Community Of Goods

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

There are two passages in the Acts of the Apostles which seem to suggest that there was established in the Church in Jerusalem a system of community of goods. ‘And all that believed were together and had all things common; and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need’ ( Acts 2:44 f.). ‘And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things common.… For neither was there among them any that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need’ ( Acts 4:32;  Acts 4:34-35). The Didache (iv. 8) contains a phrase which must be put beside this: ‘Thou shalt not turn away from him that is in need, but shalt share all things with thy brother, and shalt not say that they are thine own; for if ye are sharers in that which is immortal, how much more in those things which are mortal.’ The so-called Epistle of Barnabas contains almost exactly the same phrase (xix. 8), and it is most probable that in these works it came from some common source. We confine ourselves in this articleto the 1st cent., but a statement of Justin Martyr must be cited. He says in the First Apology that the Christians brought what they possessed into a common stock, and shared with every one in need (xiv.).

At first sight it would seem as if the passages in Acts indicated the existence in the Christian community of a definite system of communism, and there are some things in the Gospels which might seem to point in the same direction. The blessedness of poverty, the subtle dangers of riches, are taught in many passages. The rich young man is told to sell all that he has and give to the poor, and our Lord observes upon the incident that it is hard for them that have riches to enter into the Kingdom of God ( Mark 10:17-23||). In  Luke 6:20;  Luke 6:24 our Lord is reported as saying, ‘Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.… But woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation.’ It is possible that we must allow for the influence of different tendencies in the Gospel narratives; for instance, in St. Matthew’s Gospel, this benediction upon the poor is given a strictly spiritual turn ( Matthew 5:3). Again the Epistle of St. James seems to indicate that the Christian communities are composed of poor people, while the rich are their enemies. ‘Hearken, my beloved brethren; did not God choose them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him?… Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats?’ ( James 2:5 f.).

When, however, we examine the passages in the Acts more carefully, it seems to be clear that the evidence does not warrant us in concluding that there was any definite system of community of goods, even in the Church in Jerusalem. It is plain from the story of Ananias and Sapphira that there was no compulsion about the sale of goods and lands for the common fund. St. Peter is reported as saying to Ananias: ‘Whiles it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power?’ ( Acts 5:4). When we turn from the Acts to the Pauline Epistles we find no trace of any system of community of goods. St. Paul constantly exhorts his converts to liberality to the poor, especially to those in Jerusalem ( 1 Corinthians 16:1 f.,  2 Corinthians 8:9,  Romans 15:26,  1 Timothy 6:18), and the nature of his exhortation seems to imply that the individual Christian retained his own possessions. The same thing is implied in the Epistle to the Hebrews ( Hebrews 13:16), and seems to be the most natural interpretation of the phrase in 1 John ( 1 John 3:17).

It cannot be said that the references in the NT justify us in asserting that a system of community of goods was part of the normal constitution of the primitive Christian communities; but it is not impossible that the conception that this was the most perfect form of the religious life may have come into Christianity from such contemporary forms of Judaism as that of the Essenes, among whom the community of goods was apparently practised. But on the whole it would seem that the NT passages are sufficiently explained by the very high sense of the claim of brotherhood among Christian people. The discussion of the full significance of this would take us into the later history of the Church, and would therefore be out of place here. But so much may be said, that the NT principles are wholly inconsistent with the view that the Christian man has any absolute right of property as against his fellow-man. There can be no doubt that a great Father like St. Gregory the Great rightly interprets the spirit of the NT when he says that when we give what they need to those who are in want, we give them that which is their own; we are not giving away what is ours, we are rather discharging an obligation of justice than performing a work of mercy ( Lib. Reg. Pastor . pt. iii. ch. xxi.).

Literature.-E. Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen , 1912: R. W. and A. J. Carlyle, A History of Mediœval Political Theory in the West , vol. i. (‘The 2nd cent. to the 9th,’ by A. J. Carlyle), 1903; E. B. Redlich, St. Paul and his Companions , 1913. p. 7; O. Cone, Rich and Poor in the NT , 1902, p. 143ff.; E. Schürer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes (Schürer).]3 ii. [1898] 564ff.

A. J. Carlyle.

Holman Bible Dictionary

 Acts 2:41-47 Acts 4:32-37 Luke 8:3 John 13:29 Acts 2:1-40 Acts 4:31

“Common” ( koina ) in  Acts 2:44 and   Acts 4:32 has the same root as koinonia (“fellowship” in   Acts 2:42 ); thus the issue was not economic theory but the common life together (“daily” in  Acts 2:46 ) with no separation between physical and spiritual needs. (See  Acts 6:1 . which depicts the investment in care for the needy.) The parallel between  Acts 4:34 and   Deuteronomy 15:4 indicates that the early church fulfilled God's intention for Israel to be generous.

The Jerusalem church chose to practice the selfless generosity in a form which closely resembled the life-style of Jesus and the twelve. Other early churches practiced sacrificial generosity in different forms ( Acts 11:27-30;  1 Corinthians 16:1-4;  Romans 12:13;  1 John 3:17 ), for Jesus' call to set aside possessions took more than one form. Compare  Matthew 19:16-22 with   Luke 19:1-10 . What these incidents have in common is an emphasis on sacrificial giving ( Luke 21:1-4 ), requiring a complete change of heart so that God, not possessions, is served ( Matthew 6:24 ) with a clear recognition of riches' dangers ( Mark 10:23-31;  Luke 6:24;  Luke 12:13-31 ).

This danger of riches manifested itself in the context of the community of goods ( Acts 4:36-5:11 ). In contrast to Barnabas who sold some land and gave the proceeds to the apostles, Ananias and Sapphira held back some of the proceeds from their sale. Their subsequent deaths testified to the severity of abandoning the common life for selfish interest. Possessiveness led to lying to the Spirit ( Acts 5:3 ,Acts 5:3, 5:9 ) and therefore rejecting the bond (“one heart and of one soul” in  Acts 4:32 ) created by the Spirit. The voluntary nature of this community of goods was therefore not a matter of individuals independently choosing when and if to give, but the ongoing spontaneous generosity of a community unified and directed by the Spirit. (See TEV translation of  Acts 2:45 and   Acts 4:34 (“ would sell”) which identifies the ongoing nature of the generosity. See Holy Spirit; Jerusalem Church; Koinonia; Fellowship; Qumran; Essenes; Riches; Gifts; Possessions; Borrow; Generosity; Mammon; Ananias and Sapphira; Teachings of Jesus.

David Nelson Duke

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

Community Of Goods . See Communion.

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

(1.) From the fact "that the early Christians ‘ had all things common' ( Acts 2:44), some have supposed that to renounce all property, and to share one's goods with fellow-Christians, is the perpetual duty of Christians. But it is to be observed that no precept is given in Scripture to this effect; we have only the fact recorded that the early disciples were indifferent to property, unselfish, and ‘ willing to communicate.' And, if history is to be our help in this matter, it seems never to have been a part of Church discipline that goods should be common. It is usually supposed that the renunciation of private property, and the system of community of goods, was, for a time at least, adopted by the whole of the infant Church of Jerusalem. That the system, if ever so adopted, was soon discontinued, is perfectly evident. Those ‘ who were rich in this world' were exhorted to be ‘ ready to give, and glad to distribute,' which implies both that there were rich men in the churches, and that they were not required to sell all that they had, and cease to possess property, which would have left them, for the future, nothing to give. And the same may be learned from all that we read about the collections made in Greece for the poor Christians of Judaea, and from many other circumstances in the sacred history.

(2.) "But it has been contended that even in the infancy of the Church of Jerusalem, the community of goods was in reality confined to those engaged in the ministry, including the female catechists, or deaconesses, who were called ‘ widows.' Just at first, this description may have included all the believers; that is, those who were the first to embrace the Gospel may all have been employed in some department of the ministry. That Ananias and Sapphira thus offered themselves for the ministry is (doubtless) both a correct supposition, and one which will make the whole of the transaction recorded in Acts 5 intelligible" (Eden, Churchman'S Dictionary , s.v.). This view is taken by Hinds, Early Christianity (pt. 2, ch. 2), who refers to Eusebius (lib. 3, c. 137) for confirmation of the suggestion.

(3.) Mosheim treats the subject largely in his treatise De Vera Natura Communionis Bonorum In Eccl. Hierosol . ( Dies. Ad Eccl. Hist. Pertin . vol. i), and seeks to show that the passages in  Acts 2:44;  Acts 4:32, imply a communion merely of the use, not the possession of property, and that only for a temporary purpose. But the more likely view is that the infant Church of Jerusalem "went so far in the ardor of their first love as to abolish the external distinction of rich and poor," perhaps as "a prophetic anticipation of the state of things in the perfected kingdom of God." The offering was entirely voluntary, and not the fruit of any command. On the contrary, the N.T. abounds in precepts for the right use of property, implying its separate and proper possession. See Hinds (l. c.); Schaff, Apost. Ch. Hist. § 114; Killen, Ancient Church, p. 52; Neander, Planting and Training (Bohn's ed.), 1:253; 2:64.

Commutation OF Penance in the Roman Catholic Church. (See Penance).

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

kō̇ - mū´ni - ti , (ἅπαντα κοινὰ εἶχον , hápanta koiná eı́chon , literally, "They had all things (in) common"): In  Acts 2:44 , it is said that, in the infant church at Jerusalem, "all that believed were together, and had all things common," and ( Acts 4:34 f) "as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet." The inference from this, that there was an absolute disposal of all the property of all the members of the church, and that its proceeds were contributed to a common fund, has been disputed upon the ground that the example of Barnabas in selling "a field" for this purpose (  Acts 4:37 ) would not have been mentioned, if this had been the universal rule. The thought conveyed is that all believers in that church held their property as a trust from the Lord, for the benefit of the entire brotherhood, and, as there was need, did as Barnabas.

No commandment, of which record has been preserved, prescribed any such course. It came from the spontaneous impulse of the sense of brotherhood in Christ, when the band of disciples was still small, making them in a sense one family, and under the external constraint of extreme want and persecution. So much there was, that they realized, under such conditions they had in common, that they were ready to extend this to all things. It was, in a sense, a continuance of the practice of a common purse in the band of immediate followers of our Lord during his ministry. The penalty inflicted on Ananias and Sapphira was not for any failure to comply fully with this custom, but because this freedom which they possessed ( Acts 5:4 ) they falsely professed to have renounced, Thus receiving in the estimation of their brethren a credit that was not their due. This custom did not last long. It was possible only within a limited circle, and under very peculiar circumstances. The New Testament recognizes the right of individual property and makes no effort to remove the differences that exist among believers themselves. The community of goods which it renders possible is spiritual ( 1 Corinthians 3:21 f), and not one of visible and external things. With respect to the latter, it enjoins upon the Christian, as a steward of God, the possession and administration of property for the progress of the kingdom of God, and the highest interests of men. The spirit of   Acts 4:34 is always to pervade the association of believers as a true Christian community. Meyer, on the above passage, has suggested that it is not unlikely that the well-known poverty of the church at Jerusalem, and its long dependence upon the alms of other churches, may be connected with this early communistic practice, which, however justifiable and commendable at the time, bore its inevitable fruits in a subsequent season of great scarcity and lack of employment.