Acts 4

Acts 4:1-37

The Acts of the Apostles Chapter 4:1-37 Acts 4:1-22 The story of this paragraph still gathers around the healed man. We first saw the wonder wrought in the Name. Then we heard Peter’s explanation to the men of Israel delivered in Solomon’s porch. We now come to a smaller company, in some ways a more remarkable one, in many ways a very interesting one. Suddenly, while teaching the people in Solomon’s porch, Peter and John were arrested, and kept in ward for a night. Immediately outside Solomon’s portico was to be found the Basilica in which the Sanhedrim assembled, and that means that it was outside the Beautiful Gate of the Temple.

Outside that Beautiful Gate the lame man had been found. Having been healed, he had laid hold upon Peter and John, his mouth filled with thanksgiving; and the people seeing this, had gathered together in the porch, where Peter had specifically and directly spoken to the men of Israel. Now his speech was interrupted and hindered. This was the first open opposition to the apostolic message in the new activity of Christianity. Let us examine the court; watch the proceedings; and consider the lessons of permanent value.

Whereas the word is not used, it is perfectly evident that the court before which Peter and John were arraigned was that of the Sanhedrim, for its composition, as described by Luke in the opening words of this chapter, can leave us in no doubt on the matter. The apostles were arrested by " the priests and the captain of the Temple." The phrase is an interesting one, indicating the fact that at that time the Hebrew people still had the right of life and death in the matter of offences committed in the Temple. They were entirely under Roman rule, they had been forbidden to pass the death penalty for any civil offence, but Rome still permitted them to visit with death any who violated the sanctity of the Temple. The captain of the Temple was the head of that body of religious police, whose business it was to watch the Temple courts, and see that there was no violation of their sanctity. “The priests and the captain of the Temple and the Sadducees came upon them.” Thus the cause of the arrest was that the priests had reported to the captain, inspired by their own Sadducean conviction.

Then in verse five, we are told and here we have an exact description of the Sanhedrim-“It came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, were gathered together in Jerusalem.” That was the constitution of the ancient Sanhedrim; the rulers, that is, the priests and the officials; the elders, the heads of the chief families in Israel; the scribes, the interpreters of the law and teachers of the people. The Sanhedrim consisted of seventy-one members, twenty-three forming a quorum, before which such cases as those already referred to, of the violation of the sanctity of the temple courts, might be brought. It was, so far as it went, a legal assembly.

Standing in remarkable contrast to the method these men adopted with Christ, is the method they now adopted with His apostles. They waited till the morning. This was according to their own law, which in the case of Christ they did not observe. Certain names are given: Annas the high priest, deposed by the Romans, but still held in honour by Israel; Caiaphas, appointed by Roman rule; and two evidently notable persons, John, and Alexander. Notice the significant phrase, “As many as were of the kindred of the high priest.” The aristocratic religion of the hour was Sadducean; the democratic was Pharisaic. All the wealthy people in Jerusalem belonged to the Sadducees.

This then was a remarkable gathering of the Sanhedrim, properly constituted; together with the wealthy Sadducean rulers of society, and of religious thinking in Jerusalem. It was a very remarkable assembly. Here is a picture waiting for some artist to paint. The tribunal, in all the glory of robing and the dignity of the men, would be seated in a semicircle, with the president in the centre; and probably gathered round, as was the custom of the time, the law students, listening to every case, and so becoming acquainted with the processes of law.

But let us notice quite carefully, and principally, the mental attitude of that court. We have already noticed that these men were Sadducees. It is evident that the Sanhedrim was packed that morning of set purpose with Sadducees. The high priest was a Sadducee; his friends and kindred were specially named as present. Notable men were also there, and we see in the first word declared, that the inspiration of the arrest was Sadducean.

Now who were the Sadducees? There are three things to be borne in mind concerning them, one of which is of supreme interest to us. Sadducees denied the supernatural; they affirmed the freedom of human will; and, the oral traditions, repeated by Pharisees, taught by Pharisees, insisted upon by Pharisees, they held in contempt. The principal matter which we need to remember, is that they were rationalists in religion. They were religious undoubtedly, for they believed in God, and in the Mosaic law, but they denied every story of the miraculous. To take the description of them that is found in another verse in this book, they believed neither in angels, spirits, nor resurrection.

They were the men who had turned the Hebrew economy into an ethical system. Their belief in God was not the belief of the Pharisees.

Resurrection they denied; the existence of angels they laughed at; and the idea of spirit they had abandoned. This was the mental attitude of the Sanhedrim that morning when Peter and John were arraigned before them. The inspiration of opposition to Christianity had now changed from Pharisaism to Sadduceeism. In the life of Christ the opposition was chiefly Pharisaic. Very little is said about the opposition of the Sadducees in His life. They are sometimes seen in coalition with the Pharisees, but the deadly opposition that ended in the death of Jesus was Pharisaic. In the Acts the Pharisees are hardly seen at all. As a matter of fact they are seen rather friendly to Christianity.

Twice a Pharisee lifted his voice in defence of some Christian evangelist later on, and the whole opposition to Christianity that is revealed in the Acts of the Apostles has a new inspiration. It came from a different centre. This is in itself a revelation of the impression made at the time as to the central truth of the Christian propaganda. The whole idea was spiritual, and therefore in conflict necessarily with that which was severely material. The whole impression made upon Jerusalem and upon those who listened and watched these men was that of their absolute confidence in the supreme reality of unseen things. They believed in angels.

Presently they will affirm that an angel opened the prison door and liberated them. The whole burden of their claim was that they were working in cooperation with the Holy Spirit of God.

The one central note of all their proclamation was the declaration that Jesus had been raised from the dead and was alive. The angels are not patent to common vision; the Spirit breatheth where He listeth, and men cannot watch the processes of His coming and going; Jesus had passed out of mortal sight; but these men believed in the absolute and final reality of the things unseen, and they were asserting them.

It was inevitable that there should be conflict between the Sadducees and these men. Either Sadduceeism must end, or Christianity must be stamped out. Observe carefully Luke’s declaration, that they were “sore troubled because they taught the people, and proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.” It was not merely that they declared Jesus Himself was risen from the dead, but in preaching that, they preached the Resurrection. Such was the court, and such the mental mood of the judges.

Let us now look at those who were placed in the centre of that court, Peter and John. We have already noticed the close comradeship existing between these two men; Peter the practical and John the poet; John the dreamer, and Peter the doer. These were the men arraigned before the assembly, the speaker and the thinker.

But there was a third man there: “And seeing the man which was healed standing with them.” We do not know whether he had been locked up for the night; if not, in all probability he had waited until morning, until these men who had given him what none other had, were released. Now he stood with them.

Carefully observe Peter and John, and observe that which cannot be seen with the eyes of sense. They were “filled with the Holy Spirit.” That means that they had clear vision, absolute certainty, strong passion, and unflinching courage. As we first look upon this scene, and see the dignity surrounding these men, notice the cold analytical acumen of Sadducean philosophy confronting them, we wonder how these two fisherfolk will fare. But we need have no fear; for they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and they stood in the midst of that assembly, with unflinching courage.

What impression did they make upon the council? Let us run a little ahead of the story, for the impression is not described until after the process of the examination; but it is well that we should notice it here. The impression that they made was, “that they had been with Jesus.” Men filled with the Spirit always make that impression. That is the impression which the filling of the Spirit creates. If a man shall tell me he has received specific gifts at some specific hour which he describes, and the impression he makes upon me is antagonistic to the mind of Jesus, I know that he is not filled with the Spirit. The word “ignorant” used to describe these men is a little unfortunate; “plebeian” would better convey the idea.

They were unlearned and plebeian men, that is men of the common class. But they had boldness of speech, and boldness does not merely mean braveness, but clarity, clearness of statement. On another occasion when Jesus was talking in the metropolitan centre of the learning of His time, they said, “How knoweth this Man letters, having never learned?” This puzzle was repeated in the case of Peter and John. “They took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” Notice the mistake they made. This was the result of their own philosophy. They spoke of the men as having been with Jesus, in a past tense. What was the truth?

Christ was in the men, and speaking through the men; and the similarity which they detected was not that lingering from contact with a lost teacher, but that created by the presence of the living Christ.

Now let us watch the proceedings. There are four things to observe in the challenge made to these men. The court first enquired, “By what power, or in what Name, have ye done this?” One can imagine that the accused might have said, What do you mean by “this”? They did not do so, for the meaning was patent. There was the healed man; and when they said “this” they tacitly admitted that they were in the presence of a fact for which they could not account. In their very question there was a recognition of something done.

We must begin there. The Sadducees could not escape from it. Every one knew the man who had been for forty years and more in that condition, a cripple at the Beautiful Gate, asking alms. He was now standing in the circle of the Sanhedrim, with a light on his face, and gladness in his heart, near to the two men who had healed him. They admitted the patent fact from which they could not escape. The question was how it had been done.

This was an attempt to divert the thinking from the supreme and final evidence, into a metaphysical disquisition. This is a favourite method of the enemies of Christianity.

We now come to the enquiry itself: “By what power,” that is, what force did you employ to set this man upon his feet? or, “In what Name.” This was a very technical question. It was a refusal to entertain the view presented in Solomon’s porch. There Peter had declared distinctly that in the Name of Jesus of Nazareth the man had been healed. They swept that aside. They did not entertain it for a moment. Then they asked, “By what power or in what Name have ye done this?” There is a great deal of light on this story in the book of Deuteronomy.

In the thirteenth chapter, there are instructions carefully given to the rulers of the people concerning possible manifestations in their history. Let us read one or two words. “If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams-“and a perfect description of the two men who stood before the Sanhedrim is then given-“and he give thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass,” and if that sign actually wrought is intended to lead you from Jehovah to other gods, you are not to hearken, and this man is to be punished with death. In the fourteenth verse we read: “Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in the midst of thee” then-there was to be punishment. The Sanhedrim was obeying this ancient instruction to their people. Here were two men, a prophet and a dreamer of dreams, standing side by side. They had definitely and positively wrought a sign; and, according to the ancient instruction, the rulers of the people were to search and enquire diligently.

The death penalty was to be passed upon men attempting to lead men from Jehovah to some other god. Thus is revealed the subtlety of their question and their method.

There was a marked method in Peter’s answer. It exactly replied to all contained in the challenge. First the challenge was a recognition of something done. Peter drew attention to that in his reply. “If we this day are examined concerning a good deed done to aft impotent man.” Notice in this, the inferential revelation of the unworthiness of their opposition. You are examining us for a good deed done to an impotent man. Again, they had asked for the power and the Name.

Peter gave the exact information, but in the other order; He began with the Name, and then declared the power: “Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Whom ye crucified.” Peter did not intend that there should be any mistake. Not the Messiah, not Jesus merely; but with deliberateness, carefulness, he fastened their attention upon the One Whose Name they fain would make forgotten forever. Jesus, the Messiah, of Nazareth Whom ye crucified. That was the Name. But what was the power? He immediately went on, “Whom God raised from the dead, in Him doth this man stand here before you whole.” This is the Name, the Name in which you charged us not to speak; this is the power, the raising of that One Whom you declared did not rise, because there is no resurrection.

Thus Peter insisted upon the declaration made in Solomon’s porch, which they had declined to receive.

But notice very particularly how Peter finished. That Deuteronomic instruction said that if there should be an actual sign wrought, tending to lead men from Jehovah, the men working the sign must die. He, said Peter, “is the Stone which was set at nought of you the builders, which was made the head of the corner. And in none other is there salvation; for neither is there any other Name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.” By that quotation from Psalms 118:22 he denied that he was leading men away from Jehovah; and claimed that he was acting in harmony with the foretelling of their ancient Scriptures, which was the burden of the message he had delivered in the porch of Solomon.

Then followed the conference. The prisoners were excluded; and we see the measure of the intelligence of the Sanhedrim. First we note their discovery of the relation of Peter and John to Jesus, and the certainty of the miracle, and their decision not to attempt to deny it. We see also the measure of their ignorance in their decision to threaten these men. Imagine any court threatening a man who is filled with the Holy Spirit. But of course there was no Holy Spirit according to their philosophy, and therefore that was the proper thing to do. If one man be threatened by a Tribunal, composed of the forces of culture, there is little hope of him; but if that man be filled with the Holy Spirit, he will challenge the whole company, and the victory will be with him.

When they charged these men to be silent, Peter flung back their judgment on them, and set over against their threatening the one eternal principle of right. “Whether it be right,” that is the question. Waive your technicalities and have done with your casuistry. Is it right? If it be right, threatening is of no avail.

This story of the first opposition reveals for all time the nature of opposition to Christianity; and also the real secrets of the Church’s power. Opposition to Christianity is always based on Sadduceeism, is always rooted in rationalism, is always the outcome of materialistic philosophy. James when describing the wisdom of the world, the wisdom of men, putting it into contrast with the wisdom that comes from heaven does so in biting, burning words. He speaks of the “wisdom of the world “as being “earthly, sensual, devilish”; it is earthly in its outlook; sensual in its desire; devilish in its choices. The intellect in looking out, sees only the earth; the emotion desiring, is wholly sensual; the will choosing is under the dominion of devils. It is the rationalistic conception of life that is angry with Christianity, most subtle of all foes, and most to be dreaded.

Mrs. Besant lecturing for the Secular Society in the old days bitterly attacked Christianity. Mrs. Besant, theosophist, never attacked Christianity. I am not defending her position, but it is interesting to remember that a spiritual conception does not attack Christianity. It is the material ideal, the ideal that says in the wilderness, Bread out of stones is all you need; the ideal that says in the midst of the life of to-day, Let us eat and drink for to-morrow we die; that is the force against Christianity; and it is always Sadducean.

This story teaches also that opposition to Christianity is always opposition to actual good being done in the world. The whole work of Christ is that of healing, helping, saving. The hour has come surely when the Church must decline to allow responsibility to rest upon Christ for her oft-time blunders, and misrepresentations of His purpose. The business of the Church in the world is not the discussion of theories, is not that of indulging in speculations, or formulating philosophies; it is that of seeking and saving that which is lost. It is out to find men lying at the Beautiful Gate, excluded from worship, and to put them on their feet, and make them worshippers.

Finally opposition to Christ is always opposition in spite of conclusive evidence. There is the healed man, Oh ye men of the Sanhedrim, confronting you! In God’s name, why waste time accounting for him, why not let this thing go on? The healed man has been multiplied in all the centuries. The healed man is in all the world to-day. The healed man is here, healed mentally, spiritually, physically, in proportion as he is true to the great spiritual truths to which he has submitted himself.

Then, on the other side, the story reveals the Church’s secret of power. The reality of the spiritual is demonstrated by results produced in the visible and material. The Church has no argument unless she has a healed man, and the Church that is not healing men, remaking them, has no argument for her Christianity; “Seeing the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.” The unassailable and final answer of Christianity to detraction is the healed man.

The basis of courage is spiritual and such courage is vindicated by such results. Vindicated? I take the word back. Courage is created by such results. Are we a little afraid to-day in the presence of the materialism of the age? No man with his eyes open will deny that the age is material.

Is the Church afraid of it? Are we halting, speculating, and attempting to recast things so as to meet the materialistic age? If so the reason is that there is a dearth of healed men. I would like always to preach as Peter and John did that day, with the healed man by my side; men who have been healed and remade, men upon whose faces there is the light that never was on sea or land; these are the men that make the preacher courageous. If we are to face the materialism of the age with purpose and courage, we must have these evidences.

Finally, opposition on the part of the material to the spiritual eventuates in the destruction of the material. Dr. John Hall, for so many years the minister of Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, New York, once illustrated that in this way. He said: “A serpent fastens upon a steel file and attempts to gnaw it through; it is at first gratified at the evidences of apparent success; but presently blood is there, and the serpent finds that the file has been destroying its tooth rather than its tooth the file.”

If Christianity is becoming materialized, God have mercy on us and the world. It must be the Christianity of men and women filled with the Holy Spirit, knowing the power of the One Name, and bringing men to deliverance through it, which alone can be victorious.

Acts 4:23-31 In this paragraph we come to the last scene in the story of the opposition resulting from the healing of the man at the Beautiful Gate. Here we find ourselves in entirely new surroundings, in striking contrast to those of the previous study. This paragraph opens with the declaration “And being let go, they came to their own company”; and we can imagine the different atmosphere into which Peter and John, and in all likelihood the lame man, now passed. “Their own company” was most probably the apostolic band and the whole Church. We last saw them standing in the midst of the Sanhedrim and the Sadducean atmosphere. Now we see them in the midst of their own company, and the spiritual atmosphere.

In considering the story of how the Sanhedrim dealt with these men, we noticed that the opposition was based upon the Sadducean conception of life, which was entirely materialistic. They had stood in the hostile and critical atmosphere of that Sadducean philosophy, defending their position by reaffirming the truth of the resurrection of Jesus. We now see them in an entirely new atmosphere. “Being let go, they came to their own company,” a company of those who in all probability during the hours of their imprisonment had been in prayer for them, perhaps with a great deal of fear in their hearts. To this company of believers, and in this atmosphere of spirituality, Peter and John told their story. It was a story of opposition, intellectual and active. The rulers of the people had now taken definite action, in this first arrest and arraignment of the apostles, and this first charge to them not to speak in the name of Jesus.

The dealing of the Sanhedrim with the apostles had for the moment been characterized by mildness; but they had left no doubt in the minds of the apostles that they were in active and definite hostility to the preaching of the resurrection; and so this company of the apostolic band, gathered together and listening to Peter and John were conscious of growing hostility without, indicative of danger. The One in Whose name they were gathered and Whose evangel they were proclaiming had been crucified.

They had come to see the larger meanings of that crucifixion and that they had done so, is evident in the prayer we have now to consider. Nevertheless, they saw what that fact of crucifixion meant on the human plane. Jesus had been crucified because of His testimony to the spiritual, in an age characterized by material thinking. Because of His affirmation of the supremacy of the spiritual, His persistent calling of men back from dust to Deity, men had at last attempted to silence His voice by crucifying Him. Their message was that of His Resurrection, which was that of His victory. They knew the issue of this kind of preaching. They knew that the hostility that was stirred against them was determined and definite and daring; that as it had stopped at nothing in order to silence the voice of the supreme Teacher, so now it would stand at nothing in order to silence the voices of those who were repeating what He had said, with the added argument and force of their declaration of His resurrection.

The last statement of the paragraph reveals the ultimate effect of this opposition of the Sadducees upon the apostolic band. “They spake the word of God with boldness.” They continued to do, what two of their number had done at the Beautiful Gate, in Solomon’s porch, and before the Sanhedrim. At the Beautiful Gate Peter had said to the lame man, “Silver and gold have I none; but what I have, that give I thee.” Taking him by the hand in the name of the risen Christ he had commanded him to rise, and straightway he had stood upon his feet. In Solomon’s porch Peter had rebuked the rationalism of the men of Israel, showing that if they were true to their own history they would not be surprised at the wonder wrought. Before the Sanhedrim, without any hesitation, or apology, they had declared the selfsame truths. When the chief priests and the Sadducees “beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” The threatening which followed was not that of the vulgar mob, but that of the cultured elders; it was not that of a crowd swept by passion, but that of quiet, calculating, subtle foes. They threatened them and let them go.

The apostles had come back to their own company and all were perfectly conscious of this hostility, which was in the air, and now was beginning to manifest itself. They saw definitely what it meant in the future; but the effect produced was that “They spake the word of God with boldness.”

We shall attempt to discover the secrets of this boldness. There is nothing more interesting in this part of the book, or indeed throughout the whole apostolic story than its continuity. The word “boldness” suggests clear and daring statement; a clear enunciation of certain truths, so that there could be no mistaking of the meaning; and an almost blunt and defiant enunciation, that arrested attention, and compelled men to listen. This note of boldness runs through all the apostolic teaching. There is an utter absence of apology; or of hesitation. Prophets and apostles forevermore faced men and said: These things are so, Thus saith the Lord. This first manifestation arrests our attention, and we enquire the secrets of it.

Broadly stated, the boldness of this apostolic band resulted from prayer offered and answered. That tells the whole story of this paragraph. These men prayed, and the answer came. These men heard the story that Peter and John had to tell, and then one of them undoubtedly speaking the mind of the rest,-for they were of one mind and one heart,-they lifted up their voice in one prayer; and straightway, without any hesitation and waiting, the answer came, the place was shaken, and they were filled with the Holy Spirit and spake the word of God with boldness. While that tells the whole story, let us examine more particularly the nature of the prayer, and the nature of the answer to the prayer.

We turn first to the prayer itself. Notice two things: first the convictions that created the prayer; and secondly the desire expressed, as it reveals the attitude of the men praying.

The convictions concerning God are indicated by the form of address, by what they stated concerning their own ancient Scriptures, and by what they said about the crucifixion of Christ.

The prayer opened with the words, “O Lord,” and that word Lord is a very rare one in the New Testament. It is not the one usually translated Lord. It is a word which we might translate by using the word despot. Of course we have come to associate everything that is iniquitous with the word “despot”; but, as a matter of fact, it simply means absolute ruler; it indicates final sovereignty. Later, in the prayer they used the other and commoner word, but it opened with a title that indicated their attitude toward God and their conviction concerning Him. The first thought suggested is that of their belief in the sovereignty of God, and they illustrated the meaning of this form of address by saying “Thou that didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that in them is.” They were confining themselves for illustration to the things nearest to them, to the very material world which the Sadducees said was everything.

The Sadducees denied the existence of anything beyond that which was patent and self-evident; the heaven, that is, as a firmament with all its mystery; the solid earth; and the sea; these were the sum-total of the things which the Sadducee accepted or believed in. Now these men said, “O Lord, Thou that didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea.” Evidently, therefore, to them God was more than all. This was the subconscious conviction that underlay the prayer of these men. Prayer always begins there. No man ever prays unless he has this conception of God, as being more than the sum-total of the things of which he is conscious in his philosophy and in his science. Underlying this prayer, therefore, which issued in boldness, was this conviction of the absolute sovereignty of God.

As we move on we find another conviction, or another phase of the one conviction. “Who by the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of our father David Thy servant, didst say:

Why did the Gentiles rage, And the peoples imagine vain things? The kings of the earth set themselves in array, And the rulers were gathered together, Against the Lord, and against His Anointed.” Their quotation was taken from the second Psalm, which all Jewish expositors admitted, and admit, to be Messianic in its value. In all probability it was written by David in the midst of some local circumstances to which it referred, but it had larger applications and further meanings. Whether their conviction was false or true is not now under discussion. The point is that these men attributed the psalm to David, to the Spirit, to the foreknowledge of God; and consequently their conviction concerning God was not that of His sovereignty only, but also that of His wisdom. They believed that when David sang that psalm, he sang better than he knew, and fuller than he thought; that behind the singer was the inspiring Spirit; and that at the back of the wisdom that foresaw human events, was God Himself.

But there is yet another phase of conviction evident, perhaps in some senses more remarkable, more full of comfort and helpfulness. “For of a truth in this city against Thy holy Servant Jesus, Whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together.” We must pause here to notice carefully how these men described what had happened in the city. Mark carefully their description of the forces massed “against Thy Holy Servant Jesus, Whom Thou didst anoint.” Herod, representing Hebrew authority; Pontius Pilate, the representative of Roman authority; “with the Gentiles,” the nations outside the Covenant; “and the peoples of Israel,“those of the Covenant;” were gathered together.” These had been gathered together to destroy Jesus. That is quite true; but that is not what these men said. They said: “They were gathered together, to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel foreordained to come to pass.” That is the last phase of their conviction concerning God. It was the conviction, not merely of His sovereignty, not merely of His wisdom, but of His actual, definite, government and overruling, in the affairs of men.

These then were their conceptions of God. He made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea; and therefore He is before, and He is more than they. He foretold, through the singing of a man long centuries ago, the course of events; and therefore He is full of wisdom. But more, He presides over history. These men in the Upper Room were looking back to those sad, dismal, and awful days in Jerusalem when they arrested the Lord and Master Whom they loved; when He was bandied about between Herod and Pilate, when the outside nations and the chosen people combined to murder Him; but they did not speak about murder when they prayed. They would do that, when they were outside.

They would charge His murder upon those who were guilty; but now they were in the secret place of prayer. They saw the people, assembled tumultuously together, but high over all they saw the Throne, and God governing and compelling.

Peter had given utterance to the same thought in the Pentecostal sermon when he put the two things into close connection saying “Him “-that is, Jesus,-“being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay.” In this prayer there was only the recognition of the Divine overruling. These were the things in which they believed: the sovereignty of God; the wisdom of God; the active government of God; and these convictions concerning God, inspired their prayer.

Their convictions concerning Jesus are as clearly revealed. First they believed in the sinlessness of Jesus. “Thy Holy Servant Jesus.” Twice they repeated the word. They believed in the Messiahship of Jesus. Having quoted the second psalm that referred to the economy of the Son, they said of Jesus, “Whom Thou didst anoint.” They believed that through the Cross, He accomplished the purpose of God, for when they spoke of the things done by Herod and Pontius Pilate and the Gentiles and the Chosen, they spoke of the Cross not as defeat, but as victory.

The word “accomplishment” was surely used of set purpose. Peter and John were two of the men who had been on the Mount of Transfiguration. There they heard Jesus talk with Moses and Elijah about “The exodus that He should accomplish.” These men recognized that He accomplished, even through that death that seemed so tragic, a definite purpose.

These then were the convictions that underlay the prayer of this apostolic band; convictions concerning God, His sovereignty, His wisdom, His government; convictions concerning Jesus, His sinlessness, His Messiahship, and His accomplishment through death of the Will of God.

Now let us turn to the desires expressed. . Notice in the first place the evident consciousness of danger revealed in the actual petition. Their first petition was, “Look upon their threatenings.” Their conviction concerning God was that He is sovereign, that He is Allwise, that He is governing the affairs of men, and making even the wrath of man to praise Him. They knew the threatening outside, and the only thing they could do with it was to remit it to Him. “Look upon their threatenings.” They did not ask that the threatenings might cease, nor even that the threatenings might not be carried out. They did not ask that they might escape from the logical issue of persecution and death that they had seen. There was no such request.

They asked that He would look upon their threatening; and then immediately that they might have boldness to speak the word, while God stretched out His hand to heal: “Grant unto Thy servants to speak Thy word with all boldness, while Thou stretchest forth Thy hand to heal.” Thus they prayed for the continuance of that very activity which had produced the hostility. At the Beautiful Gate they had spoken the word with boldness, and God had stretched out His hand and healed the man; and all the hostility had come out of those facts. Now they prayed, and in effect they said: God help us to keep on in spite of everything, doing that which has produced the threatening. They had been charged not to speak in the Name again. They flung the caution aside. To the Sanhedrim Peter had said, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to. hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye.” Now, in the secret place, the men of courage came into the presence of the God in Whom they believed, and they had but one thing to ask, that they might still speak the word with boldness, while He stretched forth His hand to heal.

But there is another part to the prayer, revealing the deepest desire of the hearts of these men: “That signs and wonders may be done through the name of Thy holy Servant Jesus.” Men of such conviction, are always men of such desire. Men who know such a God and such a Jesus, are always men who supremely desire,-not to escape from suffering, not to be spared all the toil and the travail of proclaiming the evangel,-but that His name should be vindicated and glorified by perpetual victory, and therefore that they may be kept bold in the preaching.

These praying men impress us, first as being consistent. This is a great word which we have largely misused. Some people think that to be consistent, means that the same thing is said yesterday, to-day, and forever. A great consistency may make a man deny to-day what he said yesterday, because he finds out that what he said yesterday was not true. To be consistent is to be possessed and mastered by some one principle. Because these men were so possessed and mastered, they were strong.

They were cautious also. This is seen in the fact that they were conscious of the peril, and therefore claimed the resources which were at their disposal in God. But supremely these men were courageous. There was no suggestion of retreat. The only passion in their hearts was to go forward, and their only fear was that they might fear, and so fail.

The answer to the prayer came immediately. There was first a sign: “the place was shaken.” That was a response to their conviction concerning God. As Sovereign of the universe He laid His power upon the material house, and it was shaken. Do not be at all anxious if that kind of sign is not repeated in this century. The only infidelity to be feared is that which denies the possibility. Nevertheless, a material miracle is always a sign of dullness in the spiritual sense. All the miracles of the ancient days were necessary in order to lead on to the higher spiritual miracles which resulted. The Master said to His disciples: “Greater works than these shall ye do; because I go unto the Father.” To read the context is to see that the “greater works” are the works of spiritual wonder.

But to these people a material sign was granted, the shaking of the house. Then they were filled with the Spirit. This has sometimes been described as a New Pentecost. This is a most unfortunate expression. There can be no new Pentecost. Pentecost was once, and forever. The day of Pentecost was not a day of twenty-four hours. The day of Pentecost is the day of grace.

This is the day of Pentecost. When the Spirit was outpoured in the Upper Room, the day dawned, which has not yet passed. This was no new Pentecost, but a new enduement, a new filling. A simple formula of New Testament terminology concerning the activities of the Holy Spirit will always help us to intelligent thinking: One baptism, many fillings, constant anointing. These are all phrases of the New Testament. This was a new filling, a new enduement of power; perhaps because fullness had been interfered with by fear, while they were waiting for Peter and John. Personally I believe that the new filling was intended to prevent the development of incipient fear. They feared, and there was granted to them a new consciousness of the inrush of the Spirit.

In Dr. Elder Cumming’s wonderfully illuminative book The Eternal Spirit, he traced with accurate and scholarly precision the difference between the phrases “full of the Spirit” and “filled with the Spirit” as used in the New Testament. Some one full of the Spirit may nevertheless be filled to overflowing for specific service, and for work that waits to be done. These men were filled with a new consciousness, and a new actuality of the presence and the power of the Spirit; with the result that they went out, and spoke the word of God with boldness.

This study teaches us that if we would deliver the testimony of the risen Christ, characterized by the boldness of clarity and courage, we need right convictions concerning God, concerning His Son; and the constant reception of power by the inflow of the Holy Spirit. The last is the issue of the former. It is God, Who is the sovereign Lord, All-wise, actually governing, to Whom we must ever turn. It is Christ, Who is sinless, the anointed and appointed Messiah, Who accomplished through death the purpose of God, to Whom we must go. In proportion as we are submitted to Christ, and wait in prayer upon God, there will ever come to us that inflow of the Spirit, which will make us bold to proclaim the evangel; and great results may and must follow where the Church is thus convinced and Spirit-filled.

Acts 4:32-37 We have been considering the infant Church in the midst of hostile forces. We now come to a section of the book which gives us a glimpse of the internal conditions of her life at that time. This particular section falls into two parts. There is first a picture of the Church’s fellowship, and then a picture of its discipline. We are now to deal with the first of these.

Opinions held about this story by expositors and teachers are very divergent. They may generally be divided into two main positions. There are those who count this as a mistake-the first apostolic mistake. There are those who believe it was Divinely ordered, and the inevitable outcome of the Pentecostal effusion.

Those who declare that this was the first great mistake made by the early Church do so for certain reasons which we must briefly pass in review.

They affirm first, that the action of the early disciples was due to their expectation of the speedy return of Christ; that He would personally and actually return within the generation; and that therefore there was no need to retain possession of earthly goods. These early disciples were certainly looking for the return of Christ, as the disciples of to-day ought to be, and if they are not-to quote Dr. Denny-the bloom is brushed from their Christian experience; but we have no right to say that these early disciples expected Him within a generation. They expected Him all the time, and that was, and is, the true attitude. In this story, however, not a word is said to suggest that this expectation was the motive for the selling of their lands and their houses.

Again, it is affirmed that this action was the cause of that subsequent poverty of the Church in Jerusalem, which made necessary the collections that were taken through the Greek cities, and sent to Jerusalem. Such a statement is wholly gratuitous, and without a vestige of Biblical authority, probably the hypothesis of some one who approached the story with an anti-communistic prejudice.

That it is said that the action was a mistake is proved by the resulting experiences, those namely, of Ananias and Sapphira, and of the murmuring of the Hellenists because in the distribution certain of their widows were neglected. But the first lie, and the first discipline in the Church were due, not to the action chronicled here, but to the violation of the principles revealed here. The lie was the lie of a man and woman who were not true to the ideal; and the murmur of the Hellenists was against an unfair distribution.

Yet again it has been objected to by those who have treated the story as though the practice was one of indiscriminate charity, which as practised to-day, is so unquestionably unwise. But there is no similarity at all between the two things. This was wholly a Church activity. The material fellowship was merely the outward and visible sign of a spiritual fellowship, necessarily existing between regenerate men and women.

And yet once more, there are those who consider the action mistaken, because they treat it as though it were on the pattern of modern, legislative, social propaganda. As a matter of fact, it was not legislative at all. There was no law that any one should sell his land or house. In the case of Ananias and Sapphira the apostle said very definitely, While it was your own, it was your own; no one asked you to sell it. The action in each case was purely voluntary, and that of regenerate men.

A word of caution is necessary in the case of many who defend the story. Too often it is quoted in defence of a propaganda which fails to begin with Pentecost. That inclusively reveals the danger of taking this story, and preaching it promiscuously, as though it were a national idea, toward the realization of which we are to work to-day. Archbishop Magee, years ago, was severely criticized when he said that the British nation could not be governed on the principles of the Sermon on the Mount. But he was perfectly right. The Sermon on the Mount can be applied to England when England is a nation of regenerate men and women, and never until then.

We are sometimes told to-day that the work of the preacher is to preach the Sermon on the Mount, and attempt to establish the Kingdom. Certainly it is, if we begin with Pentecost; but we must have Pentecost before we can have the condition of affairs described here. This condition of affairs was the immediate outcome of Pentecost, with all that it meant, of new vision, emotions, conceptions, power.

Let us attempt to look at the story of these few verses; first at the general description found in verses 32-35 (Acts 4:32-35); and then at the particular illustration given in Acts 4:36-37.

First, we have a general description of the condition of affairs obtaining among the members of the early Church. This was not a new departure in the case of the Church; it was not a new venture consequent upon new opposition. In chapter two, verses 44 and 45 (Acts 2:44-45), we have an account of the things happening immediately after Pentecost. There at the very beginning, immediately upon the descent of the Spirit, and the filling of these people by the Spirit, these same conditions obtained. Notice the forty-second verse of that second chapter and then verses forty-three to forty-seven (Acts 2:42-47) as they explain verse forty-two. The forty-second verse makes this declaration, “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching, and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.” Four things are named.

The verses which follow simply break that verse up and show how they continued in these four things. First, The apostles’ teaching: “And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.” Secondly, Fellowship: “And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need.” Thirdly, Breaking of bread: “And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they did take their food with gladness and singleness of heart.” Finally, Prayers: “Praising God, and haying favour with all the people.

And the Lord added to them day by day those that were being saved.” These were the conditions immediately following upon Pentecost. The disciples, by the coming of the Spirit, baptized into union with their Lord, continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, which does not merely mean that they listened to the apostles, but that they supported the teaching of the apostles by the witness of their lives. Therefore, they continued steadfastly moreover in fellowship. There is no richer word in the New Testament than the Greek word so translated. Koinonia is translated in a great many ways, because no single word can convey all its richness. It and its cognate words are translated fellowship, communion, communication, distribution, contribution, partners, partakers.

The root of the word is found in the statement that they “had all things common.” The word translated common is the root out of which the word koinonia comes. Fellowship therefore is having all things in common.

The great teaching of the New Testament is that the child of God has fellowship with God, that is, all things in common with God. All the resources of God are at the disposal of the child of God. All the resources of the child of God are at the disposal of God. These men of the early Church therefore, and necessarily, had all things in common with each other. The conditions then that we find described in this fourth chapter are exactly the conditions which inevitably followed the Pentecostal effusion, the baptism of the Spirit, the indwelling of these men and women by Christ Himself through the Spirit. They were brought by that baptism into new relation with Christ, and so into new relation with God Himself. That inevitably meant new relationship with each other.

At the centre of the Ephesian letter, the apostle urged those Christians to whom he was writing, to walk worthily of the calling wherewith they were called. The first charge he laid upon them was this: “Giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Having so written, he described what he meant by the unity of the Spirit in these stately words, “There is one body, and one Spirit.” That one body is Christ, and all His people. He then showed how men come into that union: “One Lord,” Christ; “One faith,” fastening upon Him; “One baptism,” that of the Spirit, making the trusting soul one with Him. Finally he described the result of that union: “One God and Father of all, Who is over all, and through all, and in all.” That is ko’monia, fellowship, all things in common. Men and women made partakers of the Divine nature, seeing in the Divine light, feeling with the Divine love, living with the Divine life. That is the basis of the communion of this chapter.

The communism was not that of people who have signed articles, and decided to pool property. It was the communism of a new life, which, possessing all, made these attitudes and activities irresistible and necessary.

Let us now turn to a closer examination of the paragraph, and so of the fellowship; noticing first, its power; secondly, its principles; and thirdly, its practice.

The power of this fellowship is revealed in the words: “The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul.” It does not matter for the moment whether these believers sold their houses and land, or not. That is not the important thing. Do not begin with the selling of a house, and the selling of land; begin with the fact that “they that believed were of one heart and soul.” The initial fact is found in the phrase, “them that believed”; and the resultant fact in the statement that they “were of one heart and soul.” These men were of one heart and soul because they had believed. Belief here must be interpreted by all the evangelical values of the New Testament. The people who believed, necessarily became men and women of one heart and soul. “Them that believed” is a phrase of inclusion and of exclusion. We cannot take this story, and apply it on the level of that crowd in Jerusalem which did not believe; and we must not attempt to apply the teaching of this story to the promiscuous multitudes to-day that do not believe. “Them that believed,” were those who had yielded themselves to the Lordship of Jesus, to obedience to His teaching.

What was the result of their believing? “They were of one heart and soul.” The two phrases are not carelessly selected. “One heart,” reveals the emotional and inspirational centre; “One soul,” reveals the new life as dynamic. This company of people, having believed in Him, submitted to His Lordship, being loyal thereto, were of one heart. They were moved by one great impulse, one love mastered them; they had one outlook, one inward consciousness, one inspirational motive. But more, infinitely more, they were of one soul. The word soul here is the word that indicates life; it is not the high word which means spirit, but the word which refers to life as a force, as a dynamic.

We can never have the flowers and the fruits of the garden of the Lord unless we have the roots; and we shall never be able to reproduce in any community, in any nation, all the fair and gracious beauty of this condition, save as we can realize anew the one heart and the one life of that early company of first disciples.

But now let us notice the principle of this activity. The first element was that of selflessness: “And not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own.” The trouble with much social propaganda to-day is that every man says that what he has, is his own. Here no man said so, because no man thought so. The one heart and the one life had completely ended the selfishness of these people. They were selfless.

The second element was that of a corporate consciousness. “They had all things common.” If we cannot understand what that means, we must go to some of the apostolic writings, and listen to their descriptions of what the Church ought to be. If one member suffers, all the members talk about it, and attempt to be sympathetic, and decide to make a collection. That is not the idea at all. That is what we do to-day! This is it: “Whether one member suffereth all the members suffer with it; or one member is honoured, all the members rejoice with it.” That is corporate consciousness. They had all things common. “Not one of them said aught of the things which he possessed was his own.”

There is yet another element to be observed. These people lived in the conviction of the supremacy of the spiritual over the material. The very life of the Spirit in them made the question of property a secondary question. We may call them improvident. That is the word of the world, and I am not sure that it is not the word of the flesh and the devil also. These people were so mastered by the spiritual power that possessed them, so driven in this fresh and fragrant dawn of the Church’s life by the reality of the eternal and the spiritual, that they held with light hands the things of the world. All material property was subservient to spiritual purpose, and so they said that nothing they had was their own.

Then observe carefully that there was no compulsion, neither rules, nor regulations, nor pledges! The multiplication of pledges is always a sign of the decadence of the Church’s life. There was a great spiritual impulse, but there was no compulsion other than that; these men were not compelled to give up anything; everything was voluntary. The distribution was apostolic, and according as every man had need. The movement was purely voluntary, wholly and absolutely spiritual, the answer of external activities to the inward dynamic. One heart, the emotional centre; one life, spiritual dynamic; one activity, all things belonging to all.

In the midst of the story we find the wider value of this great fellowship. Those who criticize this action of the early Church generally deal with this particular verse by omitting it. “And with great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; and great grace was upon them all.” The apostolic witness to the resurrection was made powerful by the spirituality and the selflessness of the life of the Church in itself; it had the evidence of life in harmony with the life of Christ, the evidence of love as the master-passion of all activity. This was the supreme evidence in apostolic preaching to the resurrection of Jesus. And again “great grace was upon them all.” We must not read that as though it meant that grace like some glorious, yet nebulous Divine cloud of benediction hung over them. “Great grace was upon them all,” means that there was a beauty and a glory manifest in their own character; and that beauty and glory, or to use the word itself, that grace cooperated with the apostolic testimony to resurrection. The word was with power because it was incarnate in the life of that early Church.

Leave that general outline and turn to the particular illustration. Joseph was in all probability a wealthy man. We have met his relations before. He was the brother of Mary, that is, of Mary the wealthy woman who lived in Jerusalem, at whose house the early disciples gathered. Mary was the mother of Mark, so that Mark was a nephew of this man. He was by birth a man of Cyprus, which at that time was a great centre for Jewish people; and he was a Levite. But if we really want to know something of the man, let us mark well the name which the apostles gave him: Barnabas. This was a name given, indicative of the supreme quality of this man.

Bar-Nabas means son of prophecy. We have a translation in the text, “which being interpreted is, Son of Exhortation.” The Authorized Version says, “The Son of Consolation,” which the Revised Version has retained in the margin. The difference is the same as that obtaining in the translation of the word Paraclete. Did Jesus say, “I will send you a Comforter?” or did He say, “I will send you an Advocate?” He really said both. Actually He said, I will send you the Paraclete. The meaning of the word Paraclete is, one called to the side of another; and one called to the side of another for a twofold purpose, the Advocate, to argue, and the Comforter, to comfort.

That the element of comfort was in His mind was evident by the fact that He said, I will not leave you orphans, I will send you the Paraclete. The fact that exhortation was in His mind was evident by the fact that He said, “When the Paraclete is come He will teach you all things.” In the word Paraclete therefore we have the thoughts of exhortation and of consolation.

Here is the same word - the son of Paraklesis, the son of exhortation, or consolation. The apostles surnamed him thus because of what he was in himself. This man was a man gifted in speech, but it was speech that while it was exhortative, was also full of comfort. If we follow his history through the book of the Acts, we shall see how true this was.

Now this man had land, and he sold it, and laid the proceeds at the feet of the apostles. Look at this story in the atmosphere of the present day. Men have such a passion for holding land, that they speak of it as Real Estate. The fact that this man had land and sold it, was remarkable. It was a great venture of faith. Here were the apostles, a few men with all the massed light and leading of their age against them.

These men set up a fanatical communism, not by rule and regulation, but by the wild impulse of love; and here was a landowner who sold his land and brought the proceeds and laid it at the feet of the apostles. That is an illustration of the principle that underlay the whole movement. It was an act of love, for it was accomplished in the power of that great principle here enunciated. No man said that anything he possessed was his own. It was an outcome of life, he was compelled to it by the nature of the life he shared in common with the rest. This is an illustration of what all these men did in greater or less degree.

Barnabas had land and he sold it. That was his investment. We have not reached the dividends yet. Those will be found later on in the book.

So in conclusion we observe two or three matters of supreme importance. First, we must remember that this is a picture of conditions obtaining only within the Church. We must remember secondly that these are conditions which ought to obtain within the Church. It may be said that this condition of affairs is very perilous. Ananias and Sapphira illustrate the peril of it. The Hellenist murmuring testifies to the peril of it.

But in each case we must finish the story. In a Church that can establish that order, Ananias and Sapphira cannot live. In a Church that can establish that order, the murmuring of the Hellenists issues in the appointment of Spirit-filled deacons, and the trouble is settled. There is administrative power. Do not quote Ananias and Sapphira and the Hellenist murmuring as showing the impossibility of realizing this ideal. If it is not possible to-day, it is because we have lost the purity that makes the lie impossible within our borders; because we have lost the unity of Spirit that can administer in any hour of difficulty.

Let us be honest! If that is a lost ideal, it is because the power realizing it is largely a lost power. The only restoration will be in the power of the preliminary things. In the Evangelical Revival how many wonderful things were said and sung. Call to mind one of the old hymns and this couplet therein:

“Let the priests themselves believe, And put salvation on.” Go back to the apostolic writings, “Judgment must begin at the house of God.” If we are ever able to return to that realization of fellowship, it will be in the power of the absolute filling of the Spirit. When we are of one heart, one inspirational centre; of one soul, one dynamic of life; then again, it will be true that not one of us will say that aught of the things which he possesses is his own. There will be no rules and regulations, but a great love. That is where the Church has most sadly failed. When Peter came to write his letter, he wrote words which to me are the most wonderful in all the apostolic writings, as setting forth one phase of truth about the Church. “Ye are an elect race,” that is the life principle; “a royal priesthood”; that is our relation to God; “a holy nation,” that is the social order. That is where we have failed.

We are not what we ought to be within the Church. I have no hope whatever of any social propaganda outside the Church. If we cannot realize this fair and fragrant vision of beauty within, at least let each soul see to it that it does believe; that the inspirational centre of its life is love, and the dynamic behind all its activities, that Spirit which makes things material forever subservient to things spiritual. The measure in which each does this will be the measure of the Church’s approximation to the lost ideal. Let us pray for some measure of restoration; for therein lies the Church’s safety, and her power of testimony to the resurrection of Christ in the world.