Individuals contemplating a communal lifestyle patterned after the second and fourth chapters of Acts should proceed with much deliberation and serious caution. Why so? Well, simply put, the communal pattern illustrated in Acts failed miserably and all who participated had to be economically supported by other churches later, according to various New Testament letters. These other churches weren’t erected according to the same communal template as embraced by the Jerusalem church, at least if the silence of actually doing so within the text(s) is any indication. No, the only church in the New Testament requiring welfare support was the church populated by folks who “…sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need” (Acts 2.45); and “…sold their land and houses and laid the proceeds at the apostles feet” (Acts 4.34-35).
This one failed communal pattern is, however, no indictment against modern democratic socialism. It is rather an indictment or historical witness to the reckless impulsiveness of a small religious movement which failed to consider its larger socio-political setting. This setting was obviously not conducive to minority economics and refused to play host to a small band of well meaning communists (in theory, at the least). The result was poverty and they needed a bailout.
The aforementioned impulsiveness begins in Jerusalem and immediately follows the emotional message delivered to the “men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem” by Peter (Acts 2.14) on the day of Pentecost. The sermon results in thousands of conversions, three thousand men to be exact (women and children were not counted). Shortly after this event the new converts began selling their possessions and goods and giving the money to the church. This seemingly selfless act on the part of these new converts became the descriptive norm of the socio-economic behavior of Jerusalem believers (Acts 2.43-47). It is followed by a pair of stories meant to strongly reinforce the act through use of “a similar description and a positive example of ’selling and sharing all’ in Barnabas (4.32-37),” and “a negative example in Ananias and Sapphira (5.1-11)” (Tat-siong Liew 421).
Acts chapter four is also more explicit as regards the specifics of believers “selling and sharing all.” The second chapter merely cites “possessions” and “goods” as being discarded, but in the fourth chapter these possessions and goods take the form of “land” and “homes,” and were dispensed with by “as many as were possessors” of them (Acts 4.34). The proceeds, which the community obviously thought would last forever, were again laid at the Apostles feet who would distribute it as needed.
The Jerusalem Church apostles, who obviously sanctioned the communal act and represented holy death to any who did not participate properly, lacked serious leadership ability and vision. Did these leaders not consider the possibility of a depleted church savings account? Did these leaders not consider the ramifications of filling a church – which was built in a society struggling between agrarian and urban culture – with self-induced homelessness and landlessness? Did they not consider the detrimental effects the larger socio-economic ideology of the land and/or empire would have upon their people as they recklessly rushed to build a ‘Kingdom of God’ with their very, very small minority? Did these leaders even consider the additional stress such economic behavior would place upon their community? Did these leaders ever dream the day would come when they would be financially supported by Gentiles? The answer, to all of the above: Probably not.
Paul, if the texts are a reliable indication, single handedly led the effort to bailout the Jerusalem Church and save it from its self-induced poverty. Other churches were summoned for aid, and were actually in a position to provide it without going bankrupt themselves. Their ability to do so, it seems, is the direct result of their members refraining from selling their own land, homes, and goods.
The first example is found in Acts 11.27, where a collection was gathered at Antioch and delivered to the Jerusalem Church by Paul and Barnabas. In Antioch, however, and in contrast to Jerusalem, “Every one,” gave toward the collection, “according to his ability” (Acts 11.29). This is a clear departure from the economic practices of the Jerusalem Church. The faithful were not pictured as “selling all,” but instead “giving according to his ability.” That difference should not be ignored.
The second example is in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Paul, in Romans 15.26, writes: “At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem with aid for the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints of Jerusalem …” (Romans 15.25-26). This aid passage also reveals a chasm between the financial practices of the respective congregations in 15.28’s declaration of Paul delivering to Jerusalem what “has been raised,” which reflects a free offering based upon autonomous and charitable giving, rather than strict demands upon a congregation’s total sacrifice of personal possessions.
A third and even more informative instance of the necessity to financially support the misguided economics of the Jerusalem Church can be located in 1 Corinthians 16.1. The text illustrates a growing realization of the detriment of “selling all” for the sake of the community. Paul, “concerning the contribution for the saints,” writes: “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come” (1 Cor. 16.1-2). “Putting aside” is a departure from “giving all,” and the suggestion of “growing prosperity” emphasizes this reality.
Finally, in 2 Corinthians, Paul is soliciting contributions for the Jerusalem saints from a church that is now strong economically, to the point of being ready to give to the saints for more than a year now (2 Cor. 9.2). The economic growth of this church seems to take Paul by surprise. The apostle even sends for the collection early just to be sure the rumor is true. In any case, the Corinthian church is doing much better than the church in Jerusalem.
Any zealous reader of the New Testament who desires to extract portions of religious narrative history and implement it into their own lifetime must be diligent and critically examine that which they would emulate.
Alternative Christian communities may indeed be founded, and may succeed, in spite of the failure of the community illustrated in the 2nd and 4th chapters of Acts. That said, members of these successful – and rare – alternative Christian communities would do well to not accredit their success to the model found in the above text. Acts 2 and 4 are not examples of successful alternative Christian community. The rest of the New Testament reveals a community that failed and needed a bailout. At best, Acts 2 and 4 represents leadership and community gone wrong as a result of emotion, poor planning, and bad economics. It was a community that doomed itself to economic failure. Luckily, other churches did not follow suit and were there to bail them out in the end.
Works Cited:
Tat-siong Liew, Benny. Acts. Global Bible Commentary. Eds. Daniel Patte and Teresa Okure. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005.
Related posts:
Interesting article, Shawn. Communism fails, even in those rare cases where it’s attempted with the noblest Christian intents. It does nothing to encourage excellence. The Pilgrims at Plymouth learned this too.
From William Bradford: from History of Plymouth Plantation, c. 1650.
Private and communal farming (1623)
All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.
The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.
Plymouth Pilgrims = Another Good Example. Thanks, Bill!
Brother Shawn wrote:
“The rest of the New Testament reveals a community that failed and needed a bailout. At best, Acts 2 and 4 represents leadership and community gone wrong as a result of emotion, poor planning, and bad economics. It was a community that doomed itself to economic failure. Luckily, other churches did not follow suit and were there to bail them out in the end.”
The community of believers were not doomed by emotion, poor planning, and bad economics. Nor were the shepherds, the apostles, lacking in their care for the flock. Rather they were doomed because of the persecution that arose because they were sold out for Christ. Christ taught His apostles this…
John 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. 27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning. 1 “These things I have spoken to you, that you should not be made to stumble. 2 They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. 3 And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me. 4 But these things I have told you, that when the time comes, you may remember that I told you of them.”
A spirit led disciple of Christ will be hated by those who remain the sons of disobedience. So in the book of Acts we find that what Jesus said above came true.
Acts 8:1 Now Saul was consenting to his death.
At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. 2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
Acts 8:3 As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison.
Acts 8:4 Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word.
One will find in Scripture, that where God is glorified amongst the believers, persecution is a daily byproduct of their love for God.
Rev. 3:7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write,
“These things says He who is holy, He who is true, ‘He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens”: 8 “I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it; for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name. 9 Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. 10 Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.”
The apostles had the wisdom that comes from Christ, and the world hated them for that reason. To put one’s faith in the economic precepts of this world is vanity.
In Christ
Jeff
Jeff, you wrote, “The community of believers were not doomed by emotion, poor planning, and bad economics. Nor were the shepherds, the apostles, lacking in their care for the flock. Rather they were doomed because of the persecution that arose because they were sold out for Christ. Christ taught His apostles this…
What are you talking about, brother? You are really misfiring in this case, and a million proof texts will not help. First of all, Saul persecuted Christians that were still gathering in the synagogues. His mission was to expel them from synagogues (due to their “heresy”). Secondly, the economic hardship the Jerusalem church faced was not a result of the “sons of disobedience” and their hatred, but because they literally liquidated their already meager assets and had nothing left to sustain themselves. You are over spiritualizing this, Jeff.
You then wrote, “The apostles had the wisdom that comes from Christ, and the world hated them for that reason. To put one’s faith in the economic precepts of this world is vanity.”
Do you have a job, Jeff? Do you own your house? Do you have a bank account? Do you have kids? Do you hope these kids go to school so they can get a good job to support themselves and their families? Or do you actually tell them that “the economic precepts of this world are all vanity?”
Furthermore, you sound as if you are saying that because “the apostles had the wisdom that comes from Christ” they were exempt from bad decisions and mistakes. Are you really trying to say that sort of thing? If so, how do you deal with the fact the Apostle Peter was still prejudiced until the vision he had on the rooftop in Acts? That revelation came long after the Jerusalem church financial decision, right? So, it would be safe to say, in your hermeneutic, that the Jerusalem financial decision was made by apostles who need more spiritual fulfilling, right?
You are stretching for hermeneutic fixes here, Jeff.
Brother Shawn wrote:
“First of all, Saul persecuted Christians that were still gathering in the synagogues. His mission was to expel them from synagogues (due to their “heresy”).
In our midst we find the old order Amish and Mennonite which will serve as the point I have stated. Have you ever considered what happens to a member of these communities when they confess Christ and are born again? What happens to those whom are “expelled” by the Sauls of our day? How does the expulsion affect the “economic” condition of the one being expelled?
In Christ
Jeff
Brother Shawn also wrote this:
“Furthermore, you sound as if you are saying that because “the apostles had the wisdom that comes from Christ” they were exempt from bad decisions and mistakes.”
What you consider “bad or mistakes” depends on whether your view emanates from the kingdom of God or the kingdom of Satan.
In Christ
jeff
Jeff, I seriously have no idea what this has to do with the Jerusalem church completely liquidating their personal assets. Even if what you say is relevant – which I doubt – than it just makes the liquidation of these assets even more unwise, unless, of course, you would call “selling all that you have left, after being expelled by a community that helped you economically” a wise thing to do. It’s as if you are saying that the Jerusalem church said, “Hey, thanks to the synagogue expulsion we are poor! What can we do to make ourselves even poorer? I know! Let’s sell everything we own and give all of the money away!”
Either way, this was not a clearly thought out plan. And the bailout led by Paul and other churches who did not follow this plan is a witness to that fact.
Also, at the risk of going completely of course, I have to say that your opinions of Amish and Mennonites seems to be seriously skewed. Are you really suggesting that these communities are not “Christian?” It seems so because you said “when” members of these communities “confess Christ” and are “born again” they are expelled. And then you refer to Amish and Mennonites as “the Sauls of our day.” Wow! Would you explain that to me?
Thanks, Jeff.
Jeff, seriously, the above statement makes no sense at all. What are you trying to say, and how does this have anything at all to do with the question(s) I asked you?
Go re-read my original question(s) and if you do want to have a conversation, then do try to respond with something relevant.
Brother Shawn wrote:
“Jeff, I seriously have no idea what this has to do with the Jerusalem church completely liquidating their personal assets. Even if what you say is relevant – which I doubt – than it just makes the liquidation of these assets even more unwise, unless, of course, you would call “selling all that you have left, after being expelled by a community that helped you economically” a wise thing to do.”
What I am saying is this, because these believers left their culture, they suffered loss in many different areas of their lives. But not all were poor when they entered into a relationship with Christ. We know that the Holy Spirit was working powerfully in the church at that time. We know that the love for God was being grown in the individual. We know this because of the testimony of those who provided for those who were lacking in physical needs.
Apostle John writes this….
1John 3:16 By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?
So we see that the brethren who has the world’s goods, laid down his life to care for his true brother in Christ. This is the outward evidence of what God had done in the hearts of those who were born again and sought to live according to the word of God.
Brother Shawn wrote:
Are you really suggesting that these communities are not “Christian?” It seems so because you said “when” members of these communities “confess Christ” and are “born again” they are expelled. And then you refer to Amish and Mennonites as “the Sauls of our day.” Wow! Would you explain that to me?”
I was only testifying of what I witnessed when I attended a men’s leadership conference for 7 days in Ephrata Pa, in February 2008. I heard many witnesses of what God did for men who once were lost in the practice of culture versus a real Spirit lead life in the Lord. I would recommend that all who have ears might attend the next conference in 2010, sponsored by Charity Christian Fellowship who reaches out to the old order Amish and Mennonite.
In Christ
Jeff
I honestly have no idea what you are saying, Jeff, as regards the Jerusalem Church and their liquidation of assets. :)
Those early believers didn’t leave their culture, and their livelihood wasn’t dependent upon their synagogue attendance, and they became dirt poor because they sold all of their stuff, and gave it to the church, and then, when the money was used up, they required a church bailout led by Paul.
You seem to be tossing around spiritual sounding stuff attached to proof texts that you rip out of context, and I’m not even sure what you are trying to say by doing so. In one small paragraph, please articulate whatever it is you are trying to say …
Brother Shawn asked that I strive to be more concise, so I will try.
Brother Shawn wrote this…
“The Jerusalem Church apostles, who obviously sanctioned the communal act and represented holy death to any who did not participate properly, lacked serious leadership ability and vision.”
This statement is not true according to the Scriptures. Paul teaches this in Ephesians chapter 4.
Eph. 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
So here we learn that Christ appoints shepherds who will equip the saints in a way that promotes unity according to faith and that these saints grow to be mature believers.
And according to the testimony given to us in Scripture we know this of the Jerusalem church.
Acts 4:32 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. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all.
So we see that the Apostles who were led by Christ were great in leadership and vision because unity of heart and mind that manifested itself in the church of Jerusalem. This testimony of the church in Jerusalem does not speak about economy or communal living but rather the work of God in each individual’s heart. The distribution of earthly possessions was done to meet the needs of those believers who were lacking. This again is taught by the Apostle John.
1John 3:16 By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?
The members of the Jerusalem church truly did love God and their fellow brother. They laid down their lives for their brethren. Those who had the world’s goods saw that there were brethren in need. They responded biblically to meet those needs. By this we know that the Jerusalem church was abiding in Christ.
Brother Shawn wrote:
“Did these leaders not consider the possibility of a depleted church savings account? Did these leaders not consider the ramifications of filling a church – which was built in a society struggling between agrarian and urban culture – with self-induced homelessness and landlessness? Did they not consider the detrimental effects the larger socio-economic ideology of the land and/or empire would have upon their people as they recklessly rushed to build a ‘Kingdom of God’ with their very, very small minority? Did these leaders even consider the additional stress such economic behavior would place upon their community?”
These questions are seated in the culture of this world. Abraham was homeless, who took care of him? Job was stripped of his worldly possessions, who took care of him? Stephen lost his life, who took care of him? The Apostles depended on Christ for their direction through the work of the Holy Spirit. They had no need to meditate on “socio-economic ideology,” because Christ was their source of wisdom.
Brother Shawn wrote:
“Finally, in 2 Corinthians, Paul is soliciting contributions for the Jerusalem saints from a church that is now strong economically, to the point of being ready to give to the saints for more than a year now (2 Cor. 9.2). The economic growth of this church seems to take Paul by surprise. The apostle even sends for the collection early just to be sure the rumor is true. In any case, the Corinthian church is doing much better than the church in Jerusalem.”
You use the Corinthian church as an example of proper stewardship of financial resources. But you have not considered the effect of persecution that the Jerusalem church had undergone for 20 years. Paul was converted in 33 AD. Listen to his testimony of what he accomplished prior to his conversion.
Acts 26:9 “Indeed, I myself thought I must do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 This I also did in Jerusalem, and many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. 11 And I punished them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.
In Acts chapter 8 we have this testimony.
1 Now Saul was consenting to his death.
At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. 2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
Acts 8:3 As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison.
We find that the Jerusalem church was persecuted, Saul created “havoc of the church.” He entered in “every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison.” Now how can economic prosperity be maintain in the midst of this type of persecution? Was this lack of economic strength due to the lack of Apostolic leadership or to Satan’s devises?
As a side note the Corinthian church had fallen far short of the unity and love that was exhibited in the church of Jerusalem.
In Christ
Jeff
LOL! That’s what you call concise, Jeff? Try it one, small paragraph. Why do I ask this of you? Because y ou are all over the place, Jeff. I’m having difficulty in even making sense of what you are trying to say because you over-spiritualize,take texts out of context, and stretch exegesis to the point that it nearly unrecognizable.
Also, you do not have to call me “brother” all the time, Jeff.
So, how about one small summary of your thoughts regarding the economic decision of the Jerusalem church and the Paul-led bailout, in your own words.
Shawn: Okay let us focus on one thought that I just wrote:
You use the Corinthian church as an example of proper stewardship of financial resources. But you have not considered the effect of persecution that the Jerusalem church had undergone for 20 years. Paul was converted in 33 AD. Listen to his testimony of what he accomplished prior to his conversion.
Acts 26:9 “Indeed, I myself thought I must do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 This I also did in Jerusalem, and many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. 11 And I punished them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.
In Acts chapter 8 we have this testimony.
1 Now Saul was consenting to his death.
At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. 2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
Acts 8:3 As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison.
We find that the Jerusalem church was persecuted, Saul created “havoc of the church.” He entered in “every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison.” Now how can economic prosperity be maintain in the midst of this type of persecution? Was this lack of economic strength due to the lack of Apostolic leadership or to Satan’s devises?
As a side note the Corinthian church had fallen far short of the unity and love that was exhibited in the church of Jerusalem.
In Christ
Jeff
Shawn wrote:
“The first example is found in Acts 11.27, where a collection was gathered at Antioch and delivered to the Jerusalem Church by Paul and Barnabas. In Antioch, however, and in contrast to Jerusalem, “Every one,” gave toward the collection, “according to his ability” (Acts 11.29). This is a clear departure from the economic practices of the Jerusalem Church. The faithful were not pictured as “selling all,” but instead “giving according to his ability.” That difference should not be ignored.”
The Scriptures which speak to the collections taken up for the Jerusalem church have no bearing on the “economic practices” of each regional church. The brethren within an individual church are responsible to one another. The call of the Holy Spirit upon the local church, whether it is in Lancaster or Kiev, will not differ. We as the brothers and sisters in Christ, if we are growing in the unity of the word of God and Spirit, will be challenged by the Spirit to meet the needs of the local congregation.
The examples you site refer to how the universal church should care for those churches that are experiencing persecution brought on by Satan.
In Christ
Jeff
Jeff, your thoughts, while appreciated, make almost no sense to me at all, given the texts and contexts of this study. You are veering off into places that have little to do with the topic at hand.
Furthermore, it sounds like that your main presupposition has something to do with disciples who have exhausted all knowledge because of the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ. You sound as if you are suggesting that the disciples could not possibly make bad leadership decisions because the Spirit of Christ’s indwelling. This is far from reality.
The disciples/apostles themselves, while indwelt by the Spirit, still were developing and growing and learning about themselves, the church, and God. If you need a specific examples of this do a study on the developing eschatology in the Gospels. If something as serious as eschatology was continuously developed over time, rather than “downloaded” all at once and exhaustively at the moment of Spirit indwelling, then something like fiscal sensibility doesn’t seem so far fetched, does it?
Again, I understand your position, and I disagree with the little I can understand of it.
So, we have reached the end of this discussion, Jeff. Thank you.
Shawn wrote:
“Furthermore, it sounds like that your main presupposition has something to do with disciples who have exhausted all knowledge because of the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ.”
What do you mean by “exhausted all knowledge.”