Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. (Acts 4:32)

When we read Luke’s account of the early Christian community coming together and holding all things “in common,” we may find it hard to believe. Are there any circumstances under which we would be willing to adopt a similar lifestyle?

            We may gladly share produce from our gardens or buy groceries to help restock a church food pantry. We may contribute to local shelters by writing a check to help the homeless have a good Thanksgiving or Christmas meal, but our generosity is limited.

We are familiar with nuns or monks who foreswear marriage and earthly possessions to live communally in convents or monasteries, but few of us have any desire to go that far.

            We may have heard of cult-like groups who have become so convinced that Christ is returning soon that they dispose of personal property and live in community as they await the day, but that also has little appeal.

            A similar belief may have fueled the earliest Christian community’s desire for common living, however. The gospels portray Jesus as implying that he would return within a generation and call his followers to heaven. Those who expected a quick departure would have little incentive to hold onto personal property.

            In addition, the times were fraught with danger. If the authorities had seen to Jesus’ death, they might come after his followers, too. A sense of foreboding and the possibility of martyrdom could leave people feeling less attached to physical possessions.

            Finally, we recall that Luke’s account depicts the early days following Pentecost, when the community was Spirit-filled and still rejoicing in their common experience. The close harmony of the early believers would not last, but Luke portrays it as a thing of beauty while it endured.

A church’s reality

(v. 32-33)

Twice, following Pentecost, Luke describes the early Christian community as being characterized by unity, generosity, and mutual care. The first summary statement is in Acts 2:42-47, where he says, “All who believed were together and had all things in common,” selling their possessions and distributing the proceeds “to all, as any had need” (2:42-43).

Luke describes the new Jesus-followers as spending their days together at the temple while eating at home “with glad and generous hearts, praising God having the goodwill of all the people.” Apparently, their faith and new lifestyles were attractive to others, for “day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved” (2:44-47).

The second picture of the early church describes a community that seems too good to be true: “Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul,” Luke said, as the NRSV translates v. 32a. The word rendered as “soul” is psuche, the root of English terms including “psyche” and “psychology.” While the KJV, NAS20, and ESV translations also use “soul,” the NIV11 and NET2 translate it as “mind.” Like the Hebrew nefesh, the word psuche refers to one’s interior life, the conscious awareness of who we are and what we think.

            The terms “heart and soul” are metaphorical in any sense, a way of describing how the early believers joined in common cause for the purpose of loving and serving both Christ and each other. To truly love is to serve.

            The newfound spirit of unity and loving service inspired such generous sharing that Luke could say “no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common” (v. 32b), a statement that echoes his earlier claim that “All who believed were together and had all things in common” (2:44).

            On the surface, this appears to suggest wholesale communal living in which everyone pooled their possessions and lived from a common fund. Does Acts, then, teach a socialist ideology in which no one owns private property or personal wealth?

            We must be careful not to draw too many inferences from Luke’s summary statement. If in fact he intends to reflect a fully communal system, it apparently didn’t work very well or last very long. While v. 34 insists there was not a needy person among them in those early days, the church in Jerusalem later became so impoverished that Paul took up a collection to assist it (Rom. 15:25-28, 1 Cor. 16:1-4, 2 Cor. 8:1-15).

            Luke’s purpose, in any case, is not to make political statements or to endorse an economic ideology, but to show how the Spirit-infused believers were living out Christ’s call to care for one another.

            Luke’s account assumes that Christian witnesses of word and deed are inseparable. Thus, sandwiched between three verses about social concern, he observes that “With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all” (v. 33).

            This statement does three things. First, it injects the apostles into the story. They had not been mentioned in v. 32, but they become significant players in the stories that follow.

            Secondly, it describes a characteristic practice of the newly bold apostles, who spoke “with great power” as they testified to the resurrection of Christ. The word “their” is supplied in the NRSV translation: the text says literally, “they gave testimony.” The testimony they proclaimed, however, grew from their experience as witnesses of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. The “great power” that emboldened the apostles, the reader assumes, derives from the Holy Spirit, which had come upon them at Pentecost (Acts 2, cf. 1:8, 3:12).

            Thirdly, Luke describes the result: “great grace was upon them all.”  Members of the church had not only experienced grace, but they had learned to express it. Luke’s intent is not simply to remind us that the believers had been saved by grace, but to assert that their lives were now characterized by grace. [DD]

A spirit of community

(vv. 34-35)

Now Luke returns to the theme of communally shared resources. Acts 2:44 and 4:32 make no mention of the apostles or the method by which economic aid was shared, but in v. 35 Luke says that when people sold property for the benefit of the community, they brought the money and “laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as they had need.”

            This adds a layer of administration to the mix, along with the element of apostolic authority: to put oneself or one’s possessions at the feet of another indicated submission to the other’s leadership.

            These verses offer more insight into the practice of mutual support. Though v. 32 might seem to imply that early believers contributed all their property or funds to a common pool, the verbal tenses in v. 34 suggest that property was sold piecemeal to provide contributions as needs arose or the common fund grew dry.

            The verb for “selling” is a present active participle, and the word for “bringing” is in the imperfect tense. Both suggest a type of continual or progressive action. Thus, instead of “they sold and brought,” as in NRSV, the phrase could be translated “they were selling and bringing.” The NIV11 gets the same point across by introducing the phrase with “From time to time,” though those words are not in the text: “From time to time those who owned land or houses sold them and brought the proceeds …”

            The text, then, suggests that the ownership of private property or wealth continued, but church members were so filled with grace that they were willing to dispose of it as needed for the common good. As J. Bradley Chance puts it, “the early community can best be described not so much as practicing communal ownership, as generous sharing” (emphasis by Chance, Acts [Smyth & Helwys, 2007], 81). 

             A community in which there are no needy persons reflects a longstanding ideal for Israel (see Deut. 15:1-11). With the advent of Christ and the power of the Spirit, Luke says the ideal became reality … at least for a time. Evidence suggests that it didn’t last. Some members lied about their contributions (Acts 5:1-11). The distribution of goods was unequal at times: Hebrew widows apparently received preferential treatment over those who spoke Greek. This led to the appointment of the first prototype deacons, seven men who were designated to oversee the distribution of food so the apostles could give more attention to preaching (6:1-6). [DD]

            In time, the congregation in Jerusalem became so impoverished that Paul solicited an offering for them from the churches in Asia Minor (Rom. 15:25-29). Had an avalanche of poor members joined the community so they could sponge off the generosity of others? Had wealthier members run out of property to donate? Were early believers so certain of Christ’s soon return that they had stopped working?

            We can’t be sure of the answer, but it appears that the early church—like the modern church—experienced periods of both generosity and self-interest. The ideal of a loving community so rich in the Spirit and in grace that it leaves no one in need remains a great hope still in need of fulfillment.

            Nevertheless, the ideal remains, and we should ask ourselves: how does our faith community measure up?