There was some discussion on a friend’s blog responding to a nonbeliever’s assertion that Acts 5 demonstrate that the early Christians were Communists. Acts 5:1-16 is the passage concerning Ananias and Sapphira.
I’ve reproduced my comment here with slight editorial change:
I think the fact that Acts 5 still acknowledged private property does not sit well with a Marxist reading of Acts 5. Specifically, the Apostle Peter in verse four affirmed the right of private property when he asked Ananias: “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not [b]under your control?”
I would also add that the communal passages such as the one you mentioned here in Acts 5 and also Acts 2:44-45 must also be interpreted in the light of the larger flow of the book of Acts.
We must remember that Acts 1:8 is the “controlling” verse for the direction of the book of Acts. Acts 1:8 is the command Jesus gave the disciples: “but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” Note there is an emphasis by Jesus that the Gospel is to go outward that comport with Matthew 28:19-20 (what is commonly called the Great Commission).
It seems in light of Acts 1:8 that this gathering of an internal community sharing things in common is not the thing that Jesus or Acts want to stress as normative for the Christian, but it ought to be one of reaching out. In fact it took God bringing a persecution in Acts 8:1-5 that the Acts 1:8 plan gets unfolded (I think my interpretation is justified, note the echoes of Acts 1:8 in Acts 8:1-5 with the term “Jerusalem,” “Judea” and especially the multiple reference to “Samaria.” This point must not be missed).
Acts 8 onwards is more closer to us in terms of the Christian church era and I think Acts 2-7 with the believers gathering together fits in a specific context of Redemptive History in that it was the early Post-Pentecost age when believers from around the world was still getting to know the Gospel more deeply before eventually going back “home” to all the different parts of the Roman empire (see Acts 2 again) and beyond.
I think to pull these passages as supporting Communism does not take into account the immediate context within Acts 5 nor does it take into account the context of the uniqueness of the event in Redemptive History. In other words, the case for communism from Acts 2 and 5 fail.
In my next post on Wednesday I will address the issue of the term communism, Marxism and the Soviet State.
The Domain for Truth 
Excellent. I am looking forward to the follow up.
James
Sorry that I’m generally slow in critiques and responses
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging and commented:
It’s also important to remember that The Great Commission proclaimed by Christ is not a political movement.
Thanks for Sharon this
You’re welcome Jim! Hope Sharon liked it too 😉
Ah, my phone’s auto-correct did that. “Sharing” =)
Lol….if I had a nickel every time that happened to me, I’d already own Logos Diamond Package
LOL
Yep, in addition, there was no taxing body, no governing mandate to give or not give, yea, kinda like grace!
As a matter of fact, God’s people would learn to give as God prospered; but there was still rent to pay, products to make, (tents, fabric, etc) and taxes to pay.
The believers who sold land etc, still paid tribute to Caesar as it were. The idea of forced communism is simply a tool put forth by unbelievers to try to find weaknesses in God, his people, and his word.
Good point that further question the thesis that early Christianity is Communistic
Reblogged this on My Delight and My Counsellors.
I appreciate you reblogging this!
A very nice explanation of the text, SJ. Thumbs up!!!
Thanks for reading this Levi!
Thanks for the detailed look at this text. Looking forward to part 2. It was a blessing!
You’re welcome. Part 2 will be less with the Bible but more with definitions and with the atheist’s problematic response to the content of this post.
Sometimes some presuppositional matter must be cleared before we advance further =)
[…] See Part 1 […]
Reblogged this on The Isaiah 53:5 Project.
Thanks for sharing this
Reblogged this on Ancient Abandon and commented:
Here’s an excellent series on an argument that many have: “The early Christians were communists!”
Thank you for re-blogging this!
Reblogged on href=”http://ancientabandon.com”>Ancient Abandon
=)
[…] Were Early Christians Communists? Part 1: Acts 5 […]
I love your contrast here. You point to the great commision, which is the Gospel, which is a spiritual thing, and contrast that with a few material things owned by Ananias and Sapphira. The natural man cannot discern spiritual things. He is trapped in a materialistic naturalistic world; a world in which he appears from seemingly nothing, and judges everything. It only makes sense, from this materialistic point of view, that material, and who has how much of what of it, is the basis for all righteousness for man. They kick and scream, not because of the unfairness they perceive for others, but rather for the unfairness they perceive for themselves, and then after a little while they slip back into the nothingness from whence they came, only to be forgotten.
I like this: “They kick and scream, not because of the unfairness they perceive for others, but rather for the unfairness they perceive for themselves, and then after a little while they slip back into the nothingness from whence they came, only to be forgotten”
It really reduces a secular Marxist (or progressives as well) worldview with their “social justice” to meaninglessness in light of their view of no life after death.
Thanks Danny for commenting!