We do not purpose going over these passages in detail: the fact that they were anticipations of the millennial

kingdom has already been demonstrated. This is further illustrated by the passage of Scripture quoted in the prayer

of Acts 4:25, and by the summary judgment that fell upon Ananias and Sapphira.

It may be as well to draw attention to the order in which the truth is presented in Acts 4:32: first, unity of heart

and soul, and then community of possessions. The appeal of the Communist to the second part of verse 32 is a case

of wrong division of the Word of Truth.

The next section of the Acts deals with the testimony once more among the people, and occupies Acts 5:12-42.

The signs and wonders which were wrought by the apostles multiplied, with the result that the opposition of the

chief priests became more violent, and the apostles were put into prison. An angel liberates them, saying: `Go, stand

and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life' (Acts 5:20).

Brought once more before the rulers, they are warned that they had been straitly commanded not to teach any

more in the name of Jesus. To which the apostles answer:

`We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, Whom ye slew and hanged on

a tree. Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel,

and forgiveness of sins. And we are His witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, Whom God

hath given to them that obey Him' (Acts 5:29-32).

The result of this testimony is that the rulers were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them (Acts 5:33).

This enables us to see that the account of the next great witness, that of Stephen, which produced the same effect

Æ'They were cut to the heart', (Acts 7:54) Æ must be read together with Acts 5. As Stephen's speech is recorded

with much more fulness, and its results are seen to be so much more critical, we turn our attention to the section

chapter 7 to 8:1 which closes the purely Jerusalem testimony.

The appointment of Stephen arose out of the fact that the Greek-speaking Jews (`Grecians') felt that their

widows were not receiving the same treatment as was meted out to the widows of the Hebrew-speaking section. We

must remember that there was a considerable difference in point of view between the Jerusalem Jew and the Jew of

the dispersion. The dispersion were more Greek in thought and sympathy, and used the Septuagint version

exclusively. The Jerusalem Jew was much narrower in outlook. It is doubtful whether he would have quoted

heathen poets, or referred to heathen sports without a shudder, whereas Saul of Tarsus, when he became Paul the

apostle, felt no such reserve.

The reader must distinguish between Hellen, `Greek', and Hellenistes, `Grecian'. The title `Greek' is used in

contradistinction to either `Jew' or `Barbarian'.  The `Grecians', on the other hand, were Jews although

distinguished from the `Hebrews'. The trouble that arose in the church at this point was not between Greeks and

Jews, but between Jews of extremely narrow views (`the Hebrews') and Jews who, by reason of birth and language,

were more liberal in outlook. The Hebrews had a saying, `Cursed be he who teacheth his son the learning of the

Farrar has a suggestive note as to the various classes of believers that come before us in the Acts, which may be

helpful here.