Acts 4:32 gives a beautiful glimpse into the life of the early church:
“Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul…” (ESV)
This verse has often raised a question for readers: did the early Christians have total agreement on every belief and doctrine? Some translations even render “soul” as “mind,” emphasizing unity of thought. But a closer look at the text, the Greek wording, and the context of Acts itself shows that the unity described was real, but not absolute uniformity.
Understanding “Heart and Soul”
In the original Greek, Acts 4:32 reads:
Τοῦ δὲ πλήθους τῶν πιστευσάντων ἦν καρδία καὶ ψυχὴ μία
(“Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul.”)
The two key terms here are:
- καρδία (kardia) — “heart,” referring to the center of emotions, will, and inner devotion.
- ψυχή (psyche) — “soul” or “inner life,” which can also extend to mind or life force.
Together, these words paint a picture of deep unity: not merely emotional or intellectual agreement, but a shared life, loyalty, and mission. They were “one” in their commitment to Christ, love for each other, and purpose in the world.
Some translations choose “mind” to emphasize the practical unity of intention and thought, but “soul” remains the more literal rendering.
Did They Agree on Everything?
Despite the powerful unity described, Acts itself shows that disagreements still arose among believers. Consider just a few examples:
- Acts 6: A dispute emerged over the distribution of food to widows, revealing tensions between different groups of believers.
- Acts 15: A major debate broke out over whether Gentile converts had to be circumcised to be saved, leading to the Council of Jerusalem.
- Acts 15:36–41: Paul and Barnabas, two great missionaries, had a serious disagreement over John Mark’s participation in their work, resulting in their separation.
These examples show that even in a Spirit-filled community, differences of opinion and conflict were part of life. Unity in Christ did not erase personal judgments, different experiences, or diverse perspectives.
What Kind of Unity Did They Have?
The unity described in Acts 4:32 was a unity of heart, soul, and mission, not necessarily of every detailed theological point. They were:
- United in their love for Jesus Christ,
- United in their devotion to one another,
- United in their purpose to spread the Gospel.
This kind of unity reflects what would later be summarized in a famous Christian principle: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
While minor disagreements occurred, their foundation was Christ Himself, and their commitment to Him held them together even when differences arose.
But Shouldn’t the Holy Spirit Eliminate Disagreements?
A common argument says that if believers truly have the Holy Spirit, they should not disagree at all. However, Scripture itself shows that this is not the case.
First, Spirit-filled believers in Acts disagreed. Even in Acts, faithful Christians filled with the Holy Spirit disagreed. Paul and Barnabas, after being commissioned by the Spirit (Acts 13:2), had a “sharp disagreement” about John Mark and parted ways (Acts 15:39). If the Spirit’s presence meant perfect agreement, such events would not have occurred. The Spirit empowers love, courage, and truth, but does not erase human personality or perspective.
Second, the Spirit leads through process. Jesus promised that the Spirit would guide believers into all truth (John 16:13), but this guidance is often worked out through time, through prayer, and through the community wrestling with issues. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) is an example of Spirit-filled leaders debating, discussing, and eventually discerning God’s will, not receiving instant identical insight.
Third, disagreement is not division. The Holy Spirit promotes unity, not uniformity. Paul acknowledges in Romans 14 that believers, even Spirit-filled ones, will have differing convictions on certain issues. True spiritual unity means staying bonded in Christ even when perspectives vary, showing humility, patience, and love.
Thus, disagreement does not mean the Spirit is absent. Division, pride, and hatred are signs of the Spirit’s absence. The early church teaches that true unity is based on love and loyalty to Christ, not the elimination of all differing views.
A Modern Example: Disagreements Over the Rapture
An example of this principle today would be disagreements over the timing of Christ’s return, particularly the debate about a Pre-Tribulation Rapture. Faithful, Spirit-filled Christians may disagree over whether the Bible teaches that the church will be taken before the Tribulation, during it, or after it.
Even though these believers differ on the details of prophetic interpretation, they remain united in the essential truths:
- Christ will return,
- There will be a resurrection,
- Salvation is by grace through faith,
- Christ is Lord and King.
Thus, a disagreement over the timing of the Rapture is serious but not something that should fracture Christian unity. It parallels the kinds of secondary disagreements the early church experienced—important, worth discussing, but not worth dividing the body of Christ over.
Conclusion
Acts 4:32 gives us a glimpse of the ideal Christian community: a people united in heart and soul, sharing their lives in selfless devotion to Christ and to each other. This unity was profound, but it was not absolute agreement on every matter. Disagreements still happened, but they did not destroy the bond the believers had in Christ.
The early church models for us that true Christian unity is not about uniformity, but about a shared love, loyalty, and purpose that rises above our differences. It reminds us that our unity must always be centered on Christ Himself, not on perfect agreement in all secondary matters.
Discussion Questions
- What does Acts 4:32 teach us about the difference between Christian unity and complete agreement?
How might understanding this distinction help us handle disagreements within the church today? - Why do you think God allows Spirit-filled believers to have different perspectives on secondary issues like the timing of the Rapture?
What might this teach us about humility, patience, and spiritual growth? - How can we practically maintain unity with other Christians when we strongly disagree on important but non-essential doctrines?
What attitudes and actions does Scripture call us to when facing these kinds of disagreements?
Want to Know More?
- F.F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts (The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 1988).
A respected scholarly commentary that covers Acts 4:32 carefully, explaining the nature of the early church’s unity without suggesting they had perfect agreement on every issue. - Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (Volume 2, 2013).
Keener’s detailed work discusses how unity in Acts does not imply total uniformity of thought. His commentary is considered one of the most thorough modern treatments of Acts. - D.A. Carson, Love in Hard Places (2002).
Though not a commentary on Acts, Carson’s book deals with Christian unity, disagreements among believers, and how true love does not require the absence of all differences. It is a valuable resource for understanding how unity in the Spirit works even amid disagreement.
About the Author
