owners — points to the ones who sold, not to a rule binding everyone.
There was no communistic law among these believers. It would have spoiled everything if there had been. It was a unity of heart which allowed none of them to say that what was really his belonged to him. The sale of lands and houses was optional, and nobody asked for it, as we see from the very naming of those who did it. So there was no general giving up of personal ownership, but a love that held nothing back from another's need. It is not that everyone necessarily sold all they had. This was simply the way the need was met.
Turn this into a rule and you lose the thing itself. One writer points to Barnabas, named on his own:
The express mention of this here proves how little the practice had become compulsory. Why name Barnabas in particular, if it were an absolute and universal rule? Where men copy this in the world, or even in the church, law takes the place of grace. The community swallows up the individual. It destroys love on one side and conscience on the other.
Land was the last thing these believers would have parted with. That makes the selling a measure of what the Spirit had done in them.
The grace took a remarkable form as an outward sign. It showed itself in the very thing a Jew would be least likely to part with. The Jew has never been known for this readiness to lay down all he has in the world. But that was exactly what the Spirit of God worked within them. He had come to give men another being, another relationship, and this was the effect of it. The earth was nothing, and the things on the earth were nothing.
Here the money passes through other hands first. That difference matters.
In chapter two the rich gave to the poor themselves. That is hard to do without adding importance to the giver. But in chapter four the rich laid their money at the apostles' feet. We take this as a sure sign of increased humility and greater devotedness.
The money was not shared out equally, and no one had to ask. The measure was need.
The closing verses show that just as there was powerful testimony flowing outward, so there was love and care circulating within. … The distribution went to each one, "as any had need." Not people's wants, but their needs were met, and so nobody lacked.
Did God require this, and can it be repeated? One writer answers both.
Did the Lord demand this of His people? Certainly not, for Christianity is marked by grace, and God has taken the place of the Giver. But He values what His people freely give up, because it shows they appreciate what He has done for them through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. A shared life like the one in the early Church was only possible while the Church was still in one city. But generosity is always pleasant in God's sight. Sadly, it is one of the rarest of Christian graces!
There is also a personal freedom in it:
If we withhold our treasure, if we refuse our best to God, we too are sold into slavery to that desire. … But if, like those first Christians, we surrender our possessions and goods, then it is the things which are in bondage, and we are free. … It is a wonderful thing to be free from the bondage of things, to be their master and not the servant of house and lands, furniture, books, every treasure.
- Grace first. The selling of lands was not a public relations success. It was one way the great grace resting on them worked itself out.
- Grace frees. People who would cling hardest to property let it go. The Spirit had given them another relationship, and earth was worth nothing to them.
- Grace stoops. They laid the money at the apostles' feet instead of handing it to the poor. That kept importance off the giver.
- Grace reaches need. Distribution answered need, not want — and so no one lacked.
- Grace cannot be forced. Naming Barnabas shows the practice was optional. Make it a rule, and law replaces grace, swallowing love and conscience.
and laid it at the feet of the apostles; and distribution was made to each according as any one might have need.
This verse closes a picture of the first believers in Jerusalem, who sold property to meet each other's needs. Why hand the money to the apostles, and does this scene set a rule for the church today?
Earlier in Acts the believers shared with one another face to face. Here the gift passes through other hands first. One writer reads that change as a gain:
In chapter two the rich gave to the poor themselves. Giving that way can hardly avoid adding importance to the giver. But in chapter four the rich laid their money at the apostles' feet. We take this as a sure sign of increased humility and of greater devotedness.
Another writer traces the change to the growth in numbers:
The devotedness was the same. The Spirit of God takes pains to show it was the same, even though the numbers had grown much larger. Still, as numbers grew, that simplicity could not continue in the same visible way. Before, the sharing with each person was more direct and immediate. Now it takes effect through the apostles.
The text names who sold property, and that naming matters. No rule stripped anyone of ownership:
No law made property common among these gathered believers. Such a law would have spoiled everything. It was a unity of heart that allowed none of them to say that what was really his belonged to him. Selling lands and houses was optional. Nobody asked them to do it, as we see from the way the text names those who did. So nobody gave up the right to own property. Instead love held nothing back when someone else was in need. Not everyone necessarily sold all they had. This was simply how the need was met.
Why would people let go of land at all? The answer lies in what had changed inside them:
The grace took a remarkable outward form. It appeared in the very thing a Jew would be least likely of all people to part with. The Jew has never been known for readiness to lay down all he has in the world. But that is exactly what the Spirit of God worked within them. He had come to give people another existence, another relationship, and this was the effect of it. The earth was nothing, and the things on the earth were nothing.
One word in the verse sets the measure for what each person got:
The giving went to each one "as any had need." They met people's needs, not their wants, and so nobody lacked.
The apostles handled the fund at this stage. Did the church already have officers appointed to the job?
Up to this time the apostles handled the administration, as we see in Acts 4:35. They may well have used many brothers to hand out the help to each person in need. But the idea that officers already held this job has no support in the evidence of Scripture. That evidence stands against it.
Does any of this bind Christians now? One writer separates the spirit of it from the form:
As Peter says to Ananias, nobody ever demanded that they give their goods to the assembly. Nobody even suggested it to them. It was the free power of the Holy Spirit working in love toward others. Nobody set up a community of persons or goods at all. It was a voluntary giving up of what one owned, where it could be of use. It was most blessed. Acting in that spirit will always be blessed, though there are no apostles at whose feet I may lay what I have to give. Riches are as dangerous now as then, devotedness as acceptable now as then.
- Source — the Spirit gave them another existence and another relationship. Earthly things stopped counting, so the giving was the effect and not the cause.
- Freedom — selling lands and houses was optional and unasked. Nobody lost the right to own, and nobody demanded a gift.
- Humility — giving straight to the poor adds importance to the giver. Money laid at the apostles' feet kept the giver out of sight.
- Measure — the fund met needs, not wants, and so no one lacked.
- Continuance — no apostles stand today to receive a gift at their feet. But riches are as dangerous now as then, and devotedness as acceptable.
And Joseph, who had been surnamed Barnabas by the apostles (which is, being interpreted, Son of consolation), a Levite, Cyprian by birth,
Luke has just described believers selling property to help the needy. Then he stops to name one man — a Levite from Cyprus whom the apostles had re-named. Why single out this one giver? And what does his new name say about him?
One writer explains the name and why English versions render it in different ways:
The apostles noticed him, and he had so impressed them that they gave him the nickname Barnabas. Barnabas seems to be a Hebrew word. But the reason the apostles gave him this name was important, so the Holy Spirit saw fit to translate it. The meaning of the name Barnabas is added in Scripture. Different English translations give a different emphasis. I have seen "Son of Consolation", "Son of Encouragement", "Son of Exhortation", "Son of Comfort". The Greek word translated "consolation", "encouragement", "exhortation", "comfort" means "a calling alongside to help". The word holds all of these emphases together.
Commentators differ over which sense fits best here. One study of the same Greek word prefers the stronger, more active meaning:
The Greek verb parakaleo means calling on a person to stir him up to something. It may be to comfort; but it often refers to other things, to exhortation in general... In Acts 4:36 the name Barnabas, huios parakleseos, should probably be "son of exhortation" and not "of consolation."
In Scripture, calling a man the "son" of something says what he is like:
Sons reproduce the typical or distinctive traits of their fathers. Scripture often uses this idea of a son standing for his father in moral matters. So the "sons of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2) are those whose conduct displays disobedience as clearly as a son resembles a father. Barnabas showed the features of consolation so clearly that he was called the "son of consolation" (Acts 4:36).
Another writer links the name to his gift, his background, and the work still ahead of him:
Barnabas was a Levite. His own name was Joseph; but he received the surname, or title, of Barnabas because of the character of his ministry, as one who exhorted. Clearly that was his special gift (11:23). And his surname, which means son of exhortation and not consolation, implies it. Here he appears on the scene for the first time. Later he would play a large part, for a time, in the great work of taking the gospel to the nations. He came from Cyprus, and so he was a Greek-speaking Jew, as Paul was by birth as well. All we learn of him here is that he sold his field — for Levites could own land of their own — and of his own free will he laid the price of it at the apostles' feet.
One writer points out why his tribe makes the gift striking:
Scripture draws particular attention to Joses, surnamed Barnabas, a Levite from the country of Cyprus. Levites in Israel received tithes from the people (Heb. 7:5), but grace so worked in the heart of Barnabas that he sold land he owned and gave the proceeds to the apostles for the common fund.
Selling the field also said something about where his hopes now lay:
Barnabas sold his land and laid the money at the feet of the apostles. By this he gave a striking testimony to how he grasped, as a believing Jew, his heavenly portion — by giving up earthly possessions, the very thing promised to the Jew.
Why does Scripture name one giver at all? One writer draws a conclusion from it:
Among those marked out by a love for fellow believers that stripped them of their own goods, Scripture specially records the name of Joseph, surnamed Barnabas, who became well known later on... Naming him here proves how little the practice had become compulsory. Why name Barnabas in particular, if it were an absolute and universal rule? Where people copy others, in the world or even in the church, law-work takes the place of grace. The community swallows up the individual, and that destroys love on one side and conscience on the other.
One writer sees a man clearing his life for service:
Here is a man untangling himself from the things of this life. He is ready to enter the service of the One who had called him to be a soldier, and he has a heart for the needy too. We see him getting rid, for Christ's sake, of the things that might weigh him down and tie him up in the race.
- Named — The apostles renamed Joseph "Barnabas". Scripture stops to translate it: one called alongside others to help.
- Nature — A "son of" name marks a man who shows that quality as plainly as a son resembles his father.
- Gift — Commentators read the word as exhortation, not only comfort, and tie it to the character of his ministry.
- Grace — A Levite lived off the tithes of others; grace turned the receiver into a giver of his own field.
- Freedom — No rule forced his gift, and that is why his name stands out. Where copying replaces grace, law takes over and destroys both love and conscience.
being possessed of land, having sold [it], brought the money and laid it at the feet of the apostles.
A Levite from Cyprus sells his field and lays the money at the apostles' feet — the first appearance of a man who would later carry the message to the nations. Why is this one giver named, was such giving required, and what does laying money at another's feet mean?
The record gives his tribe, his birthplace, and his property. One writer notes that a Levite could own land, and that Barnabas gave of his own free will:
Barnabas was a Levite. His own name was Joseph; but he was given the added name Barnabas because of the kind of ministry he had: he was an encourager. Clearly that was his special gift (11:23), and his added name, which means son of encouragement rather than son of comfort, says so plainly. Here he appears on the scene for the first time. Later he would play no small part, for a time, in the great work of preaching the gospel to the nations. He was a Levite from the island of Cyprus, and so a Greek-speaking Jew. Paul belonged to that group by birth too. Both men were called out by name to begin the great missionary work in Asia Minor (13:2). For now, all we learn of him is that he sold his field — Levites could own land of their own — and of his own free will he laid the price of it at the apostles' feet.
Why single out one man when many were selling property? The naming itself is the argument that this was never a rule:
One name stands out among those marked by a love for fellow believers that stripped them of their own goods: Joseph, surnamed Barnabas, who became well known later (verses 36, 37)… He came from Cyprus, and we are told he was a Levite, yet he owned a field. He sold it and laid the money at the feet of the apostles. The plain mention of this here proves how little the practice had become compulsory. Why name Barnabas in particular, if it were an absolute and universal rule? Where people copy such things in the world, or even in the church, law-keeping takes the place of grace. The group swallows up the individual, and love is destroyed on one side and conscience on the other.
Earlier in Acts the believers handed their goods to the poor themselves. Here the money passes through the apostles first, and one writer counts that a gain:
In chapter two the rich gave to the poor themselves. That can hardly be done without adding importance to the giver. But in chapter four the rich laid their money at the apostles' feet. We would take this as a sure sign of increased humility, and of greater devotedness.
The order behind the act matters as much as the act:
It was good that they should give, but doubly good that they should give in such a way as this. They might have begun and ended by simply giving some of their goods. Instead, they first gave themselves to the Lord. They handed themselves over to Him, to be wholly at His disposal. Then, as a result, they gave as He directed and as all His love prompted, laying their possessions at the apostles' feet, according to His will.
Land in Israel carried promise with it. Selling it was, for a Jewish believer, a statement about where his true portion now lay:
The ending of the previous chapter is beautiful. Barnabas sold his land and laid the money at the feet of the apostles. By this he gave striking proof that, as a believing Jew, he had grasped that his portion was a heavenly one. He gave up what is promised to the Jew: earthly possessions.
The gift also clears the ground for the service ahead:
Here is a man untangling himself from the things of this life. He is ready to start serving the One who had called him to be a soldier, and he has a heart for the needy too. We see him getting rid, for Christ's sake, of the things which might burden and hamper him in the race. (Heb. 12)
One writer turns that start into a question for the reader:
This you have Barnabas beautifully illustrating (Acts 4:36-37). He makes a beautiful start, for there is the complete surrender of all that he had to Christ. I wonder if you, my reader, have started so. I do not believe there is a real start, if Christ has not become everything to the soul.
- Grace first. No rule made Barnabas sell his field. If giving had been compulsory, there would be no reason to name him here. Where people copy the act, law-keeping takes the place of grace.
- Land laid down. A Levite could own land. Barnabas sold his of his own free will, showing that his portion was now a heavenly one.
- Self laid down. They gave themselves to the Lord first, and only then gave their possessions as He directed.
- Credit laid down. Earlier the rich gave to the poor themselves. Here the money passed through the apostles — a sure sign of deeper humility and devotedness.
- A course begun. Free of what could hamper him, Barnabas is later called out by name to begin the mission to the nations.