If economics is continually beset with fallacies, and if Biblical interpretation is likewise beset with common exegetical fallacies, then witness what happens when economic and Biblical fallacies are combined. This is not uncommon. In fact, many often attempt to vest their economic fallacies with Biblical authority, typically revealing ignorance of both economics and the Bible in the process. This may even be done honestly, without even realizing it. Such is often the case when Acts 2 and 4 are appealed to as a Christian sanction and promotion of communism, not only for churches but as a matter of ideal policy.
Superficial reading of some early texts in Acts (2:44-46; 4:32-37) seem to suggest the ideal of Christian communal property ownership, or communism, rather than private property. While this claim will be answered in detail below, it is important to note the logical fallacy of category errors—an error where things belonging to one category are mistakenly presented as belonging to another, or properties are assigned to items that cannot possess them. This is common with concepts like “communism” and “socialism.” For example, people often say something like, “Socialism is the radical idea of sharing,” but that equivocates and switches categories because socialism involves the coercive public ownership of the factors of production, not voluntary sharing.
Due to superficial similarities—sharing, communal ownership, distribution from a common stock—many mistakenly see the Acts texts as promoting communism, privately and publicly, but this would be an obvious category error because the Acts situation is both missing key elements of communism and possesses key elements that exclude it from being categorized as communism. In essence, throughout Acts and within the rest of the New Testament context, we see that—through a simple, contextual reading—Acts is often descriptive rather than prescriptive, private property was universally affirmed, the communal ownership arrangement described was limited, local, and temporary, and the arrangement was private, voluntary, and never required by the church or the state. Further, even if Acts did teach that private, voluntary communism was temporarily practiced within the early days of the first-century Christian church at Jerusalem, and that this was normative, it does not follow that such an arrangement is a model for state policy.
The Text and Interpretational Principles
In Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Mises provided a chapter titled, “Christianity and Property,” in which he wrote the following statements regarding the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament,
But all efforts to find support for the institution of private property generally, and for private ownership in the means of production in particular, in the teachings of Christ are quite vain. No art of interpretation can find a single passage in the New Testament that could be read as upholding private property. Those who look for a Biblical ukase must go back to the Old Testament, or content themselves with disputing the assertion that communism prevailed in the congregation of the early Christians….
One thing of course is clear, and no skilful interpretation can obscure it. Jesus’s words are full of resentment against the rich, and the Apostles are no meeker in this respect. The Rich Man is condemned because he is rich, the Beggar praised because he is poor….
This is a case in which the Redeemer’s words bore evil seed. More harm has been done, and more blood shed, on account of them than by the persecution of heretics and the burning of witches. They have always rendered the Church defenceless against all movements which aim at destroying human society. The Church as an organization has certainly always stood on the side of those who tried to ward off communistic attack. But it could not achieve much in this struggle. For it was continually disarmed by the words: “Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the Kingdom of God.” (emphasis added)
As mentioned elsewhere, I disagree with Mises’s assessment here, not because I have some desire to morph the Bible cleanly into Austro-libertarianism at the Bible’s expense, but because of plain reading and context. Mises unfortunately fell into the same error of superficial reading as socialistic appealers to these Acts texts. For Mises, the New Testament doesn’t uphold private property, and he rejects that; for many others, the New Testament doesn’t uphold private property and advocates communism, and they like that. Both are wrong for similar reasons.
In Biblical interpretation, indeed in any honest interpretation, context is key, as well as totality of information and consistency. Bad readings do not mean that a good reading is impossible, nor do the existence of bad readings necessarily imply that it is impossible to distinguish between valid and invalid interpretations. Jesus modeled reading the Scriptures in context, correcting superficial interpretation by isolation of texts out of context (Matthew 19:1-9; Mark 10:2-9), distinguished between the commandments of God contained in the Scriptures and illegitimate man-made traditions (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13), and was not afraid to declare, “you are greatly mistaken” (Mark 12:26; cf. 12:24). Jesus was also known to simply ask His opponents, “Have you not read?” (Matthew 12:3, 5; 19:4; 22:31; Mark 12:10, 26; Luke 6:3), heavily implying understandability and accountability based on clarity.
The reality is—even without a prior and superseding commitment to Rothbardian property rights—Acts neither teaches nor recommends communism, nor does the rest of the New Testament. When it comes to the Bible, there are often challenges of interpretation, but that is actually not really the case here in these simple, narrative texts.
What do the texts in question actually say?
Acts 2:44-45—“And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; 45and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.”
Acts 4:32—“And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.”
Acts 4:34-35—“For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.”
Context: Descriptive versus Prescriptive
One helpful interpretive consideration is to distinguish, especially based on context and type of literature (e.g., historical narrative, law, poetry, didactic epistle, etc.), between descriptive texts versus prescriptive texts. In other words, is the text in question intended to be normative? For example, Lot’s drunken incest with his daughters (Genesis 19, narrative) is clearly descriptive, not endorsing Lot’s actions, but “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15, narrative-law) is prescriptive. While there are certainly normative lessons to be learned from Acts, including Acts 2-4, we still need to keep categories clear and look to surrounding context, normative teachings within narratives, and actions taken for interpretive clues.
We can learn a normative lesson from the generosity of the early Jerusalem Christians, but it does not necessarily follow that their specific actions are to be universalized for all Christians in all times, nor that this presents an ideal of government policy. Nowhere else in the New Testament is this practice commanded or even recommended which would be odd if these practices were intended to be permanently normative.
Providing further context from a knowledge of the Bible and Austrian economics, David Chilton wrote,
It [Acts 2:44-46; 4:32-37] has been used as a proof-text by Christian socialists for centuries. Yes, the early Jerusalem church practiced financial sharing. No, it is not normative for all Christians. The situation was this. On the day of Pentecost, when Jews from around the Roman Empire had gathered in Jerusalem, Peter preached a sermon which immediately added 3,000 new believers to the church (Acts 2:41). Shortly thereafter, 5,000 more were converted (4:4). 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. Nevertheless, there they were, and the early church was faced with an immediate economic crisis of gigantic proportions. God commands aid to needy brethren, and the Jerusalem Christians stepped in to supply for the needs. Many of the needy were apparently from Israel, but many also were “Hellenized” Jews from other nations (2:9-11; 6:1). It was a special situation, and required special measures to deal with it. So believers in Jerusalem who owned property liquidated it as the need arose, using the proceeds for charity. (emphasis added)
Both the text and the context, as well as the context of the rest of the New Testament, show that the communal sharing practices of Acts 2 and 4 were limited (not everyone participated to the same extent), local (only in the Jerusalem church), and temporary (only practiced in by this early church for a short time), and the arrangement was private, voluntary, and never church or state-enforced. Already this evidence refutes that Acts implicitly commands Christian communism, but there is more.
Private Property, Acts, and the New Testament
The Bible universally affirms private property. This includes Jesus and Acts. While it is true that Jesus said difficult things for those who would be His followers, like, “So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions” (Luke 14:33; e.g., see also Luke 14:26 cp. Matthew 10:37), these also have to be appreciated within context and within all the words of Jesus. Jesus also told a parable in which He had the main participant remark, “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?’” (Matthew 20:15). Clearly, Jesus required His disciples to count the cost and prioritize His Kingdom over the pursuit of wealth and earthly possessions, but that is far from overthrowing or failing to uphold private property.
Throughout His teaching, Jesus affirmed the validity of the Law of God (cf. Matthew 5:17-19), including the 8th commandment: “You shall not steal” (Matthew 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; cf. Romans 13:9; Ephesians 4:28), which presupposes the legitimacy of private property. Not only this, He also reaffirmed the 10th commandment against “deeds of coveting” (Mark 7:22).
Within the context of Acts—also historically penned by Luke (~AD 60-62)—private property is also clearly affirmed. Even in one of the texts in question, note how private property is presupposed, “they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all…” (Acts 2:44-45, italics added). Contrary to some confused socialists, voluntary “sharing” of one’s property does not equal socialism.
Another key reality of the New Testament itself is that the early churches did not initially meet in church buildings, but in the private homes of believers. Paul greets Prisca and Aquila (Romans 16:3) and “the church that is in their house” (Romans 16:5) and the same couple also hosted either the church of Corinth or Ephesus in their house (1 Corinthians 16:19). The house of Lydia—a wealthy believer (Acts 16:14)—initially served as the meeting place of the Philippian church (Acts 16:40). The original church of Corinth started in the house of Titius Justus (Acts 18:7). Paul tells the believers in the Colossian church to greet the believers in Laodicea and Nymphas “and the church which is in his house” (Colossians 4:15). The Colossian church met in the house of Philemon and his family (Philemon 1-2). Believers still had private homes (1 Corinthians 11:18-22). Believers were encouraged to practice hospitality (Romans 12:13; 1 Peter 4:9), which presupposes houses and property. John, in an epistle, warned “the chosen lady and her children” (2 John 1) that, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house [likely used as the church gathering place], and do not give him a greeting” (2 John 10).
Most significantly, the early Jerusalem Christians in Acts met in the “house of Mary, the mother of John who was also called Mark” (Acts 12:12). It is even possible that this house was the house used by Jesus and the disciples for the Passover the night before He was crucified (cf. Mark 14:13-15; Luke 22:12; Acts 1:13). Obviously, even as the church served as a common meeting place, Mary had not sold her property and given all the proceeds to the apostles; she kept her house. Further, in the very text in question, we read that believers were meeting in the temple in Jerusalem and “from house to house” (Acts 2:46). Peter and John were said to have kept teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ “in the temple and from house to house” (Acts 5:42). Paul—later in Acts—said he was teaching publicly “and from house to house” (Acts 20:20).
Why this is significant is that it indicates that—even in the limited context of the early Jerusalem church described in Acts—obviously not all believers sold or were required to sell all their property because many of them maintained private houses that were used by the church. Therefore, Acts 2-4 cannot be describing the abolition of private property. Nowhere in the rest of the New Testament do we read any normative command for Christians imitate the unique situation of Acts 2-4 by selling all their property and holding all property in common.
James—mentioned in Acts as a key leader in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; cf. Galatians 1:19; 2:9, 12; 1 Corinthians 15:7; Jude 1) and arguably writing circa AD 47-49—asked the Jewish Christians in the Dispersion (James 1:1), “Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court?” (James 2:7). This often entailed the rich and politically-connected using the court system as an instrument of religious persecution against the early Christian community in Palestine. This likely also included unjust seizure of property, mentioned by the author of Hebrews: “[you] accepted joyfully the seizure of your property” (Hebrews 10:34). The joyful acceptance of the seizure of property by the state was not because the early Christians proudly participated in state seizure of the means of production, but acceptance of unjust persecution in fidelity to Christ. This mitigates strongly against the notion that the New Testament teaches either normative communal property ownership for all Christians, let alone state seizure of assets in the name of social justice. This was an unjust hardship to be endured, not justice.
Peter’s Apostolic Insight
The clincher comes from Acts itself, out of the mouth of Peter. In Acts 4—the context in question—Joseph (nicknamed Barnabas by the apostles, and cousin of John Mark [Colossians 4:10]) is presented positively as one who owned a tract of land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:36-37). He is contrasted against Ananias and Sapphira—a husband and wife who sold a piece of property, secretly kept back some of the proceeds for themselves, and laid the remainder at the feet of the apostles, implying that they had given all of the money from the sale. Among the apostles was Peter, whose statement is recorded,
“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? 4While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.’” (Acts 5:3-4, emphasis added)
The issue was not the failure to sell the property and give all the proceeds, but the deception that sought to promote self under the guise of promoting Christ (cf. Matthew 6:1-4). Peter was clear that both the property and the proceeds from its sale remained the rightful property of the individuals, which could be honestly given, kept, or partially given at one’s discretion. Not only was the state uninvolved, but participation in the church did not require forfeiture of property and acceptance of total communal ownership as conditions of membership and obedience.
