Acts 4:32-37

The Believers Share Their Possessions
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.



Dig Deeper
One of the most beloved movies of all time is the classic film “It’s a Wonderful Life.” In that movie, the main character George Bailey, lives an almost mythic life of self-sacrifice as he constantly puts the needs of those around him ahead of himself. He often does this at great detriment to his own plans and desires but he believes in putting others first and he lives that way. During a particularly difficult time in his life he has a massive debt that has arisen due to the mistake of his Uncle that has left him in danger of losing his house. As a result, he begins to question his life decisions and wonder if his whole life has been for naught. He wishes that he had never been born, thinking that everyone around him would be better off if they had never known him. A somewhat bumbling angel comes to him to show him what the lives of those who know and love him would look like if he had indeed never been born. After realizing that he has had a major positive impact in the lives of all who know him, Bailey returns to his home. He still has major problems and massive debt facing him but he has a renewed energy for life and a new understanding that his life of service has not been for naught. When he arrives at home, though, he discovers that the whole town has turned out to chip in money to erase his debt. It is a delightful closing scene as person after person makes their way forward to put money in the pot and make sure that George is taken care of. It is certainly an idyllic scene but you get the felling while watching it that that is somehow the way things are supposed to be.

From time to time, different groups of people around the world have tried various forms of communal living. Several hippie and religious cult groups tried it in the United States in the 1960’s. Communist countries have tried it. Some religious groups in the 16th and 17th centuries gave it a go. Even the Qumran community that was responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls engaged in communal living and the common ownership of possessions. Some of these attempts have failed miserably from very early on. Others have survived to varying degrees for awhile. Most of them required one to relinquish their possessions in order to be in the group. The early Christian family was different, though.

As we saw back in Acts 2:42-47, Luke saw the sharing of possessions as an absolutely central aspect to the new Christian community. It was so central, in fact, that Luke saw it important to describe it in even further detail than he had in chapter 2. The early Christians absolutely believed that they had been called into God’s promised family and that they had become the restored humanity of God. They did not view salvation as an individual spiritual experience, rather they knew that individuals could die to themselves and enter into the new life of God’s family. They understood that God’s family was what was saved. People were not saved as individuals and then would choose to congregate together. God’s whole point of salvation was to create a community that would show his glory and wisdom to the world (see Eph. 3:10). People are placed into the family that is saved rather than being saved and then placed into a religious group.

This was a group that saw themselves as God’s family and they were determined to live that way. What set them apart, then, from almost every other group that has tried different forms of communal living was that they did see themselves truly as a family and, although the normal practice was to share everything they had with one another, it was not required. They lived as family because they wanted to and they were grateful to God from their hearts. In fact, technically speaking, the early Christians were not communal, in that they did not live together. They weren’t classically communal, but what they were was a community that was deeply committed to living like the family that they believed they had been formed as (Eph. 2:19).

This commitment to living a radically different lifestyle than the world around them came as a result of seeing themselves as people who were not of this age. They had truly been born (Jn. 3:5) into God’s new family and that made them children of the light (Eph. 5:8; 1 Thes. 5:5; Jn. 12:36) which was not a term that simply meant to live honest and good lives. By calling themselves children of the light, the Christians meant that they were the people of God’s future, the time when there would be no darkness or evil but only the brilliant light of God’s presence. They saw themselves as an entirely new portion of humanity, those who were dedicated to living by the values of God’s future age (alternately called heaven, the age to come, eternal life, the resurrection, etc.) right now. They would live by the values of an age in which love, the presence of God and sufficiency were the only realities so there was no room for hate, sin, or greed, poverty or surplus in the present age. They were the people of God’s future and would live as such in the present age.

Because they saw themselves as people of a different reality and age, the early Christians had a radically different view of wealth, one that, to be quite frank, most modern Christians would rather sweep under the rug than actually embrace. They believed that throughout his ministry Jesus had challenged people that a major aspect of his kingdom people, one that would be particularly difficult for the rich to embrace, was that people must be willing to share all of their surplus with the poor (see Lk. 18:22-30). They believed that a major aspect of the coming kingdom that was promised throughout the Old Testament was that it would be good news for the poor (Isa. 61:1). The early church believed strongly that unshared wealth and a community that was not committed to making sure everyone had sufficiency was contrary to a message of being good news to the powerless and poor (Lk. 4:18). They held strongly to the idea that the gathering of manna following the Exodus had offered a pattern of God’s people having sufficiency rather than surplus (Ex. 16:16-26) and that Jesus had called them to use their worldly gained wealth towards their brothers and sisters in God’s kingdom (and other people in general, although Galatians 6:10 gave the principle of providing first for the family of believers) rather than on themselves and things that people usually spend their money on (Lk. 16:9). They were genuinely and deeply committed to storing up their treasures in heaven, doing God’s will and providing for his family, rather than spending it on worldly items (Matt. 6:19-21).

They were to radically view wealth differently from the world which is why Paul could confidently urge Timothy to remind the believers that “we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Tim. 6:6-10).

Some have argued that this radically different view of wealth and commitment to live like a family that shared everything they had with one another was due to a bit of post-resurrection hysteria among the Christians that would quickly die out. That argument is accurate only if you belief about 250 to 300 years to be a period of quickly dying out. The church of the first several centuries held this extreme view of the purpose of wealth, including that they were a different family of people than all other humans that were part of the family of fallen humanity, and that they were called to live by different values of the age to come and to take care of one another as family. Although there are numerous quotations and instances in the early church that show their commitment to such values, Clement of Alexandria, writing in 195 AD, summed up the beliefs and practices of the early church when he wrote that “God brought our race into communion by first imparting what was his own, when he gave his own word common to all, and made all things for all. All things therefore are common, and not for the rich to appropriate an undue share. That expression, therefore, ‘possess and possess in abundance, why then should I not enjoy?’ is suitable neither to the man, nor to society. But more worthy of love is that: ‘I have, why should I not give to those who need?’ For such a one, one who fulfills the command, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’ is perfect. For this is the true luxury, the treasured wealth. But that which is squandered on foolish lusts is to be reckoned waste, not expenditure. For God has given to us, I know well, the liberty of use, but only so far necessary; and he has determined that the use should be common. And it is monstrous for one to live in luxury, while many are in want. How much more glorious is it to do good to many, than to live sumptuously! How much wiser to spend money on human beings, than on jewels and gold! How much more useful to acquire decorous friends, than lifeless ornaments!”

Justin Martyr, a church leader writing about 30 years earlier, confirmed this as the common view amongst early Christians when he wrote “We who valued above all things the acquisition of wealth and possessions, now bring what we have into a common stock, and communicate [share with] to everyone in need; we who hated and destroyed one another, and on account of their different manners would not live with men of a different tribe, now, since the coming of Christ, live familiarly [as a family] with them, and pray for our enemies, and endeavor to persuade those who hate us unjustly to live comfortably to the good precepts of Christ, to the end that they may become partakers with us of the same joyful hope of a reward from God the Ruler of all.” Justin demonstrated that this lifestyle was every bit as unique, radical, and demanding for them as it is for us, but they did it anyway.

As Luke ably demonstrates here, this wasn’t just theoretical. This was a community that based itself as a reality on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In that act, Jesus had sacrificed his own life and shared lavishly with his brothers and sisters in the family of God so that they could rightly be called co-heirs. But the church didn’t just preach the resurrection, they lived it out in their own corporate life by in part, sharing their surplus with those in need just as Christ had shared radically with them. And they did it willingly out of gratitude rather than compulsion or requirement. They became a family of believers that felt that they had to do more than say they were family that cared about one another, they needed to actually become that (see James 2:15-17, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9). Even a 2nd century critic of early Christianity, Lucian of Samosata, confirmed that “their first lawgiver [Jesus] persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another . . . Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definite evidence.”

The early church was so committed to this as a normal way of life that Paul even had to warn them to watch out for those who would loaf and take advantage of the community’s belief in taking care of one another: “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. . . For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat. We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat” (2 Thess. 3:6-10).

The early believers didn’t sell the homes that they lived in or share themselves into poverty but they realized that personal wealth would not matter in God’s coming future age so it did not matter to them in this present age. Sufficiency, not surplus, became the goal. So if others were in need then they made the challenging decision to sell off their extra possessions and share with their brothers and sisters so that none would lack. But Luke didn’t want this to be some generic belief that would be easy to dismiss. He put a human face and example on all of this by describing the sacrificed of Joseph, also called Barnabas. Barnabas was among those who was more than willing to give up his own personal wealth to provide for his brothers and sisters. Writing a few decades later, the same Barnabas would urge other Christians to “share all things with your neighbor. You will not call things your own. If you are partakers in common of things that are incorruptible [spiritual wealth and the age to come], how much more of those things which are corruptible [physical wealth].” Truly this was not just a fine sounding belief, they lived this and it became who they were. It certainly stands as a monumental challenge to Christians in the 21st century. Are we really willing to embrace this as our identity and become this kind of kingdom people?


Devotional Thought
What about the Christians action in this section, their way of life, and their radical view of wealth is most challenging to you? Are you truly willing to embrace the radical shift in the view of wealth that Jesus gave to his new community of people?