55 - Grace and Sin in the Early Church [B]

Grace and Sin in the Early Church. Acts 4:32-37

We have certain boundaries which are established within the Scripture and they are all built on one important foundation, the foundation of personal responsibility. The first divine institution: we are all responsible before God in terms of living our life as He would have us to live it—serving Him. One of the primary missions of Adam in the garden was to guard and to serve (work) the garden. This aspect of Christian service unfortunately has been distorted by many within so-called fundamentalist or evangelical circles as a means of spirituality when it is actually a result of spirituality. It is the result of spiritual growth, not the means of spiritual growth. It is part of our responsibility as believers. We don't worship God to grow. We worship God as a result of learning about God, learning who He is and what He has done for us. Worship isn't a means of spiritual growth. Giving isn't a means of spiritual growth, it is a result of spiritual growth. Christian service, serving in many different ways within a local church—teaching prep-school, singing in the choir, serving as an usher or a deacon, or whether it is some sort of behind-the-scenes ministry such as praying for others, visiting people in the hospital, people who are sick, people who are home-bound. All of these things are important facets of the ministry of the local church and should be the normal out-growth of people's spiritual maturity.

Unfortunately the way church have developed historically in the USA and because in our missions programs we export our problems as well as out good points. We get people into church and want them to do certain things as part of their spiritual growth rather than as a result of their spiritual growth, and to be self-motivated. It is not the responsibility of the deacons or leaders of a church to assign everybody a job or role and to hyper-organize the church in terms of numerous cell groups. That is the model that we see today in the church growth movement. 

In Acts 4:32-37 we have a progress report by Luke. Luke does this periodically as we read through Acts and he tells us what is going on. Previously we have seen progress reports where he is talking about 3000 being saved in Acts 2:41, then in Acts 4:4 he talks about 5000 men being added to the church. Here at then end of chapter four we come to another progress report. All of the events in this period probably cover the first six months, certainly not more than a year, after the resurrection.    

Acts 4:32 ^NASB "And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one {of them} claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them." "One heart and one soul" is simply a picturesque idiom for emphasizing the unity that existed among all of these believers. Luke doesn't give a number here, he just talks about the multitude [congregation]. Think about how large the body of Christ has become in this period of six months to a year. We can only get some parameters. At the minimum we are told in 1 Corinthians 15:6 that after the resurrection Jesus not only appeared to the eleven but also to 500 at one time. So we know that there were by the day of Pentecost at least 500 believers. In Acts 2:41 we are told that three thousand were saved, so at the end of the day of Pentecost we have 3500 church age believers, minimum. Then in Acts 4:4 which is arguably within the first couple of months we have 5000 men saved. If every one of those men is married and has two children, and the average family size of someone at that time in Israel was probably many more than just two. So if every man was saved and has a wife and two children then by now there are about 23,500. Some of those men there on the day of Pentecost were of the diaspora, outside of Israel. So let's just subtract about 5000 or so who went home and we are left with somewhere between 18,000 to 20,000 church age believers within the first six months. That is a sizeable number for that short period of time. But if we are a little more generous and likely a little more realistic, because during the ministry of John the Baptist and during the ministry of Jesus there were many more than 500 who became believers and trusted in Him as Messiah. If we say that Israel at the time of Christ had a population of Jews of maybe one and a half to two-million and three per cent of the population had become believers then we have a number of, say, 60,000 or more who had become believers during the years of Jesus' ministry. There are passages that indicate multitudes believed in Him as the Messiah. So if we add that number to the number saved in Acts 2 and Acts 4 we might have as many as seventy-five thousand believers in Israel within the first six months or a year.

If we just take the lowest possible conservative estimate of 20,000, Josephus tells us that there were no more than 6000 males who were officially Pharisees. There weren't quite as many Sadducees—about 4000. So just suppose that there were in just a period of six months 20,000 (or 40,000 or 60,000) Christians and 10,000 Pharisees and Sadducees, can anybody say there wasn't jealousy, envy? They were losing out in the competition and they were really upset. This new following of Jesus was just exploding and many of their own members are dropping out and are becoming identified with Christ. So there was a lot of growth taking place.

With regard to this growth, they are not using a set methodology to evangelize this large number of people. People are excited about the fact that they are forgiven, that the Messiah has come, that they have salvation. And they are telling other people. They don't have a set blueprint. People have this idea that if you just get the right pattern, the right presentation (like salesmanship), if you have the right hook and say the right words then you are going to have success and are going to build a huge church because you have the formula for presenting the gospel down. It has all become advertising and salesmanship rather than the Holy Spirit.

Years ago a pastor said that anybody in the power of the flesh can build a huge organization—Christian, non-Christian, business or whatever—if they have talent and they work hard, and it is all done in the flesh and not in the Spirit. The only thing that matters for eternity is that which is done in the power of the Spirit and on the basis of the spiritual gifts that God has given us. It is not about finding that one methodology. What we find today is that in the latest permutation of apostasy in American evangelicalism—in the "emerging church" which is the new form of Christianity which must emerge to communicate to the post-modern mindset of the teens and twenties and thirty-somethings today—you have to compromise a lot of truth in order to make Christianity palatable. What happens when you compromise that truth is that it is no longer Christianity. You have diluted it and taken out critical doctrines so you are left with something that really isn't biblical Christianity at all.

One of the battles we fought with the modernist church was over methodology. A right thing done in a wrong way is wrong. In evangelism there are a lot of these evangelism-type methodology that are just a sort of program that says if you get into it and follow the formula then you are going to build a great big church. Today they don't talk about methodology in the "emerging church" anymore. If you don't talk about methodology then anything goes and you throw more and more absolutes out the window.

So this is really important to understand how the church grew. It didn't grow by following the business model. A lot of what goes on in modern evangelicalism, a lot of organisations and a lot of churches, is really patterned after what happened in the industrial revolution and the growth of the modern corporation. In a modern corporation you have a board of directors; in a modern church you have a board of deacons. In the early church there was a pastor and a pastor appointed deacons, mature men in the congregation, and gave them responsibilities. The churches grew because they trusted what the Scriptures said, and then they went out and did what the Scriptures said and lived as if the Scriptures were true. One aspect of this is they became grace oriented very quickly, and that is what gets brought out in this passage: "the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul." There is a unity.

The thread that runs through these six verses 32-37 is the thread of the authority of the apostles.  Acts 4:33 ^NASB "And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all." Verse 32 talks about the multitude; verse 33 talks about the power of the apostles. Then vv. 34 and 35 talks about their selling of land. What did they do with the proceeds? They laid it at the feet of the apostles. It is recognizing that they are the leaders in the church and they are the ones who0 are going to oversee how the body takes care of itself. Then there is the example in vv. 36, 37 of Barnabas who has some land, sells it, and lays the money at the apostles' feet. So there is the thread that runs through here of the authority of the leadership of the church and their oversight of the business of the church. In chapter five there is going to be a challenge to that because of the deceptive characteristics of Ananias and Sapphira. 

So the church is growing rapidly. It is not doing it on the basis of a program or methodology; it is doing it on the basis of the power of the Spirit. And the apostles are consistent in proclaiming the truth about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Then it says, v. 33, "and abundant grace was upon them all." The church was becoming grace oriented.

1.  This first century AD in Israel was probably a lot worse than what most of us have thought about. We know that things get really bad from the mid-forties up to 70 AD when Jerusalem falls. In 66-72 there is a rebellion, but that rebellion is preceded by a tremendous amount of economic and social collapse in Israel. In that first century Israel it was becoming more and more perverted and decadent in Judea. It was really a cesspool of moral perversion at the time of Christ. It was fragmenting the nation, so that by the time of the 60s there were Jewish insurrections by Jewish insurrectionists. They are all claming to be messiahs and there were Jews fighting Jews and they can barely unite together to fight the Romans. This was beginning about the time Jesus began His ministry or a little earlier.

2.  The second thing to remember that would be part of the intellectual-spiritual component for each believer was their understanding of the predictions Jesus made about the soon-coming destruction of Jerusalem in Luke chapter twenty-one. Much of Luke 21, other than these verses, relates to the sign of Jesus' coming. It is parallel to Matthew 24, the Sermon on the Mount, but this section talks about what will happen soon. Jesus warns them, Luke 21:20 ^NASB "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near." This is a prediction of AD 70, not the Tribulation. [21] "Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city." That verse was remembered by the Christian community who still lived in Jerusalem in 69 and early 70 prior to the final assault on Jerusalem. When initially Vespasian had brought his troops to Israel to put down the insurrection Nero died and he went back to Rome to become Caesar. The troops pulled back to Caesarea for several months and it was during that hiatus of the siege that the Christians just evacuated like rats leaving a sinking ship. That was the foundation of a lot of subsequent problems between Christians and Jews because a lot of Jews blamed Christians for leaving them in the lurch. But the Christian realized that this was what Jesus was talking about in Luke 21 and they fled to the mountains where they survived. The story is that no Christians lost their lives in the siege of Jerusalem. Luke 21:22 ^NASB "because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled." This was just the prophecy related to the fifth cycle of discipline on Israel because of their disobedience to God, their rejection of Jesus as Messiah. [23] "Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; [24] and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." The phrase "and will be led captive into all the nations" is how we know this is not talking about the Tribulation. At the end of the Tribulation are the Jewish people led captive into all nations? No, Jesus returns and establishes the kingdom. This is talking about what happened in 70 AD when Jerusalem falls, the Jews are led away. This didn't start the times of the Gentiles. The times of the Gentiles started in 586 BC when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. From 586 BC until Jesus returns Jerusalem and the politics of Jerusalem will be dominated and determined by more powerful Gentile nations. That is the times of the Gentiles. It is not a term for the church age, it is a recognition that because of Israel's apostasy in the Old Testament that they will not return to ascendancy until they return to the Lord. Deuteronomy 30:1, 2. The Christians know that very soon Jerusalem is going to be destroyed. So when it comes to property ownership in Jerusalem in terms of the long-term investment it is not such a good thing. How long? They don't know, but they know that it is going to be soon and in their generation.

3.  In this period employment opportunities were declining and as hostility developed towards Christians those who were not Christians were putting economic and social pressure on the Christians. They were the objects of prejudice and discrimination and in the nation they would not get hired, would lose jobs and it would make it difficult for many within the church to make a living and provide for their families. What we see in the next few verses is a response to this situation that is unique in history in terms of its degree. There is a huge outpouring of generosity by those who have property and assets and who convert these into cash to support those who could not support their families anymore. They had come to understand the grace of God and this is really the motivation for their giving and the degree of their generosity. They understood what the Old Testament has taught about taking care of the poor.

Acts 4:34 ^NASB "For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales. [35] and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need."

The first phrase, "For there was not a needy person among them." It should be translated, "Neither was there anyone among them who was poor." That would raise a question. How come there weren't any poor among them? There are two passages from the Old Testament that would come to people's minds at this point. One was Deuteronomy 15:4 which actually predicts what will take place only during the Millennial kingdom. ^NASB "However, there will be no poor among you, since the LORD will surely bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess." The picture was that if Israel was obedient to the Lord there wouldn't be any poor. However, that is the ideal, the condition, the circumstance—if they are obedient. They never really were. There were times when they approached it, but only during the time of David and Solomon for a very brief time. That is why Jesus gives the description (not a prescription) that the poor will never cease from the land. He is not saying to make sure the poor never cease from the land. They will never cease from the land because they are never going to achieve the level of obedience to be fully blessed by God so that poverty is wiped out. 

The Old Testament gives us a little bit of a framework. What we are seeing here is that along with the message of the kingdom we see almost an idealized snapshot of the early church where they are doing what they are supposed to be doing, and there is no poverty there. But it is just a snapshot for an instant. Those who have means recognize principles in the Old Testament. Proverbs 14:21 ^NASB "He who despises his neighbor sins…" We know the reason for despising his neighbour is economic from the next part of the verse. "…But happy is he who is gracious to the poor." [31] "He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker, But he who is gracious to the needy honors Him." Proverbs 19:17 ^NASB "One who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, And He will repay him for his good deed." When you are giving to someone who is in need it is as if you are giving to the Lord. The Lord will take care of you in proper recompense.  

So when we look at Acts 4:34 in the background of the minds of these believers is what the Old Testament taught about taking care of each other and taking care of the poor. We should ask the question as to why there were not any poor among them. The last clause in the verse begins with gar [gar], which indicates an explanation, so he is answering the question that is expected. " … for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales [35] and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need." This is a reference to property owners. Sometimes people look at this and they think all the property owners sold all the property. But it just says "as many as owned property." The verb is that they brought something—an imperfect tense verb, and in the Greek the imperfect tense has a continuous action, e.g. John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word" which means continual existence, it doesn't ever stop. But an imperfect tense would also be used for saying, "They always went to church." That doesn't mean that they were always at church, going to church continuously and they never stop going to church, but if they only went to church every Sunday they continuously went to church. It is iterative, it is individual past actions but they are separated by time. There are numerous actions but they are ongoing. It is something that happens again and again and again rather than continuously non-stop.

So we are talking about many different situations where they did this, where they sold property and brought the proceeds to the apostles. The object clause is the price of what was sold. They brought the price. It is the word time [timh], which normally means "honor" but it is also used for the payment of a salary, the payment of money. In the pastoral epistles it talks about a pastor being worthy of double honor. That is how it is treated in the English because translators didn't feel that it was right to say that pastor's were worthy of a double salary—which is what it says in the Greek. The participle is when it was sold. They brought the proceeds when they sold the property. It doesn't mean anywhere in the Greek that there is an implication that they sold everything that they had. The picture that is presented here is that those who had means in the congregation were aware that they had a huge administrative problem here and they had a lot of out-of-towners who came to town for Passover and Pentecost, and now that they had become Christians they have stayed. But they don't have any jobs, any means of support. So they had to take care of them. When they learned of a need, if they had the financial resources or property or a house they sold their assets and gave it to the leadership of the church because they were the ones who would have their pulse on who was qualified and who needed what and when.      

Then we are introduced in vv. 37, 37 to this individual named Joseph. He is nicknamed Barnabas which means "the son of encouragement" or "the son of exhortation." We are told he is a Levite of the country of Cyprus. Levites were prohibited from owning land in the Old Testament but Barnabas owned land. We know from Josephus and other sources that after the return of the Jews from captivity that the Levites owned land. In fact, many of the Sadducees were Levites and they owned a lot, they were extremely wealthy. They were also somewhat corrupt. Barnabas recognized that everything we have is from the Lord and if there are believers in true need then if we have it we need to share. Their mentality was truly grace oriented. They did this out of their own internal motivation, their own spiritual growth. In Hebrew the term "son of" often expressed an attribute about somebody. Barnabas is mentioned 24 times by Luke, mostly in a narrow range of chapters. He goes on the first missionary journey with the apostle Paul. He is mentioned five times by Paul. But he is really a behind-the-scenes player. He is one who is so trusted by the apostles in Jerusalem that when something starts happening up in Antioch where the first believers were called Christians they sent Barnabas to investigate. Barnabas had met Paul after he was saved and when Barnabas got to Antioch and saw what was going on he said the person who really needs to be here is Paul. He plucks up Paul from obscurity and says: "You are the man."

He goes on the first missionary journey with Paul and his cousin, John Mark. John Mark is young and not ready for the discipline and the stoicism of the apostle Paul so by the end of the missionary journey Paul has had enough and does not want John Mark to accompany him anymore. For that reason there is a difference of opinion between him and Barnabas and Barnabas goes off with John Mark while Paul goes on his second and third missionary journeys without him. But later on he tells Mark to bring the scrolls, so they are reconciled. Mark matured.   

But Barnabas is one who worked behind the scenes. People often look at somebody like Billy Graham and say they want to be like him. But why not want to be like the guy who led Billy Graham to the Lord? They want to be like Dwight Moody. Why not want to be like the guy who led Dight Moody to the Lord, to serve the Lord in obscurity and have great impact. Look at the guy who led Billy Graham to the Lord and just think of the impact he had. The person who labours for the Lord in obscurity is just as important in the body of Christ as the person who seems to be out there in front of everybody. Barnabas was that kind of person.