Were the Early Christians Socialists?
"Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need." (Acts 2:44-45)
Were the early Christians in Jerusalem socialists? Did believers sell all their property and put the proceeds into a communal fund? Was the church living by Marx's motto: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?" Some Christian socialists think so, but protestant commentators have overwhelmingly rejected this understanding of the early church in Acts. John Calvin, Matthew Henry, John Gill, Matthew Poole, J.A. Alexander, and several other commentators denied that the believers in Jerusalem relinquished their property rights and lived from a common fund.
What then does it mean to have all things in common?
Matthew Henry says, "There was such a concern for one another, and such a readiness to help one another... that it might be said, they had all things common, according to the law of friendship." John Gill says, "No man called anything peculiarly his own; and whatever he had, his brother was welcome to, and might as freely take, and use it, as if it was his own." The Geneva Bible (1587) says, "Charity makes all things common with regard to their use, according as necessity requires." None of these commentators thought the Jerusalem church lived out of a common treasury; they understood "all things in common" to mean believers lived as though their possessions were not their own.
Calvin says, "They brought forth and made common their goods in no other respect, save only that they might relieve the present necessity...the goods were not equally divided, but there was a discreet distribution made." Whenever needs arose, believers sold their possessions (which were theirs) and took the proceeds (which remained theirs) to the apostles, who distributed the money to the needy. Having "all things in common" did not mean selling all they had and living out of a common fund, it meant they lived as though their wealth was available to any in need.
Acts 4:32 confirms this understanding: "Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common." J.A. Alexander explains: "No one regarded his possessions as belonging absolutely to himself, but as a trust for the benefit of others also." The phrase "neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own" explains what having "all things in common" means. Believers did not renounce property ownership but treated their property as though it belonged to God and was available to any with needs.
Luke explains the practical outworking of this attitude in Jerusalem: "All who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need." (Acts 4:34-35) They did not sell all they owned to live out of a common fund, but sold land or houses and gave the proceeds to the apostles who distributed them to the needy. This was not socialism, but it was extraordinary generosity.
Barnabas serves as a specific example of what was happening. He sold a tract of land and laid the proceeds at the apostles' feet. (Acts 4:36-7) Barnabas did not sell all his property, but sold a particular tract of land (NASB) or field (ESV), giving the proceeds to the church for relief of the poor. Luke mentions nothing of his relinquishing the right to all property or living out of a common fund. Matthew Poole concludes, "There is no such thing as community of goods here required or practiced."
If, however, you doubt the interpretation of these esteemed commentators and insist that early believers were relinquishing all property rights to live out of a common treasury, you must reckon with the Apostle Peter's words to Ananias.
Ananias and Sapphira had sold some land and kept back part of the proceeds, while pretending to lay all the proceeds at the apostles' feet. Peter knew of this deception and rebuked Ananias saying, "Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. (Acts 5:3-5)
God did not punish Ananias and Sapphira for stubbornly retaining their property rights. God punished them for lying to the Holy Spirit. (Acts 5:3) In rebuking Ananias, Peter explicitly affirms Ananias' property rights, saying, "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?" (Acts 5:4) Christians were not required to sell all their property and give all the proceeds to the church. Their property belonged to them, and the proceeds were theirs after the sale. Ananias and Sapphira could have contributed all, none, or some of their wealth to the relief of the poor, but they could not lie to God.
This was not socialism. Socialism rejects private ownership. Socialism works by compulsion: the taxman backed by the sword, taking wealth from the rich and giving it to the poor. What Luke describes is extraordinary charity, believers sacrificially giving in order to meet the needs of poor brothers. Nothing in the behavior of the early Christians supports socialism, and socialists who invoke the practice of the Jerusalem church have not come to grips with Peter’s words to Ananias: “While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?”
The Christian solution to poverty is not socialism but a generosity that stores up riches in heaven, believers living and giving as though their wealth belongs to God and His kingdom, because it does.