In an earlier post I wondered about the sort of community Luke describes at the end of Acts 4. It is critically important to understand here that the selling of property in Acts 2 and 4 is completely voluntary and in response to the need the early community has to care for growing numbers of people staying in Jerusalem. Luke uses verbs to describe this giving as on-going in the early community. People often sold property and gave it to the apostles to distribute.
Craig Keener provides a wealth of material on sharing wealth in the ancient world (Acts, 1:1012-28). He cites Pythagoras famous saying, “friends share everything in common” as a possible motivation for the common life of the Jerusalem community, but concludes that this Hellenistic ideal is not enough to explain what is going on in Acts. There is nothing here that suggests any reciprocal arrangement. No one was expecting anything in return for their provision for the needy in the community.
Nor does Keener find the descriptions of the Essenes in Philo to be adequate to explain the Jerusalem’s communal living. While the Qumran group practiced a kind of voluntary poverty and simplicity of life, the fact that the Apostolic community was based in an urban environment and Qumran was a separate, almost monastic community makes the two practices rather distinct. As Keener points out, Christians voluntarily sold property to respond to community needs, Qumran required the sale of all property when a convert joins the group (Acts, 1:1021).
The motivation for this giving is sometimes explained as an indication that the apostolic community thought that Jesus was returning very soon and there was no need for personal property in the coming kingdom. Better to sell what you have now and give it to the poor! While it is certain they believed the Lord was returning soon, this is not given as the motivation in Acts.
The chief motivation was to care for the needy, in response to the command of Jesus to care for the “least of these brothers of mine.” A Jewish person in the first century would have found nothing particularly radical about Jesus teaching that the righteous man ought to care for the poor – alms giving was a critically important part of the religion of the first century.
Jesus does say and do several things which are a bit more radical than most of contemporary Judaism. First, he commanded at least one man to give up all his possessions (the rich young ruler), and second, he and his disciples lived out a life of poverty. While Jesus and the disciples were not all that much different than most common people in Galilee, there is model of “common living” even in the ministry of Jesus. On the other hand, Jesus did appear to have had wealthy followers who helped him at key times in his life (the owner of the Garden of Gethsemane and Joseph of Arimethea, for example).
Jesus also teaches that when you care for the poor (“the least of these brothers of mine”), you are in fact caring for the Lord Jesus himself. Acts of righteousness such as alms are now interpreted as acts of worship of Jesus himself. While this does not demand that the whole community live in a state of poverty, their ought to be no poverty among the followers of Jesus.
Returning to the question of present church practice, how should we use these descriptions of the earliest community? Does Luke intend us to read these descriptions as models for “how to do church” in other contexts? If that is not the case (and most churches I know do not practice this lifestyle), what was the point of living communally?
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 30, 2013 at 3:27 pm
Zac_Schutte
In reading this post, to me it seems clear that there was a good reason for believers to live communally. A look at 1 Cor. 15:33 gives a clear example that it is essential for believers to live together because, “bad company ruins good morals.” For Christians to keep company and live among Judaism or people who rejected their belief is not wrong, but it is dangerous because of the constant pressure to reject their faith. As we pointed out in class earlier, the amount of Christians in Jerusalem was only a fraction of the people who lived their. Understanding the context in which these believers lived, it seems natural for them to surround each other with a supportive community. With the hostility shown to theirs beliefs, new Christians could have an environment in which to grow and strengthen in their faith. This is one reason that living communally would be beneficial.
January 30, 2013 at 8:01 pm
Joseph Furno
I honestly do believe that Luke intended this to be an example of how church ought to function. This was clearly a very unselfish way to live and it is in line with Jesus’ teaching.
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
January 30, 2013 at 8:42 pm
Joseph Furno
(Matthew 19:21) The early church was following the instrusction of Jesus by living in this way. I have mixed feeling on how this should apply to church today. On the one hand I understand how difficult it would be to live this lifestyle in today’s world. However I think it would be a great example to the world of the kingdom of heaven. The early church was caring for each other and putting others before themselves giving up anything and everything if someone was in need. The early was living in high anticipation of Christs second coming and I believe we ought to do the same.
Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. Colossians 3:2
I think if christians set their minds on heaven then our importance on material things and this selfless style of leaving would be much easier for us to wrap on minds around and actually practice.
January 30, 2013 at 9:33 pm
Phillip J. Long
But if the anticipation of he second coming is the motive for the communal living, and Paul also believed that Jesus was coming soon, why did his churches never practice this sort of lifestyle? Only the Jerusalem community lived this way, no other church in Acts did. So, what is different here?
January 30, 2013 at 9:01 pm
Jake Fields
I agree with Joe. There isn’t really a reason not to live communally as the church did in the New Testament times. I think that this kind of lifestyle that you see with the churches Luke is describing is the lifestyle that we need today. They were “one in heart, and one in mind” (vs 32). Unity is what the church is supposed to be all about. I can see where there is a little bit of uncertainty when Paul says that they called nothing their own. I don’t think it is a bad thing that we own things and call them ours, as long as we don’t put those things above God then its not bad. But I think that there are many people who come to church who could definitely give, but unfortunately we make excuses not to and we say we have too busy of lives to help the poor. I think the concepts of this idea of communal living are very applicable to today’s church. It’s amazing to think of the story of the woman who gave everything she had because she had faith. (Mark 12:44) We as the church need to represent the church that we read about in this chapter of Acts. I’m not sure how literal to take it, because I think owning land isn’t bad, but I think that we can take the main concepts of communal living and helping the poor and apply it to the church today.
January 30, 2013 at 9:18 pm
taczhompson
I don’t think that Luke intended this to be a rule for living in all times. I do, however believe that this example of generosity applies far more than it would, at first, seem. I also believe that generosity really filters into more of our lives than just giving away possessions. I think that generosity is a heart position, that has to do with every part of your life. It is giving up time, giving up your skills, and giving up your life, if needed. I think that both Jesus, and Paul speak to not worrying about worldly things, or earthly possessions. In Matthew 6.28 Jesus speaks on this matter, asking why people worry about clothes, or what they are going to eat, and tells them not to, because our God is a God who provides. So, if we’re not worried about your possession, what you’re going to wear, what you’re going to eat: why would you hesitate to give to people in need? Why is it so hard for Americans, especially, to give up luxuries? We all know that we have far more than we could need, and could obviously afford to rely on God more. God will never fail to provide for us, and because of that; we should never fail to provide for those we have the mean to help.
January 30, 2013 at 9:30 pm
Sir Lundy
Communal living…This is a very foreign concept to the modern reader as well as extremely difficult concept to wrap ones head around. To answer the question fully, you have to start at the very basic level of communal living. The most basic definition for communal living is “a small, localized, often rural community of persons or families pursuing common interests or concentrating on certain basic values” (Thefreedictionary). So if we are to examine the life of the Apostles and their efforts to live communally then how does their example fit into this definition? Well first off, they lived together and shared together. This seems obvious but it also is so different from what modern Americans are used to. So the Apostles, and those with them, were pursuing a lifestyle revolved around Jesus, and initiating actions like “giving to the poor” as direct completion to the commands of Jesus. In proverbs 19:17, it says that anyone who gives to the poor lends to the Lord and the Lord will repay him for it.
Now just like P long said the motivation for the Apostles to give was not to get something out of it. Nor was it “Better to sell what you have now and give it to the poor!” (P. Long). The real motivation was to fulfill the command set by Jesus to take care of the needy. So back to the real question, I don’t think Luke is setting this as an example for how to do church today, and this isn’t how the church is responding today. The culture makes it difficult for communal living to work successfully in today’s world. However, that does not exclude today’s society/Christians to fulfilling the command of Jesus. In 2 Corinthians 9:7 it says, “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” The important issue here is not the process on how you give, what you give, how much you give, it is an issue of the heart. Why are you giving? Are you giving because you have compassion for those in lower status than you, are you doing it to please the Lord to follow and obey him? Or is it to look religious, or to follow the ‘Christian rule book’?
Every Christian is faced with the decision and frustration of not know how or how much to give, and I think that is how we lose sight of what’s really important. Give, because God asks you to.
January 30, 2013 at 10:05 pm
notcrudd
I am more inclined to think that Luke was showing us how effective communal living can be so that we can use parts of it today. I do believe that it is important for people to work for what they have in some way or another but I also think that if a person or family is doing all that they can to support themselves and still unable to do so, they should be able to at least ask if not count on assistance from their church community. This is following in some of the footsteps laid out in the church Luke describes here, and also the footsteps of Paul and the churches that he led later.
January 30, 2013 at 11:25 pm
April Lorenz
The Idea of communal living is interesting, and I don’t believe that it is the model for our churches today. We should be concerned with helping the poor and orphans. The parable about selling all your possessions was to illustrate the importance we place on worldly things and to warn us not to make material possessions our idol. Our treasure is in heaven and we will leave the earth in the same way we came. Living as closely as they did, it was a cultural thing to share everything with your family and sometimes in Israel, they intermarried to make sure possessions or land stayed within the family, then most of the town was related. So if in Jerusalem lived all the “devout” Jews, then they could share all their resources because of the close connections(Family ties), trust, and possibly laws made up by the Pharisees. We should be willing to share with our neighbor today and we are called to love them and if we see a need we should as Christians, be the example and meet the need.
January 30, 2013 at 11:37 pm
Chris A
Living communally was a huge passion of mine when I first started at the school. You can ask Brandon I about that if you want some fun stories! What I am getting at though is that I think that the idea of living communally is one that at first seems like a great idea! But after more thought is put into it, you realize that it is not nearly as realistic as you want it to be. Especially in America. With the way our government runs it would be difficult for an entire group to live as one. I can see a bunch of people getting angry if this were to happen and then laws being passed in order to prevent communal living at all! Now, I obviously have no proof that this would be the case, but it is just a gut feeling. Any thoughts?
January 30, 2013 at 11:47 pm
leviwood138
I do not necessarily believe that Luke was telling everyone to ever become a Christian to sell their things and live a communal life. I do think the fact that they thought Jesus was going to come back at any time was a motivation for it to not be as big of deal. I also think that they knew the type of benefit that came form community living. When you are in constant community you always have someone to help keep you accountable with your struggles. There is almost always someone there to pray for you when you need it. Jesus talks are almost always happening in some way or form. I do not think it is exactly a “how to do church” as you put it. I myself do not believe that married couples should live with other people. I think the likelihood and temptation for sin to happen is way to high. I do not think that it is meant for everyone. We have had many people in and out of our house because they realize that living in a tight community is not for everyone.
February 1, 2013 at 4:55 pm
Nick Van Loo
I like how you expanded on your ideas from class yesterday. After reading this post, I too have thought more in depth about what “living in commune” must have meant to the early church and the group described in Acts.
I know that you touched on that the motivation for living in common was not because personal possessions were not needed because Jesus was coming back soon (As in a couple years where everyone there would still be alive) but, that it was just to help the poor. However, with the end times preaching of Peter and the constant mentions of faith through Jesus Christ, I would find it hard to believe that there wasn’t atleast a handful of those Christians who were thinking “We aren’t going to need this stuff anyways”. I’m not saying it was their sole motivation, however the potential and hope that Jesus was going to be coming back within their life time had to ease some anxieties.
I do not think that Luke was intending for us to live in common in the modern day church. I do think that this example is used in the Bible to show that if you are getting stressed out because you have to pay boat taxes AND third house residence taxes, that there were people doing it God’s way that lived much simpler. Also, Luke never specifically says “as these people are living, you should live as well”. It is just showing some of the sacrifices of the early church, a simpler way of living, and that men who are fortunate enough to have extra should share with their common man that is not as fortunate as them.
I also like how you showed that Jesus did have some wealthy friends. I’m sure those friends had no problem sharing their wealth if they had too.