Were the Early Apostles Socialists?
A few months (?) ago someone emailed me and asked about the apparent socialism that the early Church practiced, as described in Acts of the Apostles. I told him I’d talk about that in a Sunday blog post. Unfortunately, I can’t find the conversation in my gmail now, so I might be doing a poor job addressing what the poor guy wanted me to discuss.
I think this is probably enough to get us going, though. Right after explaining how Peter gives a heart-rending sermon that wins some 3,000 converts, Acts 2: 42-47 says:
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. [Bold added.]
So it’s obvious why many people would think that true Christianity goes hand in hand with socialism. Now there have been many erudite essays and sermons from top-flight theologians on this topic. I am therefore going to focus on this as a free-market economist and libertarian theorist who is also a born-again Christian, since that’s where my comparative advantage lies.
==> As I explain in greater detail in this lecture, it is undeniably true that the message of the gospel is for you to trust in Christ, not in material goods. However, the Bible does not teach that riches per se are a mark of a bad person.
==> There is nothing anti-libertarian about living in a commune, so long as everything is voluntary. You can’t at all take this example and conclude that State-sponsored redistribution is Christian, anymore than forcing people to confess Jesus as Lord under penalty of torture is Christian.
==> The obvious retort to the above is this story, but even here the two people involved deceived the community of believers. The apostles didn’t go out to non-Christians and kill them for not donating their property. Furthermore, strictly speaking Peter didn’t kill them, either God did and/or their consciences killed them. So even if you want to be really hardcore about this harder story, you see it doesn’t violate libertarian ethics (since God owns everything if the Bible is true).
==> Now you might say, “OK Murphy there’s nothing inherently unlibertarian about this example of the early Church, but surely it ignores economic principles. What about the calculation problem?” Yet hold on a second. What did it say the early Christians did? They sold their property for money and then used the proceeds to buy necessities for their group. So that’s not eschewing markets, that’s taking advantage of them. (In contrast, when the children of Israel would occasionally have a wave of reform, they would destroy their idols–they didn’t sell them to their neighboring pagans.)
==> I think that if more of the world actually followed the Sermon on the Mount (or the 10 Commandments for that matter), then one offshoot would be an unbelievable increase in human productivity. For an analogy, it’s not “ignorant of the work of Mises” to think that restaurants in a libertarian society would give out tap water and bread for free. So by the same token, I imagine a world where people really did a much better job of living up to Christian ideals would be so inconceivably wealthy by our standards that it would look to socialists like their utopia–even though there would be no systematic violations of property rights.
I don’t think a person can be called a socialist if they aren’t forcing other people to “own property in common”.
The apostles owned property in common, OK, but that fact doesn’t make them Socialists, no more than a family owned business where all the family members “own a share” in the company are Socialists.
Although Plato’s police state Utopia had socialist implications, Socialism as an economic doctrine wasn’t fleshed out as the proper calling of humanity until the middle ages, when Aristotle’s attack on usury and promotion of “just prices” were re-emphasized by the church, and by which time the church and state had formed an established political alliance whereby the prospect of eschatological millenialist creeds that sought unity, and reabsorption with God, could indeed be imposed by force on whole populations.
It was these apocalyptic end of days and abolition of private property visions that motivated the extreme Socialists of the 19th century who shaped the secular economic basis of “modern” socialism today.
“However, the Bible does not teach that riches per se are a mark of a bad person.”
-“Sell all you have and give to the poor”? “Eye of a needle”?
“I think that if more of the world actually followed the Sermon on the Mount (or the 10 Commandments for that matter), then one offshoot would be an unbelievable increase in human productivity.”
-Huh?
“However, the Bible does not teach that riches per se are a mark of a bad person.”
Eh?
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:25).
“Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:21).
“Eh?”
You heard him:
“Poor is he who works with a negligent hand, But the hand of the diligent makes rich.” (Prov. 10:4)
“But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s [a]full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not [b]under your control? Why is it that you have [c]conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” (Acts 5:1-4)
Mark 10:25: The rich man can’t let go of his attachment to riches to embrace Christ (typically). It’s not saying that having the riches is what’s evil.
Fail.
Matthew 19:21: Not something he said to everyone with riches.
Fail.
Jesus was inherently non materialistic and anti world systems. This is a tough egg to swallow, especially for s hard working, free market,libertarian born again Christians such as myself. I have yet to fully reconcile this.
Then to make matters more confusing, there is the parable of the vineyard and the parable of the talents, both which seem to advocate private property, capitalism, interest, etc.
This is going to sound really bad, but the Bible is not like every other book. Meaning you cant just read it, and then forever comprehend its intent. Instead, the Bible is living. Yup, sounds hokey I know. You pray and read, read and pray, then the Bible ( Gods word to you) teaches you what YOU NEED to know at that particular moment. You, Christianity is not always objective nor rational. Its not magical, but it is spiritual.
I have been reading the same Bible for 23 years and yes the general message has remained constant but the actual daily lesson to me has changed dramatically depending on my personal life situation. This is no book, it is God talking to his children. This is how God converses with us. We cant see His face nor hear His voice, as it would be overwhelming, so instead, we read His word.
Most *christians* don’t even know what I am saying and certainly no atheist will hear my message.
” There is nothing anti-libertarian about living in a commune, so long as everything is voluntary.”
But it wasn’t voluntary. A truly voluntary arrangement of a commune would be one where people are free to terminate their association with it at any time of their own free will. But that is clearly not what Acts 5.1–11 entails.
“So even if you want to be really hardcore about this harder story, you see it doesn’t violate libertarian ethics (since God owns everything if the Bible is true).”
But that eviscerates the whole libertarian homesteading argument, for you as a Christian can never become the real absolute owner of any property, as it would always belong to god, and god demands you as a Christian do certain things with your property:
“John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.” ( Luke 3:10-11).
“Give to everyone who asks you for something. Don’t turn anyone away who wants to borrow something from you.” (Matthew 5:42 ).
“Whoever gives to the poor will lack nothing, but those who close their eyes to poverty will be cursed.” (Proverbs 28:27).
Pretty sure you should work on your own gigantic bag of contradictory beliefs before you presume that others holding contradictory beliefs is a flaw in their theories.
Shut up, he explained.
He did not explain anything, I wont tell you to shut up as this is 3rd grade speak.
“… and god demands you as a Christian do certain things with your property: …”
So … the obligation is to god, not the government – or even to the poor.
Still no violent interventions required by the government.
“Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:7)
You nailed it. These story’s in Acts are about a group of like minded people ( Christians) who are voluntarily cooperating to spread Gods message, an incredibly anti government message I may add.
So yes, Acts does advocate some communal sharing.
However the entire New Testament does not take this same position. Parable of the vineyards, parable of the talents an many other passages advocate private property and free exchange. Jesus equates sinners, tax collectors and prostitutes.
Paul is the major figure of the NT and his main theme is on of a repentant tax collector.
Heck, even the 10 commandments prohibits socialism. Thou shall not; steal, covet nor murder. Those 3 prohibitions, make government forced socialism, impossible. Take away the guns and government immediately and spontaneously, dissolves, self abolishes and disappears. Then Jesus COMANDS you love HIM with all your heart. Most socialist I know, love government.
Taxes:
(1) Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.
(2) St Paul, Romans 13.1–7 (written c. 56 AD):
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due to them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due.”
(3) Titus 3:1:
“Remind them (viz., believing Christians) to be subject to the rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work …”
(4) 1 Peter, 2.13–15, 17:
“For the sake of the Lord, submit to every human institution, whether to the emperor as the supreme authority, or to the governors sent by the emperor to punish evildoers and to praise those doing good … Honour the emperor.”
(1) Private property; Caesar’s property. Not “Render unto Caesar what belongs to everyone.”
(2) & (3) Again, what constitutes legitimate authority? Numbers, Intimidation? Property rights which are logically prior to governments?
(4) Private property; the Emporer’s authority as owner; the governors’ authority as delegated by the Emporer.
The Law by Frederic Bastiat
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/bastiat/the_law.html
“If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.“
Correction: I bolded the wrong part. I should have bolded the 2nd and 3rd sentences.
Mark 2: 15
15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
LK, either Jesus is a liar or your interpretation of Romans 13 if wrong.
Paul was explain what a God ordained government is, 1 that brings NO terror to goodness and punishes evil. This kind of government is to be respected.
I am still looking for this king of government yet not holding my breath.
“So … the obligation is to god, not the government – or even to the poor.”
That doesn’t address what I said: that eviscerates the whole libertarian homesteading argument, for you as a Christian can never become the real absolute owner of any property, as it would always belong to god, and god demands you as a Christian do certain things with your property:
“John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.” ( Luke 3:10-11).
“Give to everyone who asks you for something. Don’t turn anyone away who wants to borrow something from you.” (Matthew 5:42 ).
“That doesn’t address what I said: that eviscerates the whole libertarian homesteading argument, for you as a Christian can never become the real absolute owner of any property, as it would always belong to god, and god demands you as a Christian do certain things with your property:”
The command to not steal proves that you’re wrong. You can’t steal something that doesn’t belong to anyone.
More fundamentally, though, even though god is the absolute owner because he’s the creator, delegated authority is sufficient to bestow the right of homesteading in the senses that matter.
Also, non-Christians own property, in the biblical paradigm.
Further still, Acts 5 explicitly acknowledges that Ananias and Sapphira had property rights to both 1) their property, and 2) the money they got from selling their property. They weren’t killed for refusing to give all of their money, but for lying.
“That doesn’t address what I said: that eviscerates the whole libertarian homesteading argument”
No it doesn’t. The homesteading argument was only ever about who had the highest claim to property. Even if God has claim A, a man could have claim B and that would be good enough to keep a different man from enforcing claim C. B would still get to act as if he had full property rights until god stepped in and said otherwise.
One of Ron Paul’s favorites:
““You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house differing measures, a large and a small. You shall have a full and just weight; you shall have a full and just measure, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you. For everyone who does these things, everyone who acts unjustly is an abomination to the Lord your God.” (Deut. 25:13-16)
Honest weights and measures are for weighing precious metals for use in trade.
According to the Bible, attempting to pass off paper as money would be fraud.
Correction: The weights are for money, not the measures.
“But it wasn’t voluntary. A truly voluntary arrangement of a commune would be one where people are free to terminate their association with it at any time of their own free will. But that is clearly not what Acts 5.1–11 entails.”
Wrong. Verse 4 shows clearly that private property was affirmed and their contribution was voluntary:
“Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?”
“But it wasn’t voluntary. A truly voluntary arrangement of a commune would be one where people are free to terminate their association with it at any time of their own free will. But that is clearly not what Acts 5.1–11 entails.”
Verse 4 shows clearly that private property was affirmed and their contribution was voluntary:
“Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?”
>A truly voluntary arrangement of a commune would be one where people are free to terminate their association with it at any time of their own free will.
That’s like saying a voluntary transaction must allow take-backsies at any later time or it’s not truly voluntary.
And what’s up with “their association with *it*”, as if “the commune” was what the individual was associating with, rather than the individuals which *comprise* the commune.
Only individuals can make associations.
A better answer is that the apostles expected the world to end immense were not concerned with the best way to produce or distribute wealth over the long term. Their concern was to make sure no one was left out right now.
Autocorrect is not your friend. Immediately not immense.
Left out of the Kingdom of Heaven, not left out of the community pot.
Paul had zero possession and was bondservant of Christ. Meaning Paul did is all for free, joyfully. I always blush a little when modern Pastors refer to themselves as bondservants.
This sums up Christianity perfectly.
Good Cop’s minions:
“We totally saw him do miracles; You can believe us. *grin*
“Here, we’ll prove it by becoming martyrs. MUAHAHA
“(Did they fall for it? We don’t know because martyrdom.)”
[“They sold their property for money and then used the proceeds to buy necessities for their group. So that’s not eschewing markets, that’s taking advantage of them.”]
Wouldn’t there have to be near egalitarianism before higher order goods could significantly come into existence? Any capital accumulated by one individual or group due to increased productivity would have to be donated to a less-wealthy individual or group. Maybe I’m off-based, but it seems that under christian values, prior to higher-order goods being assembled and accompanying divisions of labor developed, all inferior groups (the “poor”) must be sustained. “Profits” would only seem to occur once all living humans are sustained.
Personally I think people read too much into the passages about the Early Apostles “holding everything in common.” Acts 4:32 says that “all the believers were one in heart and mind.” That wasn’t meant literally, and neither was the verse about holding everything in common.
Some reasons to think the verse wasn’t meant literally:
1) if the early Christians did live communally, it didn’t last long. In Acts 12 when Peter escapes from prison he goes to the private home of a Christian (who also has her own servants). The communities Paul visits later in Acts also aren’t organized communally. And yet, if there was a change, it’s not mentioned or alluded to in any of the scriptures (which would be curious, since it would be a significant change).
2) When Peter rebukes Ananias for holding back some of the money, he specifically says that he didn’t have to sell his property and give the money to the Apostles. That would be a strange thing to say if in fact this was required of the believers.
3) Also, if all the Christians were selling everything and living communally, what was Ananias planning to do with the money he held back? It’s not like he could’ve spent it without giving himself away.
4) Also, right before the Ananias episode, Acts 4 makes a big deal out of the fact that Barnabas had sold a field he owned and had given the money to the Apostles. But why specially mention this if it was something all the Christians had to do?
Good points Josiah.
Josiah has great points. He’s very good with all the points.
They were simply throwing what little they had into 1 pot, so they could begin their mission. It was by no way a call to global socialism, forcefully backed.
The Bible always paints government in a negative light and does nothing to provide governmental blueprint.
Another situation like this is when a Pastor wants to build a new church, he will use Nehemiah 2:18 as the Biblical mandate to build. Nehemia says ” Let us rebuild” Nehemiah is about a group of people rebuilding a wall around their own commune in an attempt to WALL themselves off from worldly systems. When is the last time you saw a church not in bed with the world.
Funny how hard some people try and stretch the Bible to justify their position that only exist in their own heart.
“The Bible always paints government in a negative light “
St Paul, Romans 13.1–7 (written c. 56 AD):
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and ***those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.*** Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due to them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due.”
Yep, the Bible “always paints government in a negative light “. hahaha.
It could be argued that the very early Christians were holding things in common because they thought that Jesus’ return was imminent – meaning within very short order after the crucifixion. As the distance from the crucifixion increased the theology matured and the emphasis on “communal” living went away because the believers had to get on with the business of real life and not waiting for the return. This position goes along with the “thief in the night” stuff and the verses about not even Jesus knowing the hour of his return and so on. As the imminent return did not materialize the tack turned to an unknown future return of Jesus.
Just a thought that might explain the attractiveness of short-term “communal” living and the evolution away from that position.