CRITICAL REMARKS
Acts 4:32. The multitude of them that believed were not the new converts merely, but the general body of the disciples.
Acts 4:33. Grace.—Not favour with the people, as in Acts 2:47 (Grotius, Olshausen, Holtzmann), but divine favour, as in Acts 11:23; John 1:14 (Meyer, Alford, Zöckler, Hackett), of which Acts 4:34-35 furnish proof.
Acts 4:36. For Joses read Joseph. Barnabas, the son of consolation, or son of exhortation (Holtzmann, Zöckler)—i.e., of consolatory discourse. A title given to Joseph from the sympathetic character of his preaching (Acts 11:23). Barnabas afterwards became Paul’s companion on his missionary travels (Acts 13:2). A Levite—A descendant of Levi, but not a priest. Of the country of Cyprus.—Rather, a Cyprian by birth—i.e., a Jew who had been born in Cyprus.
Acts 4:37. Having land, or a farm belonging to him. Whether in Palestine (Holtzmann, Zöckler) or in Cyprus (Hackett) is not said, but most likely in the former. Though the Levites had no share in the soil of Canaan, that destroyed not their right of private ownership within the forty-eight cities assigned them, or in the territory adjacent to these (see Jeremiah 32:7). The money.—The price realised by the sale of his farm. At the apostles’ feet.—As a voluntary contribution to the common fund, for distribution among the poorer brethren. The case of Ananias (Acts 5:1) shows that Barnabas was under no compulsion to either sell his farm or donate his money.
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 4:32-37
The Apostles and the First Christians; or, the Effect of the First Persecution
I. It united the congregation.—Contrary to the expectations of its instigators, the hostility directed against the followers of the Nazarene resulted in banding them more closely together.
1. In amity and concord. The multitude, by this time, numbering at least five thousand persons, were of one heart and soul—“heart” representing the intellectual (Mark 2:6; Mark 2:8; Mark 11:23; Luke 2:35; Luke 3:15; Luke 6:45), and “soul” the emotional (Luke 2:35; Luke 12:22; John 12:27) side of human nature. In their views of divine truth had emerged no divergence, in their regards for one another no estrangement, in their plans no division. As brethren they were of one mind (1 Peter 3:8), walked by the same rule (Philippians 3:16), and cherished the same love, being of one accord and of one mind (Philippians 2:2). “All wished the one thing, to be blessed; all thought the one thing, to remain true to the Lord Jesus; all felt the one thing, the comfort of the Holy Spirit; and this oneness of heart in willing, thinking, and feeling was the moving soul in the action of the whole body” (Besser). “At the time of Constantine Eusebius was able still to write of Christians, ‘One and the same power of the divine spirit goes through all members, in all is one soul and one liveliness of faith’ ” (Ibid.). Alas! that such cannot now be affirmed of the Christian community as a whole, or of Christian individuals, who are not only gathered into rival communities, but often filled with mutual jealousies and engaged in mutual strifes.
2. In self-sacrifice and beneficence. “Not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things common.” Thus “they abolished property, as it were, without abolishing it, and possessed it as though they possessed it not. Everything, both heart, soul, and spiritual life, and also all property and worldly enjoyments were in common, so far as was lawful and expedient” (Stier). They so considered each other’s needs that none were allowed to want. There were no beggars among the Christians. Owners of houses and lands, like Barnabas the Cypriote, sold these and cast the proceeds into a common treasury, out of which distribution was made to each disciple according to his need. That this was an attempt to establish communism as a rule of the Christian society cannot be made out (see on Acts 4:32). Most likely it was prompted by a desire to relieve the necessities of those who, in becoming believers, had been obliged to renounce their worldly goods.
II. It inspired the apostles.—Instead of intimidating the leaders of the new society, the opposition of the Sanhedrim fired them with increased zeal.
1. To continue their work of preaching. Changing not their theme, manner, or place of preaching, they kept on repeating the old story of the resurrection of Jesus, knowing it to be true, and to contain the one Gospel for sinful men. The Church had prayed that they might be enabled to speak the word with boldness (Acts 4:29), and so abating nothing of either their confidence in the message they proclaimed, or the courage with which they set it forth, undaunted by fears or frowns, they gave witness of what they had seen and heard. As a consequence, their preaching was accompanied by great power—i.e., with deeply convincing effect; and no preaching will tell that lacks this element of boldness.
2. To undertake additional toil. Naturally, at first, the labour of distributing the common funds fell to the apostles as the heads of the community, and as persons in whom the community had confidence. Before long, however, it was seen that even apostles might be overburdened with work. Besides, the work in question was of a sort for which less than apostolic talent might suffice. Accordingly, another order of officers, the diaconate, was soon after called into existence to superintend this department of Christian activity (Acts 6:1-6).
III. It enriched both.—Designed to dispirit them in their religious ardour and discredit them in public estimation, the persecution of the Jewish rulers had the contrary effect. It enriched them.
1. With divine favour. “And great grace was upon them all,”—upon apostles and believers alike. There is no reason to depart from the ordinary sense of the term grace, though some (Grotius, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and Holtzmann) understand by it the favour of the people (compare Acts 2:47). That the apostles were recipients of this grace from Heaven was evidenced by “the great power,” or convincing effect with which “they witnessed of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus”; that the disciples generally were not without experience of the same was attested by the munificent liberality which they displayed.
2. With popular acceptance. Though not the best meaning of the term “grace,” it need not be excluded. Instead of damping the cordiality of the people towards the apostles and disciples, the persecution of them and their cause on which the ecclesiastical authorities had entered rather helped to augment the same. In this respect persecution is always a failure—never killing, but rather strengthening the cause against which it is directed.
Learn.—
1. The excellence of Christian unity.
2. The beauty of Christian charity.
3. The power of Christian truth.
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Acts 4:32. All Things Common; or, a Sermon on Christian Socialism.
I. How the early Christians were led to this experiment.
1. They were not in any way commanded or counselled so to act by the apostles. At least it does not appear from the narrative that they were. Who originated the proposal is not told.
2. Most likely the plan adopted was suggested by the necessities of the situation. In the course of a few weeks as many as five thousand men (possibly not including women and children) had passed over from Judaism into the Christian Church, in many instances, doubtless, not only snapping the ties that bound them to their kinsmen and relatives, but also throwing themselves out of their accustomed employments.
3. The plan would probably commend itself to them as desirable. As being in accordance with
(1) the precepts (Matthew 6:19-20; Matthew 19:21; Luke 12:33), and
(2) the practice (John 13:29) of Christ, who not only enjoined the renunciation of earthly goods but shared a common purse with the Twelve.
4. The movement may have sprung from the warm hearts of the richer members of the Church who compassionately regarded the destitution of their Christian brethren.
II. The exact character of this early experiment.
1. The sale of goods and lands was not compulsory, or binding on believers as a term of communion. The language of Peter to Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:4), and the case of John Mark’s mother who had a house in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12), show this. It is not needful to add that it was their own goods and not other people’s that these early Christians cast into the treasury.
2. It is not clear that all the Jerusalem Christians were placed upon this common fund. Possibly only those were who from age, infirmity, lack of employment, or want of friends were destitute of support (the mention of “widows,” Acts 6:1, points to this); and even of those it does not appear that all received an equal aliment (“according as he had need,” Acts 4:35, favours this).
3. Hence what wears the aspect of a universal sustentation fund was probably nothing more than a voluntary relief fund, to which those contributed who felt themselves able and were moved thereto by love to Christ and sympathy for their needy brethren, and out of which those were supported who were unable to maintain themselves.
III. Indications that this early experiment was not designed to be permanent.—Even should it be conceded that the experiment in question was of a strictly communistic character, and that the apostles originally meant it to become a fixed practice, there is ground for thinking that they pretty soon changed their minds in this respect.
1. It was not mentioned at the First Council in Jerusalem as a method of living which might be imitated by the· Gentile Churches. On the contrary, Paul and Barnabas were directed to remember the poor (Galatians 2:10)—i.e., to lift collections from the rich Gentile congregations for the support of the poor disciples in the Judæan metropolis.
2. It was probably found that the experiment had not been successful in Jerusalem, but rather hurtful. If it met an emergency, it appears to have been followed by the usual results which flow from common funds. It destroyed the independence of the Jerusalem Church, which became practically filled with lazy paupers, who sorned upon their wealthier brethren. “The system of common property” (among the New England Pilgrims), writes Bancroft, “had occasioned grievous discontents; the influence of law could not compel regular labour like the uniform impulse of personal interest; and even the threat of ‘keeping back their bread’ could not change the character of the idle” (History of America, i., 238).
Christianity and Socialism.—“As a movement for the deliverance of the poor and their introduction to a good and happy life, the gospel of God’s love in Christ thoroughly agrees with socialism.” Yet “there is a broad line of distinction between the two.”
I. Socialism insists on external and economic conditions for good; Christianity insists on the inward and moral, because all social disorders are spiritual at heart, and the spiritual is the ultimate root of all life.
II. Socialism makes the community the final and absolute proprietor of all wealth; Christianity makes God the proprietor and us His stewards for others.
III. Socialism too much seeks to enforce its doctrine of property by brute force; Christianity by the moral leaven of love in the soul of man.
IV. Socialism thinks by equalising human conditions to secure the greatest amount of comfort and happiness; Christianity, or Jesus Christ, teaches that all vital development must be spontaneous, and from within, that a change of character is to be sought rather than a change of conditions.” Yet “Christianity and socialism need not be spoken of as rivals; they are compatible, and should not be made parties in a quarrel. The fact is that socialism needs to be christianised, and that Christianity needs to be socialised.”—A. Scott Matheson.
Acts 4:33. The Christian Ministry.
I. Its personnel.—No longer the apostles, but the pastors and teachers of the New Testament Church.
II. Its function.—Witness-bearing. Not arguing or philosophizing.
III. Its theme.—The resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ—including, of course, all the connected facts and doctrines.
IV. Its influence.—When rightly exercised it wields great dynamic force of a moral and spiritual kind.
V. Its reward.—It attracts towards itself “great grace” both from God and man.
The Best Graces for a Church.
I. The grace of unity.
II. The grace of witness-hearing.
III. The grace of liberality.
Acts 4:33. The Risen Christ and the Power of the Gospel.
I. The resurrection.—It is not so much with death as with resurrection that the apostles had to do, at least in Jerusalem and Judæa. The death was a believed fact there, not needing witnesses.
II. The testimony.—It was the testimony of apostles; and yet it was not as apostles, or with official authority that they testified, but as men of integrity and good sense, who saw with their eyes, and heard with their ears.
III. The power.—“With great power gave the apostles witness.” The word which they spoke was in itself a word of power. But apart from this, the “great power” here spoken of was exhibited.
1. In the accompanying miracles, by which God identified Himself with the apostolic testimony, declaring that their testimony was His truth; for of this the miracles were the seal.
2. In the accompanying power exercised over, and in, men’s souls.
IV. The grace.—It is “great grace”; free love in no ordinary measure.—H. Bonar, D.D.
Acts 4:36. Joses surnamed Barnabas.
I. The possessor of a good pedigree.—He was a Levite, a member of the priestly tribe, though not himself a priest.
II. The owner of a good name.—The son of exhortation, or the son of consolation, with reference to either his eloquence or his sympathy.
III. The author of a good deed.—“Having land he sold it, and laid the money at the apostles’ feet.”
Joses Barnabas; or, the Consecration of Wealth.
I. The pious landowner.—
1. His name and surname. Joses, or Joseph—an honourable name in Israel. Barnabas, the son of exhortation or consolation—a more honoured surname in the Christian Church. 2. His character and ability. A good man and full of the Holy Ghost; also a talented man, as may be concluded from his rank alongside of the apostles, his power of eloquent speech, and his usefulness as a colleague of Paul.
3. His land and property.—A native of Cyprus, and the possessor of a piece of ground in that island.
II. The great renunciation.—He sold his land, that which men highly value, probably his patrimonial inheritance, and cast the proceeds into the common fund.
1. Out of love to Christ, whose disciple he was.
2. Under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, by whom his heart was filled.
3. From consideration of his fellow-Christians’ needs, whom he regarded as Christ’s brethren and his own.
III. The cheerful consecration.—He laid it at the apostles’ feet.
1. No doubt without reluctance, as a cheerful giver.
2. Without reservation, keeping back no part of the price.
3. Without stipulation, leaving it for distribution entirely under the apostles control.
Acts 4:36-37. A Sermon on Wealth.—Its right use exemplified by Barnabas.
I. Wealth possessed.—No sin, at least not necessarily, but a great talent.
II. Wealth surrendered.—Not an obligation imposed upon Christians, yet a sacrifice that may be freely offered.
III. Wealth consecrated.—Whether retained or renounced it should be devoted to the service of God and Jesus Christ.
IV. Wealth distributed.—One way of devoting wealth to God and Christ is to disperse it abroad and give to the poor (Psalms 112:9), to do good with it and to communicate (Hebrews 13:16; 1 Timothy 6:18).
Acts 4:31-37. The True Blossoms of a Christian Congregation.
I. Where the preaching of Christ flourishes there living faith flourishes. “The multitude believed.”
II. Where living faith flourishes there genuine love flourishes. “One heart and one soul.”
III. Where genuine love flourishes, there true prosperity flourishes. “No one lacked.”—Gerok.