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.