Would you like to see what we have written on a subject? Use the search below.

[If you purchase anything on this site, I may make a commission. Disclosure Policy]

Is Christian Socialism
Taught In Acts 2?

Does Acts 2:44-47 teach Christian socialism? Are Christians expected to hold everything in common? Many have thought so over the ages, including our present time. Some have even believed that wives are to be held in common! Nevertheless, let us take a look at the Scripture in question.

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Acts 2:44-47

Before we can answer the above question, we have to answer three other questions.

1. What is socialism?
2. What is the context of this Scripture?
3. Are we being instructed to follow their example?

Sitemap - Newsletter - Statement Of Faith - Donate
Follow us on social media for daily Scripture comments and more at MeWe, Facebook or YouTube.

What Is Socialism?

The Collins English Dictionary, as quoted on thefreedictionary.com, defines socialism this way:

1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels. Compare capitalism

2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system

3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need.

Given this definition, does Acts 2 display Christian socialism? Socialism is usually carried out by the civil government. They require their citizens to surrender their private property for the common good. In some cases, to maintain an appearance of freedom, like in Canada and the US, wealth is usually taken by taxation and inflation rather than the actual seizure of property. In any case, such measures are violently enforced on all who want to retain their property.

The above Scripture has many aspects of socialism. Everyone sold their possessions and shared. However, there are some vital differences. This was completely voluntary. Even Ananias and Sapphira [Acts 5] were not condemned for holding back some of their income. Their sin was that they lied about it. Also, the civil government [Rome] and the religious government [Jewish leaders] had nothing to do with it. It was the voluntary response of the people. It was a love gift. If it had been required as a social mandate, it would have become theft.

While we can see some features of socialism in their actions, it lacks the violence and theft characteristic of state socialism. Even in a religious community, if people are forced to give more than they want to, it becomes theft. If we want to call this Christian socialism, fine, although it would be a poor choice of words. For it to be Christian, it must be entirely voluntary, without any pressure from leaders, peers, or the civil government. Anything less violates at least two of the Ten Commandments - the ones against theft and covetousness.

What Is The Context
Of This "Christian Socialism" Scripture?

Those of you who have taken the "Feed Yourself" course are familiar with the importance of context. What was happening in this historical story? Why did these early Christians act in this way? Was this form of "Christian socialism" normal or exceptional?

If you read the entire chapter of Acts 2, you will see that Peter preached, and 3,000 people were saved. Later on, thousands more were added. This was at the time of Pentecost when Jerusalem was crowded with Jews from all over the world. Many of the Jews who converted did not live in Jerusalem. They wanted to stay and learn more about their new faith before returning home; however, they had not planned for such a prolonged stay. The church in Jerusalem had a large number of new converts who needed food and lodging immediately. This was an emergency situation. The generous Jerusalem Christians responded by selling their possessions to provide for these new converts.

Another motivating factor was the knowledge of the coming destruction of Israel and Jerusalem. Jesus and others had warned it would happen in their generation - as it did. They knew that soon all their property holdings in the land of Israel would be worthless. They took advantage of that knowledge to sell their property and voluntarily gave the money to help their needy brothers and sisters.

Are We Being Instructed
To Follow Their Example?

Acts is a historical book. It records what happened; it does not automatically mean it is a good example. For example, the historical book of 2 Sam. records David's adultery and murder, but it does not give us an example to follow!

To determine whether we should follow their example, we need to examine the comprehensive teaching of Scripture on Christian socialism. Our Christian Social Theory Workbooks give a general introduction to this topic. We cannot take a single example from a historical book and use it to establish a doctrine. We must search Scripture for the big picture. We must study to find out: Is so-called Christian Socialism really the Biblical answer?

Finally, as part of studying their example, we must determine if it was effective. If this type of giving were a long-term model for the Christian life, then it would be successful and benefit everyone involved.

"For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem." Rom. 15:26

Although Jerusalem was destroyed within 40 years of Acts 2, the socialism had so destroyed the resources of the Jerusalem church in that short time that they needed help from others! Socialism - even Christian socialism - can not build and grow; it can only deplete what was already there.

Were the Jerusalem Christians wrong in what they did? They had a unique emergency situation on their hands. They responded with love and concern - as we all should - but their solution did not solve the problem in the long term. While God has called some individuals to sell all and give all, that does not mean it is His will for everyone. With no one left with the resources to rebuild, the entire church became impoverished and needed help instead of being able to give it. If God is calling you personally to sell all and give all, that is fine, but don't expect it to be His call on every life, or even that it is His call in general. What is mandated for every life is that Jesus is top priority.

What is our conclusion regarding the Christian Socialism of Acts 2? It was a voluntary [no government involvement] love response to an emergency need, but very soon [less than 40 years] it turned into a failure. The people who had generously given had to rely on the generosity of others.

We are commanded [yes, commanded] to be generous, but no human agency is given the authority to enforce it. God alone is the Judge and Enforcer.