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.