"Christian Communism" in the Book of Acts 93
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Christian Communism" In the Book of Acts J. Harold Greenlee There are two passages in the Acts of The second answer, which is probably the Apostles which are especially used by the more common one in our day, is that some people as proof-texts for the argu these early Christians were generous to a ment that real communism was practiced fault, becoming starry-eyed idealists who in the Christian Church after Pentecost. were either so overcome by the joy of their These passages as they appear in the King Christian fellowship that they gave their James Version are as follows: 'And all money away unwisely, or else were con that believed were together, and had all vinced that Jesus would return to set up things common; And sold their possessions his Kingdom so soon that money and pos and goods, and parted them to all men, sessions were worthless. At least one Sun as every man had need" (Acts 2:44-45). day School lesson commentator, who seems "Neither was there any among them that quite sound in many respects, implies that lacked: for as many as were possessors of the collections for the Christians in Jerus lands or houses sold them, and brought the alem which Paul mentions in his epistles prices of the things that were sold, And (I Cor. 16:1-4; II Cor: 8-9; etc.) were laid them down at the apostles' feet: and necessary because this mistaken experiment distribution was made unto every man ac in communism had so impoverished the cording as he had need" (Acts 4:34-35). Jerusalem Christians that they were thrown These passages supposedly describe a genu on the mercies of other Christians who had ine "Christian communism" � a society not been involved in which private property was abolished and Neither of these two answers is satis where the ruling principle could be stated factory. In reply to the first, there seems in the words, "From each acording to his to be abundant evidence that God has or ability, to each according to his need" � or dained the principle of private ownership. at least in which there was a redistribution The right of private ownership, which is of wealth, in which all shared equally. capitaUsm, and of the legitimate rewards It is evident that this communism, if it of one's own initiative and work, are far was practiced, did not survive for long. more consistent than is communism with Why did it not survive ? Two answers fairly the high evaluation which God has placed well include those which have been offered. upon us as individuals, made in his own The first answer is that the communistic image. The commandments "Thou shalt not practices were God's will for the Christian steal" and "Thou shalt not covet" are community, but that selfishness and other based upon the right of private property. made God's ideal non-Christian attitudes Sharing with others, based upon love and impossible and forced a return to "capital issuing in love, would be impossible if noth where each had his own ism," person per ing were our own to share. sonal property. This answer assumes that The second answer suggested is equally if we could establish a Christian city truly The New Testament nowhere be God's unacceptable. or country today, it would then warns us that what these early Christians will to have such communism again. Indeed, did in these matters was mistaken. If this assumption helped lead to the establish they were then the New Testament is ment of the Shaker settlements, the experi mistaken, not a safe for our lives. ment at Zion, Illinois, and other such ill- completely guide fated attempts during the past century. This conclusion we do not accept. "CHRISTIAN COMMUNISM" IN THE BOOK OF ACTS 93 It seems that the whole assumption of love to aid those of their company who were communism in Acts, even a so-called in need, whenever anyone was in need, even to the "Christian comunism," is due to a misunder if it meant selling possessions provide standing of the author of Acts. This mis assistance. This assistance was evidently carried out the for the church, understanding is of two kinds. One is a by apostles rather than a purely individual matter, misunderstanding of the author's point of being as Acts 4:35 points out. It may, therefore, view. He is trying to emphasize very have involved some sort of con strongly the attitude of generosity which systematic tributions by those who were able. But it prevailed among the Christians. He was is clearly not a case of everyone's selling all describing an attitude of heart which should his possessions and giving it all to the be found in any truly Christian home. He church. meant that the Christian love was so sin The is not lessened, cere that, if someone was in need, others misunderstanding moreover, by the translations, ". and would share with him as though their pos parted them to all men, as every man had sessions were his. A pagan writer about need" and ". .. unto every man 100 A. D. described the Christians as Acts (2:45), as he had need" The intends to describe them, with these words : according (4:35). meaning of each of these passages is more "He who has gives to him who has not with nearly, ". and distributed them so often out grudging. And if there is a man among as anyone had need." Indeed, in both pas them who is poor and needy and they have sages in the original words "had need" are not an abundance of necessaries, they fast preceded by a Httle word making the idea for three days that they may help the more indefinite�that is, the distribution needy with the necessary food." Here is not was made to when and if were communism, but Christian love. Moreover, people they in need. the author of Acts shows that he is not The translation in describing complete communism by the 2:44, "had all things can also be misunderstood story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:2, common," easily to mean that the owned 4) ; for he writes that Peter rebuked Anan disciples everything in common. The ias with the words, "Whiles it remained, verb translated "had" often does mean "to have" in sense of "to was it not thine own? And after it was the However, it is this same verb sold, was it not in thine own power ?" How possess". could Peter have said this if all the which is used in the following passages : Christians were expected to surrender their Referring to the people's opinion of possessions ? John the Baptist, "they counted him as a prophet" (Matt. 14:5) ; "for all hold The second misunderstanding of Acts in John as a prophet" (Matt. 21:26); and "for these passages is a misunderstanding of all men counted John, that he was a pro what the author actually said. The descrip phet indeed" (Mark 11:32). tion given in Acts 2:45 and 4:34-35 is a to the of picture of progressive selling of possessions Referring people's opinion took him for a and distribution of the money. Every verb Jesus, "they prophet" (Matt. � �five of them in these descriptions pic 21:46). a to "Hold tures, in the original language, not single Paul, referring Epaphroditus, such in �that "Consider or simple act, as the King James Version reputation" is, such � The seems to say, but a continuing, repeated, or people precious" (Phil. 2:29). of the verb in these in customary action. We might read them in meaning passages, . and other is to have or to hold an this way: ". they were selling words, opinion .. someone or or to . about consider . ". were distributing ."; and they something, or a . someone . in . were certain It were bringing the prices and they something light. this which should be used in . is . was dis placing them . and it being meaning as com Acts 2 which the that tributed . .". In other words, :45, gives meaning considered all common"�^that mentators on the original tongue point out, "they things the disciples were prompted by Christian is, they had the truly Christian spirit of the 94 J. HAROLD GREENLEE motto, "What is mine is yours if you need price of the things which were sold and it." would place it at the feet of the apostles and it would be distributed to who Perhaps a paraphrase or free translation anyone was in need" may summarize what we believe to be the (Acts 4:34-35). The idea that the Christians were at proper meaning of these two passages we have been discussing: tempting to set up a "communistic Utopia" rests upon a view which reads the author's "And all who believed were accustomed glowing description of vital Christian ste to consider their possessions as common wardship and love among what was doubt property ; and they would sell their proper less a large percentage of poor people, and ties and possessions and distribute them to mistakenly forces into his words a descrip anyone who was in need" (Acts 2:44-45). tion of a legalistic system which was forced "For neither was anyone in need among upon the entire Christian community. A them ; for as many as were owners of fields fair interpretation of relevant passages does or houses would sell them and bring the not seem to bear out such a Utopian thesis..