have sought consistently to follow out its practice, but the having of all

things in common does not seem to have captured their mind in the same way as

has the gift of tongues.  Yet how can one speak of `continuing in the apostles'

doctrine and fellowship' without realizing that this koinonia (fellowship)

refers to and is expressed by the having of all things in common (eichon

hapanta koina)?

Turning to Acts 4:32 -37, we observe that there is a re -statement of

this `fellowship', and as in Acts 2:42 -46, so here, the account of this new

state of affairs is punctuated by reference to the witness of the apostles to

the resurrection of the Lord.  The reader will see that verse 33 of Acts 4 is,

as it were, slipped in and breaks the flow of the narrative.  This, however, is

as intentional as the equally strange insertion found in Acts 1:15.  The

resurrection of the Lord, as testified by the apostles, was intimately

associated with the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel, and to the time of

the restitution of all things which had been spoken by the prophets.  No Jew

would need to be told that just as the feast of Pentecost with its emphasis

upon the word `fifty' was a recurring, annual reminder of the day of Jubile, so

the final, prophetic, fulfilment of all that Pentecost stood for would be the

real, great Jubile toward which all prophecy pointed.

Believing therefore the `apostles' doctrine', these believers put their

faith into practice.  If the Jubile was near, all would receive their own

inheritance, all forfeitures would be cancelled, all buying and selling of land

and possessions would come to nought; consequently, although no one could sell

or buy his inheritance, he could sell whatever else he had purchased, and use

the proceeds for the common good, while awaiting the Lord from heaven.

The case of Barnabas is specially mentioned.  He was a Levite, and

`having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet'

(Acts 4:37).  In Jeremiah 32:6 -14 we have the case of Jeremiah (who, like

Barnabas, was of the priestly tribe).  He bought land to demonstrate his faith

in the Lord's promised restoration (Jer. 32:15), and Barnabas sold land to

demonstrate the same conviction.  The law that governed the sale of land is

found in Leviticus 25.  The voluntary act of Barnabas in selling his acquired

land and placing the proceeds at the apostles' feet, is in direct contrast with

the action of Ananias.  He too sold a possession; he too laid the proceeds at

the apostles' feet, but with the difference that he kept back part of the

price, while pretending that he had given all.  The apostle makes it quite

clear that there was no compulsion about the selling of the land when he says,

`while it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in

thine own power?'  Ananias sinned in that he lied to the Holy Spirit.  The sin

of Ananias was the sin of Achan.

The reader will find that the very words used of Achan in Joshua 7:1 are

used of Ananias.  The LXX reads enosphisanto apo tou anathematos, `appropriated

for themselves a part of that which was devoted'.  Acts 5:2,3 twice applies

this peculiar expression to Ananias and Sapphira: `kai enosphisato apo tes

times', `and kept back part of the price'.  This is no place to discuss the

passage in Joshua, but the interested reader is urged to weigh over the

arguments contained in the article on `Achan, the troubler of Israel', on pp.

37 -41 of Volume 26 of The Berean Expositor, which show that the word `accursed

thing' should be understood as `a devoted thing', i.e. devoted to the Lord.

Peter and the apostles stood somewhat in the same position as did Joshua, and

wielded the same awful discipline.