Acts 4:23–5:6

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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 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.

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.

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 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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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 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").

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

The great grace, we read, was upon them all — that is, upon the whole Christian community.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The giving went to each one "as any had need." They met people's needs, not their wants, and so nobody lacked.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

What the Spirit of God was doing then was plainly grace in faith. There was no demand at all. Nothing could falsify the fruit of the Spirit of God here more than turning it into an unspoken rule. There was no compulsion at all in this case. Nobody was asked to give anything. What was gold or silver, what were houses or lands, to the Lord? The worth of it all depended on its being the power of the Spirit of God — the fruit of divine grace in the heart.

What lay behind the lie in this case were the twin evils of covetousness and vainglory. Ananias wanted to keep part of the money for himself. Yet he also wanted the reputation of having given it all to the Lord, as Barnabas had done. Such is the mind of the flesh, even in a believer. How many of us have never had similar evils at work in our own hearts?

In terrible contrast to him is Ananias ("Jah has shown grace") but who abuses grace to his own destruction. The good report of Barnabas, if we may judge by the connection, seems to have moved him; but only with an ungodly rivalry. He covets the reputation and the influence... but he has no thought, even for this, of making the sacrifice required. Outwardly he must do it, while his heart refuses; and so, together with his wife, he forms a deliberate plan to deceive — leaving God out.

How many a Christian woman has been the true helper of her husband! She warns him in time and appeals to him at once, condemning any and every evil at the first sign of it. How dreadful when the man and the woman help one another to forget God and His gracious but holy presence! How dreadful when they agree to dishonour the name of the Lord by claiming a self-sacrificing devotion that is a lie!

No human witness appeared against them. Very likely the buyer was a Jew, who had no interest in exposing them. In their eyes they had laid the plan well, and it seemed to be working. They would earn a reputation for generosity as good as the one Joseph the Levite had, who was born in Cyprus. The enemy no doubt hoped that deceit and lying would gain a foothold in the assembly. Then the leaven would work, grieving the Spirit, and God would have to come in as a Judge, as He had in Eden on the day of the Fall.

Ananias and Sapphira have lied to the Holy Spirit. That is the seriousness of their sin. God dwelt among His own in the assembly. Greed had deceived his heart and conscience — greed for money, or for human glory. So Ananias did not recognise His presence. But someone else was also at work in this sad event. Satan suggested to them the way to keep back the money and still win fame. But the Holy Spirit was there. The folly of men and the malice of Satan only made the truth and the power of His presence plain.

The man was carried out at once and buried. Sapphira came in about three hours later, not knowing what had happened. Peter reproved her solemnly for agreeing with her husband to tempt the Spirit of the Lord, and told her she would be buried just as her husband was. How little they profited from the money they withheld! Great fear gripped all the church as well as others who heard of the matter. Dishonest people would no doubt think twice before linking themselves with the disciples. The church itself, too, was to feel the truth and holiness of the God with whom they had to do.

God rarely shows Himself in the church without a dark shadow following it from the evil one... The presence of evil should not alarm us. We should be sure instead that where God works, Satan will follow. He seeks to take the very good that the Spirit is doing and turn it into a way of bringing in his own counterfeit, to the dishonour of the Lord.

They kept back some of the money themselves (which they had a perfect right to do) and then they gave away the rest. Suppose they had come forward in a fully open way and said, "We have sold this piece of land. We want to give this much of it to the Lord's interests, and we would like to keep the rest for ourselves." That would have been completely honest. But instead they said, "Some are giving all they have. We want the credit that they get. We want to be like them, but we do not want to be true like them." So they acted hypocritically, keeping something for themselves but claiming to have given all.

Ananias and Sapphira wanted to get the character of devotedness (such as the Church had) without the cost of it. Love of money really governed, modified by love of Church reputation.

Ananias acted the lie. Sapphira told it. They wanted a reputation for being more heavenly-minded than they were. Pretending to a higher spiritual state was the first recorded sin in the church's history.

Did that man tell a lie? We do not read of any words spoken at that moment. He came and laid down his money at the feet of the apostles, for the common need of all. But God was there, and no one could deceive Him... This man wanted to appear devoted when he was not. God was there in the middle of His assembly, and He detected the pretence, exposed it, and judged it.

Ananias follows, but his heart was not right with God: he seized that moment of "great grace upon all" for his great deceit. It was made worse by his wife knowing and taking part in it. How many a Christian woman has been a true helper to her husband, warning him in time and appealing to him at once, condemning any and every evil at the first sign of it! How dreadful when the man and the woman help each other to forget God and His gracious but holy presence!

The church is a place of discipline... He was powerfully active in the church and showed His power in holy discipline... Often, at the start of a new era, God gives a very striking display of power and of disciplinary judgment... Here was something that no ordinary person could have detected. But the Holy Spirit knew about it, and by acting in this way He proved that He truly lives in the church, the house of God. God dealt with them, and that shows they were His saints.

This generosity wasn't something laid on them as a divine demand. Peter said to Ananias: "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?" He was under no compulsion. He might have sold it and kept the money, without pretending anything, but he came acting a lie. Poor Sapphira told one.

This settled it with authority: holding goods in common was in no way required. Anyone was free to give. Anyone was free to keep what he owned, whether land or money. Only, whatever was done had to be done honestly.

He makes it very clear that Ananias had a perfect right to keep all the land if he chose to. Once it was sold, he had a right to keep all or part of the money. But to falsely claim to be giving all was wickedness in the eyes of God. He had lied, not merely to men, but to God.

It seems they wanted their brothers and sisters to see them as devoted and unworldly, like Barnabas and many others. How often has human opinion ensnared men's souls!

Notice that Peter speaks to him as a man who claims to be a Christian. He holds him responsible for giving in to the temptation.

Did that man tell a lie? We do not read, at that moment, of any words being spoken. He came and laid down his money at the feet of the apostles, for the common need of all. But God was there, and He could not be deceived… This man wanted to look devoted when he was not. But God was in the middle of His assembly. He detected the unreality, exposed it, and judged it. How solemn! Yet if there is anything truly blessed to learn, it is that God is among His people, in the heart of the assembly, and He will have reality.

"Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? … You have not lied to man but to God" (Acts 5:3-4). Men cannot lie to an influence, or deceive what is not a person. A divine Being had taken up His home in the Church, which He formed at Pentecost, and it was to Him that Ananias had lied.

A Christian's sin is sin against the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has taken up His home in the Christian. So whatever sin he does is a disrespect to the Holy Spirit and a grief to Him. So a lie now is not merely a lie… God was there, and he had acted as if God was not there.

This was not a matter of any spiritual gift. Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?" God was there; no gift was at work at all; and Ananias and Sapphira fell down dead. They were foolish and mad enough not to see that God was there. So when they came and brought only part of the price of the property, they were lying to God. It was not Peter and John they were lying to. God showed the anger of His presence, and they fell down dead.

ἐκψύχω, 'to breathe out, expire.' Acts 5:5, 10; Acts 12:23.

A Christian's sin is sin against the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has made His home in the Christian, so whatever sin he does is a disrespect to Him and a grief to Him. So a lie now is not just a lie. In this case it was a very formal and deliberate one. Peter therefore brings out what made its character so awful: it was a lie against the Holy Spirit... God was there, and he had acted as if God was not there. So Ananias, on hearing these words, expires, and great fear came upon all.

Ananias and Sapphira committed a "sin that leads to death" (Acts 5). Their sin was of such a character that God stepped in and removed them from the scene, in merciful chastisement on themselves, and as a solemn warning to others. But even though their sin led to death, this did not affect their standing, if they were real believers. Their death came from God stepping in with governmental discipline in the church on earth.

But, you ask, had Ananias and Sapphira been really converted? Were they Christians? I do not know. They were, outwardly, members of God's assembly on earth, and they were unreal in the position they occupied.

The blow came twice, so no one could mistake that it came from God. It was bound to make an immediate and even deeper impression. We read that "great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things" (v. 11). It was meant as a warning to all within as well as without.

Everyone felt God's presence was there. As a holy result, "none of the rest dared join them." People were not in a great hurry to come into God's assembly in those days. Those who wanted to be thought something of said, It will not do to go in there; if we are not real, we shall be found out.

God is jealous of His own glory in the church. When it was established in power, such was His immediate judgment of falsehood. One wonders how many professing Christians would suffer such a fate if God judged that way today! Today, after such great departure, God does not judge evil so swiftly. But the assembly is still responsible to keep proper godly discipline whenever evil becomes known.

I know that Mosheim tries to prove such a class of officials from "the young men" in Acts 5:6. He imagines them as the counterpart of the "elders," who do not appear until the end of Acts 11... But Scripture nowhere supports any such official "younger men," as it often does with "elders." In fact, in the same passage, when they come back from burying Ananias, they are called "the young men." That title cannot possibly carry such a force. So it ought to disprove the idea for the earlier and matching term too. They were simply the younger brothers. Any prompt call for heavy and sorrowful physical work would naturally fall on them.

We are to recognise that "the time is short," or "compressed." The word used means contracted as to space. It appears in only one other place in the New Testament, Acts 5:6, where Ananias is "wound up" for burial. How often we fail to see that we are living in a compressed time! The death and resurrection of Christ have narrowed the issue. So we should hold everything we own in the world with a light hand, ready to let go at a moment's notice.

Burial was needed quickly in so warm a country, to avoid disease. So the dead were always buried promptly, as with Ananias and Sapphira. These were probably wrapped round with the clothes they were wearing and laid in the grave at once. In other cases they wrapped linen cloths round the body and round the head, as with Lazarus, and as loving hands tended the body of the Lord. Spices were placed among the cloths. At the burial of the Lord, Nicodemus supplied a hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes, besides what the devout women had brought.

The fear of God struck deeply into many hearts on this occasion. They carried the man out at once and buried him. Clearly government did not need the many preliminary steps it needs today.

Ananias and Sapphira received their sentence, as far as this world is concerned, on the day of their deceit. That solemn sentence was carried out at once... The first attempt to bring corruption into the assembly was stamped out in plain sight, as the bodies of the offenders were carried out for burial. There is a sin unto death (1 John 5:16). Such is exemplified here.

I see no reason for saying Ananias and Sapphira were not saved. The apostle's reasoning in 1 Corinthians 11:30-32 leads us rather to suppose they were. But it is a mistake to call this dealing with the world. It is God judging inside the assembly, and that He surely does, even to death... God's action in this way inside the assembly is the act of a judge.