Does the Bible Endorse Socialism in Acts 2?

Acts 2:44-45 says the following:

And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.

Does the Bible Endorse Socialism in Acts 2Some have argued from this passage that the early Christians practiced a form of political socialism, and therefore that the Bible teaches that socialism is the true and best political theory.

Christian socialists thereby find validation in this passage. On the other hand, non-Christians who think that socialism is demonstrably false may use this passage to argue that the Bible endorses false ethical and political views. Conservative Christians are of course not comfortable with either of these alternatives.

But does the Bible endorse socialism here in the Book of Acts, as the objection states, or is something else going on in this passage? A closer reading of the surrounding context indicates that this passage does not in fact represent an endorsement of socialism.

Why Acts 2:44-45 Does Not Teach Christian Socialism

There are four reasons why Christian socialism is not taught in the passage in Acts under consideration.

1. This passage is descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes to us what the early Christians were doing, but it does not tell us that this is what we ought to do. At best, then, this passage would only show that socialism is consistent with the actions of the early Christians, not that the Bible endorses socialism.

2. These actions were temporary. These things took place on the special occasion of the early Christians all being in Jerusalem for Pentecost. They lived all over Israel, so this kind of thing that they did was not the norm. It was done in light of the specific circumstances of living together apart from their homes for a certain purpose.

3. These actions were voluntary. There is no indication that this was a compulsory arrangement. Rather, this seems to be something they did willingly. It was convenient for them to pool their resources for the common goal of spreading the gospel in Jerusalem. We do things similar to this today when we, say, choose to live together while at college. We may choose to live in the same house, pool our money together to get a common food supply, and even sacrifice some things that we have so that we can all get by together. We would do this in light of being away from home and living in a tough economy attending an expensive university. But this would not imply that we are socialists.

A key feature of socialism is the compulsory sharing of wealth and goods. The early Christians shared wealth and goods alright, but the sharing was not compulsory.

4. The selling and donating of their possessions was partial and limited. They did not sell literally everything they had to be donated to a common pool, but sold and distributed “as any had need”. After Pentecost, they returned to their homes which were scattered all over the world. This implies that they sold only their extra possessions, while at the same time retaining their private property.

The Big Book of Bible DifficultiesFor these reasons, it seems clear that Acts 2 does not promote a sort of Christian socialism. Nor does Acts 2 represent a biblical difficulty for contemporary American Christians who are democratic yet want to accept everything that the Bible teaches.

The primary insights of this post were taken from The Big Book of Bible Difficulties, authored by Norm Geisler and Thomas Howe. If you are interested in seeing treatments like this of countless other alleged Bible difficulties, then I strongly encourage you to check out this resource!

Do you have any thoughts or questions about Acts 2 and socialism, or socialism itself? Be sure to leave them in the comments section below and I’ll be happy to interact with you!

Related Articles

A Legal and Moral Defense of Penal Substitution Part 1 Christianity holds that humanity is morally and relationally separated from God, yet offers a way of reconciliation. This way of reconciliation is the atonement of Jesus Christ, wh...
James Rachels’ Challenge to Cultural Relativism: A Theistic Resp... The following essay clarifies the distinction between ethical and cultural relativism and explains James Rachels' challenge to cultural relativism. His challenge consists in critiq...
The Four Noble Truths: Buddhist vs Christian Views of Suffering Central to the worldview of Buddhism are the doctrines of the Four Noble Truths. These create the foundation that leads to Buddhism's more practical doctrines contained in the Eigh...

2 Commentsto Does the Bible Endorse Socialism in Acts 2?

  1. Jovo says:

    Hi, the passage you put in the beginning of the text more describes communism than socialism. I wonder how did people come to socialism with that. I was born in a country where communism was official ideology so I feel I am able to read between lines. Your arguments, in particular 1, 2 and 4, are not the best in my view but I am not in a mood to argue about them. Back to the passage, this is a description of communists.

    • Kiefer says:

      Hi Jovo, thanks for your comment. I welcome critique of my arguments and would be happy to engage with you if you would like to offer objections.

      Regarding you claim that Acts 2 or more analogous to communism than to socialism, I suppose this would depend on how we define the terms. Given how closely the ideas are related, I can see a case being made for either one, again depending on our definitions. I take socialism to be, in large part, a political ideology valuing collective ownership and compulsory sharing of social equity, which is why some have thought that the Bible is supporting socialism here.

      That said, if you’d like to argue that socialism and communism should be defined such that a better case could be made that communism is supported in Acts 2, I’d be happy to hear your case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *