The Bible on Capitalism, Communism, and
Socialism. Acts
4:32-37
In this
section we face a passage that is perhaps one of the two or three passages in
Scripture that most people will go to to try to argue
and show that the Bible really does support some view of socialism or communal
living. What we actually find is just the opposite.
At the core of
the Mosaic Law’s theology of money is the idea of property, property rights and
ownership rights. When we look at the Ten Commandments one of the commandments
is, “Thou shalt not steal.” That would be meaningless unless people have the
right to own property and to keep it for their own personal use, and to
determine how to use that property however they wish. Other people do not have
the right to take that property. So that implies the theology of property
rights which you have running throughout the Mosaic Law. There are also
provisions in the Mosaic Law related to inheritance rights. There is a lot said
in the Mosaic Law related inheritance rights, the accumulation of wealth and
property, and how that is passed on from one generation to the next.
While there
were taxes in the Mosaic Law, called tithes, and Jesus also in the New
Testament recognizes the right of government to tax, the Bible never authorizes
property tax. What property tax does is act as if the ultimate owner of the
land is the government. Biblically speaking the ultimate owner of the land and
property is God. So property taxes are an intrusion upon divine prerogatives
and the state arguing that they are the owner of the land over against the
people. Property taxes also are an assault on the accumulation, preservation
and the passing on of wealth from generation to generation. And a study of the
inheritance laws in the Mosaic Law reveal that what God intended as a nation
prospered was for wealth to not only be accumulated but for it to grow within a
family from generation to generation. So there is not an antagonism in the
Scripture towards the accumulation of great amounts of wealth. What we do find
is a criticism of the mentality that goes after wealth as a source of meaning,
value and happiness, and that is described usually as covetousness.
When we get
into the New Testament it does not contradict the economic principles of the
Mosaic Law at all, but it transforms those laws in the Old Testament which were
designed for a theocratic nation to a broader universal context because now
there is no longer going to be a theocratic nation of Israel but God is going
to be working through a new universal group of people, the church. So there is
a transfer of the nature of these laws related to money because of this new
entity, the church, which is now trans-national. But in both the Old Testament
and the New Testament the one thing that stands out is that money and the use
of money and wealth is a personal responsibility, not a government
responsibility.
In the Old
Testament, when we look at the prophets, never was the government accused of
not taking care of the poor—unless what was happening was that the tithes
mandated by the Mosaic Law that were taken every three years for the care of
the widows and orphans was being abused. The government was accused and
condemned for misusing those funds. But as we go from the Old Testament to the
New Testament the government has the right to tax but the entity that is being
judged on the misuse of money is always the individual. The emphasis in the
Bible from the creation of man in Genesis chapter two on is always on individual
responsibility. That doesn’t contradict our compassion and care for those who
have misfortunes, those who don’t have money, or hose who are on the edges of
financial collapse. But that is another principle. Those responsibilities for
care and concern and compassion to be personal and what we see in Scripture and
in history is when governments take over those responsibilities to take care of
people individuals give up their responsibilities and people have less care and
concern for those who are elderly and those who are less fortunate. It is
always the trend. The more responsibility we give up individually the less
responsibility we feel for ourselves and for one another.
Scripture also
has various things to say about money in terms of its use and priority. Money
in and of itself is not evil or sinful, it is the
mental attitude and the use. Jesus said: Matthew 6:19-21 NASB
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust
destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
1 Tim
Speaking of the
latter days. 2 Timothy 3:2 NASB “For
men will be lovers of self, lovers of money…” It is that focus on money that
then becomes a root for the spread of evil in society. “… boastful,
arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy.”
Luke
Colossians 3:5 NASB “Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.” Covetousness and greed is idolatry; it becomes religious because you are replacing God as your priority in life to job, money, and that as the source of stability and happiness.
The value of labor and profit: 2 Thessalonians
3:10 NASB “… if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to
eat, either.” Most people want to emphasize giving to the poor. This is a
Christian value. But this is a Christian value also: if people won’t work, they
won’t eat. And this is exhibited throughout the Mosaic Law. In the Mosaic Law
there was a provision that was to be made that a farmer harvested his grain he
was to leave some grain in the field. He wasn’t to leave ten per cent in the
field and take it to the welfare market so that it would then be distributed to
the poor while they sat at home as couch potatoes. They still had to work for
it. They had to go out in the fields and glean for the grain that was left in
the fields. It wasn’t free. God was the originator of the idea that there is no
such thing as a free lunch. In all the provisions that are given in the Mosaic
Law there is a responsibility of labor to get that
which is that provision.
The focus of
Proverbs 31 a godly, virtuous wife. Proverbs 31:10 NASB “An excellent wife, who can find?
For her worth is far above jewels.” So immediately there is a positive value
association with a precious jewel to the value of a productive wife. [11] “The
heart of her husband trusts in her, And he will have
no lack of gain.” She is going to take care of things within her realm of
responsibility that enables him to be more productive and to make more money so
that they together can be more prosperous. This is how she is a blessing to the home. [12] “She
does him good and not evil All the days of her life.”
[13] She is involved in the labor. “She looks for
wool and flax And works with her hands in delight.” So
she is involved in also bringing profit into the family from her labors.
[15] “She rises also while it is still night And gives food to her household And portions to her
maidens.” So it is because of her work and how she prospers that she is able to
take care of those and provide jobs for those around her. [16] “She considers a
field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a
vineyard.
Proverbs 31:17 NASB “She girds
herself with strength And makes her arms strong.
In Acts
Notice that nowhere else in the New
Testament does this happen. Nowhere else in all of the history of Christianity
does anyone ever try to do this, it doesn’t happen. This is a unique situation
and it is related to the fact that Acts is a transition book.
The next thing that happens as one
instance of the generosity that they have is that Barnabas, a Levite from the diaspora, had land, sold it, and laid the money at the
apostles’ feet. That sets up as the introduction to what happens in chapter
five. In 5:1-11 we have the episode of Ananias and Sapphira. Ananias and his wife
sell a possession (one piece of property) and from that they gain a good price.
But they decided they wanted to have the same respect and the same notoriety that
they see these other believers having—and remember, nobody mandated that they
sell anything or give anything—and they also want the money. Nobody said they
had to give it all to the church, so it is all their decision. They are making
a series of wrong decisions. Ananias kept back part
of the proceeds though he gives money to the church. He doesn’t take into
account of the apostolic authority and that the prophets of the Old Testament
have now been replaced by apostles who are the spokespeople for God and they
have a hotline to heaven. So he comes in and lies about it and Peter knows the
truth.
Acts 5:3 NASB “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?” Some people
believe that Ananias was possessed by Satan, but that
is not the sense of the language there. His heart is not filled with Satan.
Satan influences him to lie and so he lies to the Holy Spirit. Lying to the church
which is the body of Christ formed through the baptism of the Holy Spirit is
lying to the Holy Spirit. [4] “While 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. [5] And as he heard these words, Ananias fell
down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it.” This
was an act of divine discipline, the sin unto death.
But why didn’t God do this to everybody else
who has lied to the churches? We have to look at the context. It is always
important to consider the context. His wife Sapphira
isn’t with him. She is about to come but before she arrives they wrap Ananias up, carry him out and they bury him. About three
hours later his wife Sapphira comes and she has no
idea what has happened, and Peter now is going to test her. Acts
5:9 NASB “Then Peter {said} to her, ‘Why is it that you have agreed
together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of
those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out
{as well.}’” Notice “the Spirit of the Lord,” identified back in verse 3 as the
Holy Spirit. [10] “And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last,
and the young men came in and found her dead, and they
carried her out and buried her beside her husband. [11] And great fear came
over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things.”
Then we have an addendum. Acts
This whole section has to be understood as
a whole and it is all about establishing the authority of the apostles and
establishing this infant organism called the church so that it isn’t going to
be torn apart by a lot of people who are self-centered
and more concerned about their own wellbeing than they are about the context of
the church.
Observations to
help us understand what is going on here.
1.
We always have
to remember that Acts is a transition book. Things are changing, removing from
the age of
2.
Acts is a
narrative. It is telling a story of what happened. It is describing what they
did; it is not prescribing what they did. It is telling us this happened to the
apostles, it is not saying this is what every church needs to do. This is
restricted to a unique time within this transitional period. Never again in the
New Testament period or in church history would anything remotely resembling
these events take place. It wasn’t supposed to be duplicated; it was
historically conditioned. Another thing that is important to understand is that
when they are giving up everything, selling their properties and giving their
money to the church, they are not starting a commune. But what happens when you
divest yourself of all of your property. You are free; free to move. You can go
anywhere.
3.
The most important
aspect of this transition is that it is a transition of authority and worship.
Up to this point the focal point of worship has been at the temple. Because of
that it gave additional value to the real estate in
4.
In the broader
context Jesus had predicted that
5.
They also lived
with an expectation that the kingdom would come soon. There would be judgment
and then the kingdom would come. And when Messiah returned to the kingdom all
the land God promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would be their and the
property lines for the different tribal allotments would all be redrawn, so why
should they have all their resources bound up in their property when everything
was going to change soon? They developed an eternal perspective in relation to
their temporal resources.
6.
The authority of
the apostles. In the transition the focus is on the authority of the apostles
and why it is dangerous to go against their authority, because they are the
divine representatives on the earth.
7.
In Acts
8.
Think in terms
of the flow of the events in Acts. The events in chapters 3 & 4 happened
fairly close to one another, close to the beginning, probably within the first
three or four months after the day of Pentecost. These events were probably
some six months to a year later, we don’t know how much time went by, and then
there is going to be some more opposition by the end of chapter five when Peter
and John are going to be arrested again. In chapter six
something happens. There is all of the wonderful love and unity at the
end of chapter four, but what happens in chapter six? Now there is a problem
because distributing the money to the poor is not that efficient. The
Hellenistic widows are being neglected in the daily distribution of resources.
This led to a further development in the administration and they appointed
seven men. We are introduced to Stephen who gets arrested and brought before
the Sanhedrin. He preaches a message of confrontation and condemnation in
chapter seven and he is stoned. Then in 8:1 NASB “Saul was in hearty
agreement with putting him to death. And on that day a great persecution began
against the church in
9.
The transfer of their
personal wealth to the apostles and to the church was a manifestation of their
trust in God. The apostles represent God. Previous to this time they are
trusting in their own personal wealth and possessions to give them stability in
difficult times. Now they give it all to the church, a manifestation of their
trust in God. They have no trust in the long term stability of
10.
The consequences
of this. In the immediate future we learn that there was no economic need in
11.
As word of this
spread it became a powerful testimony that something radically different was
taking place with this community of Christians. They were trusting in God in
ways that nobody had seen before. So it was a testimony to the grace of God, His
provision for them, and it is also a witness to the dispensational transition.
12.
It is not
motivated by any form of utopianism or a reduction in their view of the total
depravity of man. They don’t have some high view of man where they were all
just going to sell everything and go off and live in the desert, and we are all
going to take care of each other and bring in a utopia. That is the root of the
idea of modern socialism from the beginning of the 19th century. It
is always associated with we are going to solve all of man’s social ills and
social problems, and we are going to bring in social justice by confiscating
wealth from the wealthy and giving it to the poor. It doesn’t work, and that is
the essence of both socialism and communism.
13.
This transfer of
property, this giving of their wealth, was not mandated by the apostles. It
wasn’t a requirement; it wasn’t an obligation; it was something that was done
on a pure private, voluntary basis. What we will see in this issue over what
the Bible teaches about how to handle money versus modern views of communism
and socialism is this emphasis on collectivism versus private responsibility. That
is really the bottom line. Do you believe in individual responsibility or do
you believe in collectivism? And what are the implications?