Economics in Biblical Perspective - Commonly Misunderstood Passages - "They Had Everything in Common" Acts 4:32
Passages Used to Justify Communism
There are several passages of Scripture that are often misunderstood as it relates to economics, including some that are used to justify communism. Perhaps the passage which is used most often in this regard is Acts 2:44-45.
And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.
Another
passage, closely related to this, is Acts 4:32-37.
Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
A superficial reading of these verses, without regard to their immediate context or to the teaching of Scripture as a whole, has led some people to conclude that (1) in the early church, communal living was the norm, (2) their example establishes a precedent which is obligatory for the church to follow everywhere for all time, and (3) that the obligation to live communally extends beyond the church to all society.
But
are these conclusions valid? No, for two reasons.
First, those who have interpreted them this way have failed to understand that
these passages are descriptive rather than prescriptive; and
second, their interpretation is not consistent with the teaching of Scripture
as a whole--a vital interpretive principle called the analogy of faith.
The Passages are Descriptive, Not Prescriptive
What do I mean when I say these passages are descriptive rather than prescriptive? I mean that the passages are in a literary form called “historical narrative.” They tell (or describe) what happened, not necessarily what must happen. They describe a certain state of affairs but do not prescribe (i.e., command) that state of affairs. They tell us what was, not what must be.
The
Bible often describes what God’s people did, without implying that we must go
and do the same. This is obvious in many cases. For instance, when his people
have sinned, we are not to go and do likewise. Some of God’s people worshiped
idols. Some took multiple wives. That doesn’t mean we are to imitate them. Just
because the Bible records it does not mean God approves it, let alone commands
it.
I am not suggesting that what these early believers did in having “everything in common” (Acts 2:44; 4:32) was sinful. I am simply using those things as obvious examples of the fact that just because the Bible records something his people have done does not necessarily mean that their behavior imposes a moral obligation upon us to do the same.
So, the first error of those who interpret these passages in the book of Acts as requiring communal living is that they fail to distinguish between description and prescription. The passages describe what was, not necessarily what must be.
The Analogy of Faith
The second error is their failure to interpret them in a way that is consistent with both the immediate context and the teaching of Scripture as a whole.
The analogy of faith is decidedly in favor of the right of private property. It is a right that is implied (assumed, presupposed) on almost every page. Perhaps the most compelling example comes from the Ten Commandments. The eighth commandment, “You shall not steal” (Ex. 20:15) implies a right to private property. The tenth commandment does the same in its use of the possessive adjectives “yours” and “his.”
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s (Ex. 20:17).
Also note the possessive apostrophe attached to each appearance of “neighbor.”
And then there is the saying of the owner of the vineyard in Jesus’ parable, “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?” (Matt. 20:15).
Context
Given the abundance of evidence for the right of private property found throughout all of Scripture, we must look to the immediate context of these passages to understand why these early believers did what they did in sharing everything in common. It turns out that there were very good reasons why they did this.
First,
remember the occasion. These events took place in connection with the Feast of
Pentecost. Pentecost was one of the pilgrim feasts, meaning one of the three
annual celebrations the Lord commanded in the law in which all the males were
to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to observe. Josephus tells us that, at these
feasts, the population of Jerusalem would swell to great numbers that were
difficult to accommodate. Luke tells us,
Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven… Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians… (Acts 2:5, 9-11)
Many of the visitors from all these areas heard Peter preach that day, and a great many of them believed and were baptized. Luke says, “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). And it’s likely that a great many of them stayed on in Jerusalem much longer than they had originally planned because it says they “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (2:42). And their numbers continued to grow. “The Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved” (2:47b).
Now, how were all these people going to be provided for, especially given the fact that they were far from home and staying longer than originally planned?
Their fellow believers who lived in and around Jerusalem did what they could to meet their needs. They gave freely out of their own pockets. And in some cases, they sold land and other possessions and used those proceeds to help them. But—and here’s the thing—all of this was done on a voluntary basis. It wasn’t a requirement. It wasn’t an obligation imposed on them by God or by the apostles but was a spontaneous effort. How do we know this? Again, from the immediate context.
Just
after recording how “no one said that any of the things that belonged to him
was his own, but they had everything in common,” and how many who ‘were owners
of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid
it at the apostles feet” for distribution “to each as any had need,” and after
being given the noble example of Barnabas…immediately following all of this
recorded at the end of chapter four, Luke tells us at the beginning of chapter
five about a man named Ananias and wife Sapphira.
But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (Acts 5:1-2)
Now, some have supposed that this was his sin, that he gave only a part of the proceeds and not the whole amount. But if we read on, we discover that he was perfectly within his rights (1) not to have sold the property at all, or (2) having sold it, (2a) to keep the entire amount himself, (2b) keep back a portion for himself, or (2c) donate the entire amount.
But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? (Acts 5:3)
Do you see? This was his sin. He lied by saying that the amount he donated was the full amount of the sale. That it was this lie that got him into trouble and not the mere fact that he reserved a portion of the proceeds for himself is clear from what Peter goes on to say.
While it remained unsold [this piece of land], did it not remain your own? (Acts 5:4a)
In other words, “You were not required to sell it. You sold it at your own discretion.”
While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal [were not the proceeds yours to do with as you pleased]? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? (Acts 5:4ab)
Why did he do it? We might speculate and say, “He wanted to look good in front the crowd.” He wanted people to think he was a good and generous man. He was just like those whom Jesus roundly condemned in the Sermon on the Mount when he said, “When you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others” (Matt. 6:2). This appears to have been the motive of Ananias and Sapphira. And what compounds the matter in their case is the fact that they did it in the midst of an extraordinary movement of the Holy Spirit.
You have not lied to man but to God." When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his las. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.
After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things. (Acts 5:4c-11)
Again, Peter clearly indicates that they were perfectly within their rights (1) not to have sold the property at all (“while it remained unsold, did it not remain your own?”) or (2) having sold it, (2a) to keep the entire amount himself, (2b) keep back a portion for himself, or (2c) donate the entire amount (“After it was sold, was it not at your disposal” to do with as you please? v. 4b). This goes to show that the whole enterprise was a voluntary arrangement to meet a temporary emergency and not something required by God or the apostles.
By the way, we find something similar to this in 1 Corinthians where Paul recommends abstention from marriage “in view” he says, “of the present distress” (1 Cor. 7:26). There was a present, pressing crisis that in Paul’s judgment made getting married unadvisable. And he makes it clear that this was not a command from the Lord but his own opinion, and he says if you do otherwise and do get married, you have not sinned. The evidence suggests that the same kind of reasoning was involved in Acts when so many of the early believers in Jerusalem and throughout Judea sold their possessions and brought the proceeds to be shared with those in need.
Other
Considerations
It
should be remembered that there was not only the immediate crisis of so many
believers from outside Israel who had gathered for the feast who needed to be
provided for, but it was also a time of persecution, when the authorities were
attempting to suppress the faith by, among other things, “the plundering of their
property” (Heb. 10:34). Given the fact that they were subject to the possible seizure of their property anyway (and more remotely, subject to the loss of all things in the crisis Jesus foretold in Luke 21:20 when Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies and suffer complete desolation1), it was not only a matter of compassion, but also of prudence, to use what they could not keep for the support of their fellow believers.
It seems to have been a spontaneous, Holy Spirit-prompted outworking of what Jesus said in John 13, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn. 13:35).
Comments