Was The Early Church Socialist?

Article by:

Blake Hudson

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.
Acts 2:44-45 (ESV)

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.
Acts 4:32-35

Introduction

When reading the book of Acts we find descriptions of the early church that have led many to question whether early Christians were socialists and, if so, does that mean that the ideal society promoted by the early church is socialism. At times the knee-jerk reaction to these questions has been to affirm the right to private property and to assert that Christians were not socialists. While it can be affirmed with conviction that the early church did not espouse Socialism in the sense of governments controlling production and redistributing property, it is not so clear that the early church did not live in a very socialistic manner within itself.

So was the early church socialist? Our challenge will be to approach the Bible text with as few preconceived opinions as possible and to allow the Bible to speak for itself. Maybe we find what we can call Capitalism, maybe Socialism. Perhaps the early church cannot accurately be described as Capitalist or Socialist. We will avoid applying labels to the early church as much as possible throughout this study and will focus instead on describing what we find in the text – only at the conclusion will we try to find an appropriate label (if possible) to apply to early Christians as relates to their handling of possessions.

Separation of Church and State (A Clarifying Remark)

We are asking questions about the handling of possessions within a Christian community, not within any state government. Whatever conclusion we reach regarding Christianity is only a conclusion about Christianity and not about any state government. What Christians are called to do is not necessarily what governments are called to do. What works within a community of Christians joined by a common salvation does not necessarily work within a man-made government. Whatever Christians are called to do, they are called to do it regardless of the government and economic system of the nation in which they live.

2024 Edit: Having studied a good bit about Communism (the political philosophy) over the past several years, I feel that a stronger statement against Communism is in order here. While I do not disagree with my conclusions in this article, it needs to be stressed that voluntary sharing of material goods based on a shared spiritual state is vastly different from – if not the exact opposite of – Communism as a political or social philosophy. Communism, the political/social philosophy rooted in Karl Marx’s works, must be absolutely rejected without qualification by Christians. It is anti-Christian to its core. Some recommended readings on Communism include Frank Dikötter’s People’s Trilogy, Communism and The Russian Revolution by Richard Pipes, Unhumans by Joshua Lisec, The Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest, The Devil and Karl Marx by Paul Kengor, and The Red Flag by David Priestland. These books range from relatively neutral to openly hostile to Marxism/Communism.

Description of the Church in Jerusalem As Found In Acts

Let’s begin by listing the facts from the description of the church in Jerusalem as we find it in Acts:

Immediately after Pentecost there were many new converts to Christianity staying in Jerusalem who were from different countries. We don’t know how long they stayed in Jerusalem. After the death of Stephen a persecution arose that drove many, if not most, of the Christians (with the exception of the apostles) out of Jerusalem, at least for a time (Acts 8:1).
Those who owned property sold it in order to provide for the those in need.
The money from the selling property was given to the apostles (and later on to the elders, see Acts 11:30) who in turn distributed the funds as needed.
- The money / food was not distributed evenly to everyone, but was given to any as they had need. There still existed those who gave and those who received.
There was a daily distribution of food for widows.
- Seven men were chosen to oversee this distribution (Acts 6).
No one said that anything he owned belonged to him, instead they had everything in common.
- And yet people had possessions “that belonged to him”: Barnabas “sold a field that belonged to him” (Acts 4:37), Ananias and Sapphira owned the property before they sold it and controlled the money after they sold it (Acts 5:4).

Tying the Facts Together

Now our challenge is to consolidate the facts into a coherent description of the church in Jerusalem:

The Christians in Jerusalem had both rich and poor among the group. Those who had resources gave what they could in order to provide food, clothing, and shelter (the necessities) for the poor. People even went so far as to sell land and possessions to provide this generous support. This selling and giving was not coerced by any official rule, but was strictly voluntary. We can also see that this was more than the occasional giving of alms to the poor. Enough resources were being pooled to allow for a daily distribution to widows and, most likely, to orphans and others who were in need. This distribution was large, systematic, and would early on require seven men to oversee it. The money was given to the apostles, and later on to the elders, who in turn used it to provide for the needs of the congregation.

Also, while the Christians did in fact own possessions and were in charge of their own households, their attitude toward their possessions was such that Luke could honestly say that “no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common” (Acts 4:32). Obviously, this holding everything in common was limited to possessions. It did not include relationships such as spouses and children or to the running of one’s household.

The fusion of private and common ownership has been described well by others:

“They had all things in common, not by a compulsory abolition of the rights of property (see Acts 5:4), but by the spontaneous energy of love.” (Ellicott)

“It does not mean that everyone sold everything that was possessed, but that all held their possessions as a trust for the good of all. Christianity teaches that we are responsible for the welfare of each other and that we should render service, money, and everything for the welfare of others.” (Boles, 51)

“The “all things in common” statement describes a moral disposition that can be described as informal communism. This moral disposition is a view that one’s own property is something to be shared, something that is rightly at the disposal of fellow Christians who are in need…In a sense you could say that, in the case of the early Christians, you might as well have changed the name on the deed. That is how seriously they took their sharing.” (Montero, 51-52)

So, rooted in their understanding of their common identity as disciples of Christ, the early church shared their goods to the point where they could be described as holding everything in common, yet without demolishing the concept of private property or the running of one’s household.

On The Nature of Voluntary Giving

As we stated earlier, there was no rule defining that, or how much, one must give, rather the sharing of resources among the early Christians was strictly voluntary; however, we need to be careful how we understand what it means for the sharing of goods to be voluntary.

We are not forced to exhibit love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, or self-control, so when we do exhibit these qualities it is because we do so voluntarily. And yet, as a Christian, one is obligated to think and act in ways that do exhibit these qualities (the fruit of the Spirit, Galatians 5:22-23). So we are free to follow or not to follow God’s commands, but as Christians we are obligated to follow God’s commands.

Throughout the Bible we find God commanding us to share what we have in order to take care of others. This can be seen in the Old Testament. For example, farmers were to leave some of the harvest in the fields for the poor to gather (Deuteronomy 24:19). Commands to be generous can also be found in New Testament passages such as Hebrews 13:16, 1 John 3:17, Luke 3:11, Luke 6:38, Ephesians 4:28, and throughout the entire book of James. So there is nothing that forces us to give, therefore our giving is voluntary. Yet we are morally obligated to care for the poor, so we are required to give if we are to be consistent Christians (Montero, 55). In fact, as Christians, we should view the opportunity to give as a joy and blessing (2 Corinthians 9:6-15).

Was This Sharing Of Goods Unique To Jerusalem?

While it is very clear that the church in Jerusalem shared their resources among themselves in order to provide for the needs of all, many commentators argue that this was a unique circumstance that is found nowhere else in the New Testament. Comments such as the following are common to find:

“We may therefore safely infer, it was something that was done at this time, on this occasion, through some local necessity, which the circumstances of the infant Church at Jerusalem might render expedient for that place and on that occasion only.” (Clarke)

“This situation appears nowhere else except in Jerusalem and was evidently due to special conditions there which did not survive permanently.” (Robertson)

It is true that there is no description of the sharing of resources as explicit and detailed as that of the Jerusalem church; however, the New Testament does have other passages that provide reason to believe that this type of sharing of goods was not confined to the early days of the Jerusalem church.

Antioch

In Acts 11:19-30 the church in Antioch discovered through a prophetic speech that there would be a severe famine. “So the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea” (Acts 11:29). Here we find a group of Christians in Antioch concerned for the welfare of the Christians in Judea to the point that they gathered what resources they could and sent the gift to the elders in Jerusalem to take care of those in need. We are not told explicitly how the church in Antioch took care of the poor among themselves, but if they were willing to share their resources with Christians in another city, it is safe to assume that they also shared their resources among themselves. J.W. McGarvey puts it well:

“It is clear that they understood the wonderful benevolence of the Jerusalem church, not as a fanatical outburst of communism, but as an example to be imitated under like circumstances by all Christians.” (230)

Thessalonica

In 2 Thessalonians 3:6-12 we find Paul giving instruction regarding members of the congregation who were taking advantage of the generosity of others by eating what was shared with them instead of working to support themselves. In this passage we find the famous line “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). This rebuke makes perfect sense if 1) there was food available that was provided by others in the congregation, 2) there was a formal or informal system of sharing this food, and 3) some had figured out how to take advantage of this system (Montero, 72). If there was no system of sharing to abuse, then Paul’s rebuke would make no sense. While it cannot be proved, it is very reasonable to imagine a system in Thessalonica similar to that found in Jerusalem.

Ephesus

In 1 Timothy 5 Paul gives instructions to Timothy regarding enrolling widows into the church’s distribution. Paul instructs that, if possible, the family of the widow should take responsibility for providing for her needs. If a widow does not have family to take care of her, is at least sixty years old, was the wife of one husband, and is known for her godly life, then she can be enrolled into the church’s list of widows and the church would provide for her daily needs. While exact details of the daily life of the church in Ephesus are lacking, we find here also evidence of a system of sharing goods with those in need as well as regulations to prevent abuse of the system (Montero, 73).

While we have to work with sparse detail and implications, there is enough evidence in the New Testament to suggest that the description of the church in Jerusalem was not unique and that other congregations had at least similar manners of sharing goods. (For historical data that supports this opinion see chapters 5 and 7 of All Things in Common: The Economic Practices of the Early Christians by Roman Montero. While I do not agree with every point he makes in the book, his presentation of the historical data in support of extensive sharing within early Christianity is compelling.)

Is The Example Of The Church In Jerusalem Binding On Us?

The final question we will address in this study is whether or not the description of the early Christians sharing their goods is binding on us today. There are many commentators who agree that the early church did distribute resources to provide for those in need while also arguing that the sharing of resources to the degree found in Jerusalem is not a binding example for us. Two such examples are provided:

“Furthermore, it must be remembered that the New Testament experiment lasted but a short while, was not undertaken upon the basis of any command of Christ or the apostles, and that there was never any teaching whatever set up with a view for perpetuating what is in view here. Most importantly of all, the experiment failed, human nature proving then, as it ever has, an insurmountable obstacle forbidding the success of any such society.” (Coffman)

“[T]he communal life of the early church in Jerusalem is never made the norm for all Christians everywhere. In fact, it’s not even described as the norm for the Jerusalem church. What Acts is describing is an unusual moment in the life of the early church, when the church was still very small.” (Richards)

On the Contrary

While the remarks above are made by men who respect the Bible, it is difficult to see how the example of the church in Jerusalem is not a binding example for us to follow. First of all, Luke very deliberately describes this attitude of sharing not once, but twice and both times he presents it as a good thing. “The writer dwells with a manifest delight on this picture of what seemed to him the true ideal of a human society” (Ellicot).

Not only this, but we are told that this sharing of goods had the approval of the apostles. It was, after all, the apostles at the beginning who received and oversaw the distribution of the goods. So we have an example approved by the apostles.

Second, as we have discussed above, we have express commands in the New Testament that we are to give generously and to take care of those in need. In fact we are told that we cannot be consistent Christians and at the same time withhold our goods from those in need (ex. 1 John 3:16-18, James 2:14-17).

We have an approved example and express commands – if this doesn’t mean that the example of sharing found in Jerusalem is binding on us today, then I don’t know what else in the Bible could be binding.

I’ll allow J.W. McGarvey to have the final word on this matter:

“It must not be supposed, either, that these disciples made a mistake in the matter of their benevolence, which they found it necessary afterward to correct by acting more rationally. This supposition can be adopted only by those who deny that the apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit in directing the affairs of the church, and who at the same time fail to take into their minds an adequate conception of Christian benevolence. In reality this church was setting an example for all other churches in all time to come, by showing that true Christian benevolence requires that we shall not let our brethren in the church suffer for food, even if those of us who have houses and lands can prevent it only by the sale of our possessions.” (80-81)

Conclusion

The early church did not allow anyone to starve or be in need and everyone thought of their possessions as tools to be used to provide for the needs of their fellow Christians. There was no forced redistribution or elimination of private property. This was not a system of sharing for the sake of sharing, but a system of sharing grounded in a common faith and salvation (Guthrie, 46). Even early on there were some who tried to abuse the system. Only through church discipline and the judicious oversight of the apostles, and later the elders, could this type of system work. We need to be as generous as the church in Jerusalem while at the same time being careful, just as Paul taught the Thessalonians, to not let our sharing become a way to promote laziness and dependence.

For us to label the early church as socialist, capitalist, or communist, with all of the modern political and economic ideas tied into these labels, would be anachronistic and misleading. The early church was not really socialist, capitalist, or communist – they were Christians. “But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth” (1 John 3:17-18). We have seen how the early church fulfilled this command, now it’s up to us to decide on the most effective way for us to fulfill it.

Works Cited

Boles, H. Leo. A Commentary on Acts of the Apostles, Gospel Advocate Company, 1942.
Clarke, Adam. “Commentary on Acts 2:44”. The Adam Clarke Commentary. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/acts-2.html. 1832.
Coffman, James Burton. “Commentary on Acts 2:44”. Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/acts-2.html. Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. 1983-1999.
Ellicott, Charles John. “Commentary on Acts 2:44”. Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ebc/acts-2.html. 1905.
Guthrie, Donald. The Apostles, Zondervan Publishing House, 1975.
McGarvey, J.W.. New Commentary on Acts of Apostles, vol 1, Gospel Light Publishing Company, 1892.
Montero, Roman. All Things in Common: The Economic Practices of the Early Christians, Resource Publications, 2017.
Richards, Jay. “Was The Early Church Communist? – Christian Research Institute”. Christian Research Institute, 2019, https://www.equip.org/article/was-the-early-church-communist/.
Robertson, A.T. “Commentary on Acts 2:44”. Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/rwp/acts-2.html. Broadman Press 1932,33. Renewal 1960.