Acts 4:32

Of one heart. Textual evidence may also be cited (cf. p. 10) for the interesting addition, “And there was no discrimination among them whatever.” As with similar pairs of expressions, “heart” and “soul” often overlap in meaning and should be taken here to express a totality of character rather than any minute distinctions. Oneness of heart in Hebrew thought indicated complete accord (see Jer. 32:39; cf. 1 Chron. 12:38). It was not only Peter and John and the other apostles, but the entire multitude of believers, who participated in this accord.

Neither said any of them. Each individual felt that his possessions were held by him as though a trust from God, to be given up upon request. This could only be the result of a deep love for one another, foretold by Christ as a mark of His disciples (John 13:35).

Idealists who have endeavored to picture in theory a perfect society, as Plato in his Republic and Sir Thomas More in his Utopia, have proposed, as a condition of their perfect commonwealth, a community of goods similar to that practiced in the early church. To succeed, such a commonwealth requires perfection in its participants. Undoubtedly the believers’ expectation of their Lord’s soon return, together with their unity of thought and feeling, made them willing to part with their material possessions. However, as shown in the case of Ananias (see Acts 5:4), they were under no compulsion to do so.

All things common. This statement is parallel to ch. 2:44, as indeed vs. 32-35 of the present chapter restate generally what has been recorded in ch. 2:43-45. This restatement is probably made by Luke to supply a setting for his story of Barnabas’ liberality (vs. 36, 37) and Ananias’ selfishness (ch. 5:1-11). Luke is pleased to dwell upon this community of goods as an ideal expression of the equality and fraternity manifested in the early church. The rights of property were voluntarily suspended by the spontaneous conduct of the members of the Christian community, under the operation of the law of love. Their benevolence was free and full, without hope of material reward. They thought of themselves, not as possessors for self, but as stewards for the good of others.