Socialism

This commentary covers the topic of socialism throughout the book of Acts. There are two different passages that hint a the idea of a socialist government, but can be easily misunderstood.

Usage: {{{Socialism|2}} (Acts Chapter 2), (Acts Chapter 4)

Socialism
This passage has led multiple secular philosophers, economists, and bloggers to believe that the Bible supports socialism. Some have even claimed that it mandates it, and that Christians must support socialism, or else they would be contradicting their faith. However, a more in depth study of this passage reveals that it has nothing to do with economics at all.

After studying these passages, it becomes clear that there’s several things that make it non-supportive of socialism. Here’s a couple of the major reasons:

1. The wealthy were doing this willingly, and not being forced to give money. In socialism, distribution of wealth requires that the authorities take the money from the rich, and give it to the poor. This is completely different from what happened in either of these passages. The wealthy willingly sold their possessions, and gave the proceeds to the poor. They weren't forced to, and nothing even implies that they were asked. They chose to donate their money, and were not made to.

2. They didn't sell everything they had. The verses seem as if they could mean that the new Christians were selling all that they had, and giving all their money to the poor. But it doesn't say that. It only says that they sold possessions and belongings. It is plural, but it doesn't necessarily say that they sold everything. Other translations actually make it clear that they did not sell everything. NIV says this: “From time to time, those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet”.

In order for it to be truly socialist, they would've had to sell everything they owned. But the Bible does not say anything about them doing that. In fact, it would seem as if the Christians had to have kept some of their private properties, including their homes. Later on, there are occasions where Christians volunteered their homes for meetings. If they still owned their houses, then they could not have sold everything.

3. It was temporary. All of the selling possessions and giving the proceeds to the poor stops at chapter 4. People are still very generous, but this type of occasion only lasts until Acts 4. It’s also good to notice that the last verse says “...it was distributed to each as any had need.” It appears as if there was an uncommonly high amount of need during these passages. Why was there so much need at this point?

Pentecost had just begun. During the very first day, 3,000 thousand people were saved. Every day after that, more and more people were being saved. Some of these people were from Israel, and others had traveled long distances to hear the apostles speak. It’s probable that very few of the new Christians wanted to go back home immediately after hearing the apostles. Most of them probably wanted to stay awhile longer, and listen to them speak even more. But if they weren't prepared for staying so long, how would they survive? That could be where the huge need came from. All who believed were selling their possessions in order to be able to support the families who wanted to stay longer. The Bible doesn't actually say that this happened, but it’s very possible.

4. This example is not described as a command. Even if these passages were a true example of socialism, they are not written in an imperative manner. There is nothing in any of these verses that is commanding us to act like this today. Obviously, it is setting a great example of being generous, but it’s not commanding us to do anything. The authors of the two articles about socialism in Christianity seemed to think that these scriptures were written as a command. But there’s nothing like that in here.

These passages are really just an example of how generous we should be to those who have needs. Any belief that they are teaching us to support socialism is just fallacious. It is highly unlikely that Luke had economics in mind when writing the book of Acts.