When I first heard the argument that the original church in Jerusalem was socialist, it left me stammering for a reply. Yes, they shared everything, but calling them socialists didn’t feel right. I had to spend some time studying to define for myself what the problem was with that statement. 1 Peter 3:15 calls on us to have an answer ready for the hope that’s in us. So I hope that sharing what I learned will help you be prepared, too.
In the last post, we established that Jesus is not a socialist. But I promised to tell you about the early church. Let’s read the verses from Acts 4 before I comment. (The end of Acts 2 says pretty much the same.)
Acts 4:34-37
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, …
37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
On the face of it, it looks like they were living out the old socialist motto. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” But an event in Acts 5 sheds more light on the subject.
Ananias and Sapphira
You see, a man named Ananias made an agreement with his wife. He sold some property, kept back part of the money, and gave the rest to the church. The problem was, he implied that he was bringing all the money. Whether he wanted the same thanks that Barnabas got, or had some other motive, isn’t clear. All we do know is that Peter was on to him.
3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 “Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.”
Ananias dropped dead. When his wife, Sapphira, repeated the lie, she dropped dead too. God doesn’t like lying.
4 Ways The Early Church Wasn’t Socialist
Socialists point to these chapters in the Book of Acts to make the case that the early church practiced socialism. There were several important distinctions, however.
1. Private property rights were respected.
The property was neither owned nor controlled by the church. In modern language, Peter asked, “Wasn’t that land yours to do with as you pleased?”
2. The gift was voluntary.
The apostles would not and could not “expropriate it.” Verse 4 again: “And after you sold it, couldn’t you do whatever you wanted with the money?”
3. Ananias and Sapphira’s sin was lying, not keeping some of the money.
“You have lied to the Holy Spirit,” said Peter. Later, he made sure to ask Sapphira, “Did you sell the property for this amount?” When she confirmed the false price, he asked her, “Why did you conspire to lie to God?” It was for lying that she dropped dead.
4. The early church in Jerusalem thought Jesus Christ would return really soon.
Possessions didn’t have the same meaning after Jesus ascended. What use would a plot of earth be in heaven? Jesus said, “I will come again, and bring you back with me” (my version). Apparently, they took it seriously! Do you notice that they met daily for prayer? I wonder how many of them quit their jobs to sit in Jerusalem and wait.
For context, consider the Messianic teachings that led the Jewish people to expect a conquering hero in real time. That’s why they waved palm leaves when Jesus entered Jerusalem. Even in Acts 1:6, the disciples asked Jesus if he was finally going to establish his Kingdom. They didn’t expect to wait two thousand years or more!
How Did It Turn Out?
Scholars can go back and forth dissecting every word of this passage. And they often come to opposite conclusions about whether the Book of Acts is an example of true socialism. But one thing seems lacking from the conversation. If we assume for a moment that the early church did practice socialism, how did the experiment turn out?
In 1 Corinthians 16, we see Paul taking up a collection for the church in Jerusalem. The church in Galatia contributed to the cause, too, as did the churches in Macedonia. If the Jerusalem experiment with wealth-sharing were successful, why would the other churches have to give money to “the poor saints at Jerusalem”?
Apparently the church in Jerusalem was so efficient in selling all they had and giving it to the poor that they became quite impoverished themselves. There surely was some amount of persecution involved in Jerusalem at the time. Rome leveled the city shortly afterward. But any group of people without incomes will eventually run out of money. Perhaps that’s why Paul told the Thessalonians, “If you don’t work, you don’t eat!”
The promise of socialism, however, is that everyone will work. After all, in a perfect world, why wouldn’t they? In the next post, we’ll see how that turned out in Plymouth Colony in 1620 Massachusetts.
Header image credit: Wikimedia Commons.
Links to the entire series can be found online in this index.
Recent Comments