Acts 4:32: They Shared Everything?

Does this verse describe an idealized behavior of the church, later abandoned? Could it be called "primitive communism"? Is this practice the reason the Jerusalem church became poor? What is its relevance for today?

To understand the two passages that describe the behavior of the early church (Acts 2:42-47; 4:32-35), we need to understand the methodology of Acts, the context of the passages and their meaning. First, we note the methodology. The author is writing in an environment in which writing space is limited. Both Luke (the first volume in the two-part work) and Acts fill what would be the longest scrolls available in that day. Thus, the author must compress the text in his effort to fit a massive history within a limited scroll. Any word of Jesus that appears in Luke does not appear in Acts. Conversely, the saying that appears in Acts 20:35 does not appear in the Gospel. Another way the author shortens the text is by describing a topic once and then abbreviating it in succeeding references. The gospel messages in Acts are given in their fullest form the first time they appear and after that only in abbreviated form. New material, however, is given in full. Pentecost is the fullest description of filling with the Spirit; only variations are mentioned later. Acts 2 and 4--5 describe what the experience of the early church is supposed to be like. New details are added later, but the basic description of the church is not repeated. We expect, then, that these passages show how the author believed church life should be lived.

Second, both Acts 2 and Acts 4 fall within a context of the filling of the Spirit. Acts 2 includes Pentecost and the initial evangelistic thrust of the church. In the general description of life in the Spirit-filled church (Acts 2:42-47) we discover three elements: (1) signs and wonders, (2) evangelistic outreach and (3) sharing (teaching, food, possessions, prayer). In Acts 4 the believers respond to persecution with prayer for boldness (Acts 4:29-30). Again the church is filled with the Spirit. Again the three elements appear: (1) signs and wonders (Acts 5:12-16), (2) evangelistic outreach (Acts 4:33; 5:14) and (3) sharing (Acts 4:32--5:11). In this last passage the author chooses to expand upon the sharing aspect, first describing it and then giving two examples. For the author of Acts, sharing (often translated "fellowship") is a key mark of the Spirit-filled church. It is not a historical curiosity.

Third, what does the author intend by these passages? We can immediately lay to rest the idea of a "primitive communism" in which everyone turned all of their goods over to the community upon conversion. That has been a viable way of life for some Christian communities, but it is not what was happening in Acts. The description of selling one's goods in Acts 2:45 is expanded in Acts 4:34. In both cases the verb tense indicates an ongoing process. Whenever a need came to light, those having goods sold them and brought the money to provide for the need. As if these descriptions were not clear enough, in Acts 5:3-4 the author makes it plain that such generosity was not a legal requirement; it was the lie, not the failure to give, for which Ananias and Sapphira are condemned.

What was happening in the Jerusalem church, then, was simply that "they shared everything they had" (Acts 4:32). What had been an ideal to some of the Greek philosophers has been realized by the power of the Spirit in the church. Because they were "one in heart and mind" all thought of possessiveness vanished. They shared freely with one another. This resulted in powerful evangelism and an experience of grace, perhaps indicated by the signs and wonders (Acts 4:33). Consequently, they realized the goal of Deuteronomy 15:4 ("There should be no poor among you"): "There were no needy persons among them" (Acts 4:34). Why was that? To hear of a need was to search one's heart to see if one could meet the need. As soon as a need was announced those with possessions would want to share (since the Spirit had removed their possessiveness and joined them in heart to their poorer fellow Christians). They shared by bringing the money to the apostles, probably because (1) the apostles would know if the need had been met already and (2) the apostles would guard the anonymity of the donor. Later Jewish charity rules valued the anonymity of both donor and recipient. Joseph Barnabas is viewed as a good example of this practice. Ananias and Sapphira appear as negative examples, trying to fake the impulse of the Spirit and by deceit get the apostles to think of them as more Spirit-filled than they are. But, as someone observed, "in the church in which the lame walk liars die." The same Spirit that is present for signs and wonders is also present for judgment.

We should not imagine, however, that this practice is what impoverished the Jerusalem church. On the one hand, there were plenty of reasons for that church to become poor. Jerusalem was not in a good economic position, being off trade routes and not in the best agricultural area. Its main business was government and the temple, but the Christians were probably given only limited access to the revenues from either of these sources. Also, evidence in James indicates that the church experienced economic persecution, both in terms of legal oppression and in terms of "last hired--first fired" discrimination. The church had a large group of apostles to support (unlike the tentmaker Paul, a fisherman like Peter could not support himself on a mountain), many visiting Christians to feed and care for, and probably a large proportion of older believers, since many older Jews moved to Palestine to die and be buried in its soil (such pious dislocated people would be especially open to the gospel). To add to its problems Jerusalem experienced more than one severe famine during the 40s. We can read reports of Queen Helena of Adiabene sending relief to Judea, as well as rabbinic references to famine and poverty in Jerusalem. All of these would conspire to make it difficult to maintain the church in Jerusalem. But for the early Christians it was important for symbolic reasons that a large Christian presence remain in that city. It is no wonder that Paul took up a collection to support this church (Rom 15:26; 1 Cor 16:1; 2 Cor 8--9).

Acts, of course, is giving us historical precedents, not a pattern to be slavishly imitated. It shows what happened when the Spirit was present in power, not nec-essarily how the church must live to-day. However, we have already noticed that there is no other pattern for church life in Acts. The frequency of meetings may have dropped to once a week as the church moved into the Gentile world (because the church was no longer located in one small city where meeting was easy and because the large group of slaves in the church made frequent meetings more difficult), but the author mentions nothing about a change in the charitable spirit. In fact Paul in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 deals with an abuse of church charity that assumes some system of sharing was in place. He tells the abusers to "shape up or ship out," but, far from changing the system, he turns to the church and says, "Never tire of doing what is right" (2 Thess 3:13). If this were not enough, we discover the same Spirit is poured out on the Macedonian churches (2 Cor 8). They lived in "extreme poverty," but had given themselves so freely to God that they begged to be allowed to share with the poor in Jerusalem. The principle, Paul argues, true even across continental boundaries, is "that there might be equality" (2 Cor 8:13; the context makes it plain that economic equality is in view). This equality due to Spirit-directed sharing is precisely the situation we observed in practice in Jerusalem in Acts.

The modern church is concerned about the power of the Spirit. Evangelism is desired; signs and wonders are called for. Given that Paul turns the third part of the precedent of Acts into principle, we should take seriously the practice of the church in Acts, expecting that a full outpouring of the Spirit in any period of history would have all three effects. While it may not take the identical form it took in Jerusalem, the presence of the Spirit will open the wallets of anyone whose heart is truly open to his presence.

.........

That is, the verb is in the imperfect tense, indicating a habitual or repeated action, not the aorist, which would have indicated a one-time action.