The Acts of the Apostles

Acts 4 v 32 - 6 v 7: Oneness of Heart?

John Stott in his BST Commentary Acts has a chapter devoted to this passage which is entitled "Satanic Counter-Attack" - whereas title given today is "oneness of heart" - although the question mark might suggest some doubt on the matter - but could choose to emphasise the positive or the negative - the positive is the sharing community of chapter 4 vv32-36 and the healing of many in 5 vv12-16 - the negative is the deceit of Ananias and Sapphira in chapter 5 vv 1-11 and the persecution of the apostles in vv17-41 - but it would be wrong to focus entirely on the positive to the exclusion of the negative or vice versa - the reality is that both God and the devil are at work in our world - hence we find that our lives, both personally and as a church, are a mixture of joy and sorrow, success and failure - we need to be balanced in our approach to these issues - if we do not believe in the devil we will not be on our guard or we will find things harder than we should when things go wrong.

The key verse in terms of our title is chapter 4 v 32 where we are told that the believers were one in heart and mind - notice that their oneness encompassed both their heart and their mind - why is it important for us to be of one heart and mind? - one reason relates to the quality of life within the church community - the picture painted in chapter 4 vv 32-36 is an attractive one, at least in terms of the fact that there were no needy persons among them (v 34) - although perhaps some may find a little frightening the proposition that "no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own" - a second reason relates to our ability to withstand the attacks of the devil - here we find three attacks being made - if we are of one heart and mind then we will be more likely to be able to withstand these attacks - and we will be attacked - as Stott points out, the attacks in this passage assume different forms: physical (persecution), moral (subversion) and professional (distraction).

The central message to take away from this passage is that Christian commitment will be challenged by the devil - by commitment I mean collective commitment ("oneness of heart") - we should derive comfort and confidence from these examples of Christian commitment but at the same time we should be prepared for the inevitable attacks by the devil - wish to make use of three examples of Christian commitment from this passage and illustrate in each case the attack that came from the devil.

(i) A commitment to the gospel that was challenged by persecution

we see the commitment to the gospel in chapter 4 v 33 - this raises a challenge for us as to whether or not we are committed to the gospel in the same way - but we should notice that their commitment produced a response - see the account of the persecution of the apostles in chapter 5 v 17ff - notice the persecution is linked directly to the gospel - v 28 - they are not prevented from sharing their goods or looking after the poor - it is the gospel that provokes opposition - but we find that the opposition is overcome - by miraculous means in v 19 and by means that do not have the appearance of being supernatural, namely the intervention of Gamiliel in v 34 - but can nevertheless see that God was behind it - so we see that the opposition is overcome - in v 42 - the devil for years has tried to overcome the church by force but has not prevailed - use example of missionary societies - we can take comfort from this - but at the same time we should not infer from this that we will have an easy life of it - the apostles overcame the opposition but at a cost - they were flogged in verse 40 and ordered not to speak in the name of Jesus - but their response was to go out rejoicing and to continue to proclaim the good news that Jesus is the Christ.

Would their response have been the same if they had not been of one heart and one mind at the beginning of this passage? - to stand against persecution we have to stand together as Christians - on our own we can be broken - and there is a real danger that we can be broken if we respond to troubles by retreating into ourselves - rather we should stand together, share together and witness together.

(ii) A commitment to sharing that was challenged by deceit and hypocrisy

In chap 4 v 32 we are told that "no-one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had" - the picture painted is in part an attractive one but it can cause us some concern because property is a central organising factor in our society - was this really a community without a notion of property? - unlikely that it was - Peter recognised that the money belonged to Ananias in chap 5 v 4 - rather the point was that they did not claim their possessions as their own - an idea which better conveys the point is the notion of stewardship - the idea that we are to be good stewards of the property that is entrusted to our possession (see, for example, the parable of the talents) - the early Christians were good stewards - and there must have been an attractiveness to others in this society - but it was subject to challenge - that challenge did not take the form of persecution - it took on a much more insidious form - namely deceit and hypocrisy - the story of Ananias and Sapphira - it is important to note that their wrongdoing was not holding back the money - both before and afterwards the money belonged to them (v4) - rather they wanted to give the appearance of being good stewards - but they lacked the substance - contrast in this respect this story with that of Joseph/Barnabas in chapter 4 v 36.

Should not under-estimate the significance of this story - as Stott points out "falsehood ruins fellowship" - integrity and honesty matter - we can miss this in our society - we tend to focus on appearance rather than substance - Ananias and Sapphira fell into this trap - but God is concerned with the substance and not the appearance - man looks on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart - note the way in which it is dealt with by Peter - it is not swept under the carpet - but dealt with publicly and God's judgment was also delivered publicly - we must take honesty and integrity seriously - deceit challenges trust and a lack of trust undermines community life - the Christians could not have lived as is described in chapter 4 vv32-37 if they did not trust one another.

Again we have a challenge and a warning - the challenge is to our attitude to our possessions and to fellowship within the church fellowship - are we good stewards of the things we have (and time is one of these things we have) - the warning relates to our honesty and integrity - do we take it sufficiently seriously? - once it is gone it is so difficult to get it back and it is destructive of our relationships.

(iii) A commitment to meeting each other's needs that was challenged by administrative difficulties

At first sight this challenge can be seen as the most innocuous of the three but it can present real challenges to the church today - in chapter 4 v 34 we can see that the believers were committed to the welfare of the poor - but that required, v 35, a system for the distribution of money to those who were in need - this task became more difficult as the church grew (see chap 6 v 1) - some widows claimed that they had been overlooked (v2) - would appear that the cause was poor administration or supervision rather than the product of a deliberate decision - at first sight it is hard to see this as the work of the devil - but as Stott points out the devil's tactic here was "through squabbling widows to distract its leadership from prayer and preaching, and so expose it to error and evil" - this tactic is more widespread today than we perhaps realise - if you are leader how much of your time is devoted to the ministry of the word of God and prayer? - if you are a member of the congregation what do you expect of your leaders? - do you expect them to preach and to pray or to do all the administrative jobs or possibly both?

What can we learn from these verses in Acts 6? - what did the apostles do? - they had a meeting at which they decided to appoint seven men who would oversee this work of caring for the poor - this would leave the apostles to pray and to the word of God - there is no suggestion that it was beneath their dignity to do the work of looking after the poor - it was simply that their task was "the ministry of the word of God" and it was not right for them to "neglect" this task - the plan they produced "pleased the whole group" so that they communicated their intention to the church and the church approved it - Stott puts the point well when he says that "the apostles were not too busy for ministry, but preoccupied with the wrong ministry" - they were not too busy for ministry because all Christians are engaged in ministry - rather, it was the case that they were spending their time on the wrong things - instead of concentrating on the ministry of the word they became overwhelmed with administration - what is needed is a biblical recognition of the fact that God calls different men and women to different ministries - and the result of this recognition and the consequent sharing out of tasks is the growth of the work - a clear recognition of our respective ministries will not impede the work of the gospel - it will enhance it.

EM