News Update

“A specter is haunting Europe—the specter of communism.”1 Written in 1848, these are the opening words of The Communist Manifesto, a protest of the corrupt capitalism that the authors witnessed afflicting the working class.2 One of the authors, Karl Marx, later expressed his communism as, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”3 At first glance, this slogan may seem sensible to a Christian reader. It should indeed, since it is inspired by Luke’s description of the early church in Acts 2:44–45 and 4:32–35.4 While Marx was not a Christian, there have been some within the church that have recently appealed to these same passages as support for communism.5 Furthermore, a recent study revealed that only half of young adults view capitalism positively.6 Are these portents that the specter of communism is now haunting evangelicalism? Does Acts teach communism or capitalism?

1. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1964) 55.

2. George Boyer, “The Historical Background of the Communist Manifesto” Journal of Economic Perspectives no. 12.4 (1998): 155.

3. Karl Marx, The Gotha Program (New York: National Executive Committee Socialist Labor Party, 1922) 31.

4. José Miranda, Communism in the Bible (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1982) 2.

5. Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: A Biblical Study (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1977) 98.

6. Lydia Saad, “Socialism as Popular as Capitalism Among Young Adults in U.S.,” Gallup, last modified November 25, 2019.

The Case for Communism

To provide some clarity on the outset of this article, the term “capitalism” will be used to refer to an economic system based in free markets and individual ownership of property. The term “communism” will be used to refer to an economic system where property is communally owned and wealth is redistributed to achieve equality. The goal of this equality is not merely economic but theological. In the communist system, wealth redistribution is the prescribed means for accomplishing salvation from socio-economic oppressors. Advocates of Christian communism claim to have undeniable support for their position in the book of Acts. As José Miranda explains, “The notion of communism is in the New Testament, right down to the letter—and so well put that in the twenty centuries since it was written no one has come up with a better definition of communism than Luke in Acts 2:44–45 and 4:32–35.”7 This reading is based upon three distinctive marks of communism: the communal ownership of property, the redistribution of wealth, and the goal of economic equality.

7. Miranda, Communism in the Bible, 1-2.

8. Andrija Krešić, “The Kingdom of God and Communism.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies, vol. 15.1 (1978): 39-40.

9. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, 209.

10. Miranda, Communism in the Bible, 7.

11. Franz Hinkelammert, The Ideological Weapons of Death (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1986), 233.

12. Miranda, Communism in the Bible, 10.

First, advocates of this position argue that the first Christians revealed their communism in the communal ownership of their property.8 Luke recorded in Acts 2:44, “And all who believed were together and had all things in common.” Additional support for this reading appears in Acts 4:32, which reads, “And no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.” As Ronald Sider clarifies, “The human right to the resources necessary to earn a just living overrides any notion of absolute private ownership.”9 This sharing of possessions was a clear response to the gospel. As Miranda explicates, “If they wanted to be Christians, the condition was communism.”10 Furthermore, unwillingness to share belongings in the early church was considered a sin punishable by death. This is reflected in the account of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. Franz Hinkelammert expounds, “Ananias’s refusal to share his goods is not treated as a sin of which he can repent. God punishes him with death.”11 Evidently, a central part of following Christ was the renunciation of all one owned.12

13. John C. Bennett, Christianity and Communism (New York: Association Press, 1948) 19.

14. Shane Claiborne, The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016) 163.

15. Roman A. Montero, All Things in Common: The Economic Practices of the Early Church (Eugene, OR: Resource, 2017) 56.

Second, Christian communists argue that the redistribution of wealth in the book of Acts indicated a communistic community.13 Acts 4:34–35 reads, “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.” Speaking of this passage, Shane Claiborne comments, “All through the New Testament we are told of how rebirth and redistribution are bound up in one another.”14 An additional example of wealth redistribution occurs in Acts 6 in the collection and redistribution of funds for the widows. Roman Montero designates this narrative as “a structure of formal communism.”15

Advocates of Christian Communism see this wealth redistribution as a means of creating economic equality. According to Sider, “God disapproves of the great extremes of wealth and poverty.”16 Miranda makes the point clearer still when he remarks, “The overwhelming documentary datum is that the Bible condemns all profit . . . The reproval of all suffices to condemn unequivocally all differentiating wealth.”17 Furthermore, it is claimed that Scripture provides mechanisms and structures that keep his people from economic inequality.18 Advocates of communism see the book of Acts as a case study in the elimination of poverty and economic inequality.19

16. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, 173.

17. Miranda, Communism in the Bible, 48-49.

18. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, 88.

19. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, 98.

Response to the Arguments for Communism

While the arguments made by advocates of communism may appear valid at first glance, closer inspection shows they fail to convince (Prov. 18:17). First, the claim that Acts 2:44 and 4:32 are evidence for communism is unpersuasive when one considers the broader context. While it is certainly true that early believers shared their resources, they also maintained personal ownership of their property. Consider the force of Peter’s questions to Ananias: “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?” (Acts 5:4). The implied answer to these questions is “yes.” This account not only fails to abolish private property ownership but rather confirms it.20 Several other passages in Acts maintain individual possession of property. John’s mother Mary is recorded as owning a home in Acts 12:12, a man named Jason owns a house in Acts 17:5, and Barnabas sold a field ‘that belonged to him’ in Acts 4:37. In Acts 2:46, a mere two verses after they were described as having “all things in common,” the church met “in their homes.”21 Evidently, the early church maintained their personal ownership of property.22 Furthermore, Ananias’ sin in Acts 5:3–4 is not his refusal to share his goods, but the sin of lying to God the Holy Spirit.

20. Pierre Viret, Thou Shalt Not Steal, trans. R. A. Sheets (Monticello, FL: Psalm 78 Ministries, 2017) 23.

21. Other examples are found in Acts 18:7, 20:20, 21:8, and 21:16.

22. Chilton, Productive Christians, 169.

Secondly, advocates of Christian communism overlook a critical fact in the description of the early church: their generosity was not coerced. As F. F. Bruce notes, “The action taken by these early disciples of Jesus was intended to be voluntary.”23 The above-mentioned account of Peter and Ananias in Acts 5:4 also clarifies this. Peter’s questions to Ananias only make sense in light of a gift given without compulsion. Gary North remarks, “The common ownership of the Jerusalem church was voluntary . . . What has this to do with modern socialism, which is compulsory, imposed on all people in a society, and is administered by bureaucrats backed up by the police? Nothing.”24 While the communistic agenda is fueled by the sin of covetousness, the disciples in the book of Acts sacrificed their personal property to bless others in need.

23. F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988) 100-101.

24. Gary North, Sacrifice and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on the Book of Acts (Dallas, GA: Point Five, 2012) 3.

Lastly, the generosity in Acts 4:34–35 was not an attempt to achieve economic equality but a solution to a unique problem. The financial sharing was done to care for the numerous new believers that were suddenly added to the community of faith (Acts 2:41; 4:4). Chilton elucidates, “Because of the urgent necessity of receiving instruction in the faith, most, if not all of these new converts stayed in Jerusalem (2:41–42). They had brought enough with them for their stay during the feasts, but they had not planned on staying in Jerusalem indefinitely.”25 Ultimately, the evidence does not point towards a goal of economic equality, but instead to remarkable charity for sudden converts.26

25. Chilton, Productive Christians, 169.

26. North, Sacrifice and Dominion, 9.

The Case for Capitalism

As demonstrated above, the book of Acts does not depict any resemblance of communism. The case for capitalism in Acts is made below.

First, the book of Acts plainly reveals distinctive marks of capitalism. According to John Davis, “The right of the individual to buy, sell, and use property is fundamental to the free market system.”27 Each of these elements are found in Luke’s account of the early church. Since personal property ownership was previously established to refute the claim of communal ownership, examples of participation in markets for the purposes of buying and selling will be examined here.

27. John J. Davis, Your Wealth in God’s World: Does the Bible Support the Free Market? (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984) 80.

Acts 4:34 states that ‘owners of lands or houses sold them’ as a means of liquidating wealth for the use of the community. Implicitly, they used a free market to offer this real estate for purchase.28 North comments, “The Jerusalem church’s members possessed property . . . Capital had been privately owned in ancient Israel, and it was privately owned in the Roman Empire.”29 The sale of Barnabas’s field in verse 37 requires both a marketplace and a buyer. The description of Lydia in Acts 16 places her capitalistic credentials alongside a description of her faith. She was both “a seller of purple goods” and “a worshiper of God.” Ostensibly, these traits are not mutually exclusive, and after her conversion, Paul and his companions implicitly approve of Lydia by staying in her home (Acts 16:15).

28. Chilton, Productive Christians, 170.

29. North, Sacrifice and Dominion, 33.

A further example of market involvement is found in Acts 18:1–3. Luke writes,

After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla . . . he went to see them, and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade.

Here is an apostle participating in a market and working with others to make goods to sell. Capitalism is assumed, unquestioned, and even leveraged for ministry by an apostle of Jesus Christ.

Another consideration for capitalism is the fact that generosity is celebrated in the book of Acts. Giving requires that property is first owned. There is no basis for generosity in communism, since the redistribution of wealth is coerced. Conversely, in a free market, generosity is a virtue precisely because it is not obligated. Luke’s celebration of generosity rests on an assumed capitalism.

Two examples provide support for this. First, Barnabas is given as a remarkable model of generosity in Acts 4:36–37. Another example of the profound generosity of the early church is found in Acts 11:29-30, which reads, “So the disciples determined, everyone according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea.” In this account, the church in Antioch voluntarily decided to collect money to send to the church in Jerusalem.30 Again, Luke’s portrayal of their generosity is another evidence of the capitalism found in the book of Acts. Bringing this into our world, we should pattern our lives after the first Christians and hold loosely to the things of this world. When we rest in the truth that our eternal inheritance is secure in heaven, we can be radically generous to others. As our Lord taught us, “It is better to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). While capitalism enables generosity, communism disables it and replaces the virtue with a vice: covetousness.

30. North, Sacrifice and Dominion, 52.

Conclusion

In this article, it was contended that only capitalism accounts for the personal property ownership, the use of marketplaces, and the veneration of generosity found in Luke’s account of the early church. In order to accomplish this task, the arguments for communism were considered and refuted. Finally, capitalism was endorsed as the economic system seen in the book of Acts. The apostles and the churches they established not only existed in a free market but participated in that system for the glory of God. The book of Acts provides no basis for communistic readings. As Davis discerns, “Our conclusion, then, is that the biblical teachings concerning property and the nature of man clearly point to the free market as the superior system.”31 Admittedly, while capitalism as expressed today is not perfect, it is the pattern seen in Luke’s ancient record of the first Christian church.

31. Davis, Your Wealth in God’s World, 85.