Did the Early Church Share Possessions? | Darrell Bock on Acts 2 & 4

Luke records that the early Jesus followers in Jerusalem “held everything in common” (Acts 2:44–45; 4:32–37). Does this mean the early church abolished private property and embraced a sort of communalism? Luke-Acts scholar Darrell L. Bock joins Kirk E. Miller on this episode of What in the Word? to discuss these texts and what they might mean for us today.

Follow the show on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and more.

Connect with us

Ready to increase biblical literacy? Like and share. To go the extra mile, leave us a review on your preferred platform. 

See all of our episodes.

Episode guest: Darrell Bock

Darrell L. Bock is Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas, as well as Executive Director of Cultural Engagement for the Hendricks Center there. He is also a New York Times bestselling author. The author of around forty books, his special fields of study involve hermeneutics, the use of the Old Testament in the New, Luke-Acts, the historical Jesus, Gospel studies, and the integration of theology and culture. He is a graduate of the University of Texas (BA), Dallas Theological Seminary (ThM), and the University of Aberdeen (PhD). He is married to Sally and has two daughters (both married), a son, three grandsons, and a granddaughter.

• Facebook
• Link

Episode synopsis

Did the early church abolish private property?

Immediately following the events of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–41), Luke describes the early Jerusalem church as selling possessions and distributing the proceeds “as anyone had need” (Acts 2:42–47). Acts 4:32–37 revisits the same pattern in greater detail: Owners of land and houses were selling them and bringing the proceeds to the apostles’ feet, so that “there was no one needy among them.”

To many today, this portrait resembles ideas within modern communism. It raises anxious questions about economic obligations or unrealistic idealism. To others, the text is simply glossed over or so heavily caveated that its entire force is nearly lost.

Yet Luke presents these descriptions as positive profiles of the primitive Christian community. He includes no hint of critique. So what is going on with this text, and what are we to do with it?

Luke’s positive portrayals of the early church

As Dr. Darrell Bock points out, Luke offers six positive traits of this early Jerusalem church (Acts 2:42–47):

1. The apostolic teaching
2. Fellowship and relationship with one another
3. The breaking of bread (hospitality and the Lord’s Table)
4. Prayer and engagement with God
5. Ministry to those outside the community, testified by signs and wonders
6. A family-like unity, displayed by even selling possessions to meet each other’s material needs

The placement of this description (Acts 2:42–47) immediately follows the pouring out of the Spirit on this people at Pentecost (Acts 2:1–41). In other words, Luke is detailing the transformation that occurs when the Holy Spirit takes up residence in a community. This passage provides an answer to the question, What does a Spirit-filled people look like?

So too, Luke’s description in Acts 4:32–37 follows the church’s prayer for boldness (Acts 4:23–31) after Peter and John’s arrest and release (Acts 3:1–4:22). Darrell regards this prayer as one of the most striking moments in Acts. Faced with their first persecution, the believers do not pray for the hostility to stop or for judgment on their enemies. Instead, they pray for boldness to keep preaching and serving. Thus, the “signs and wonders” they ask for are not mere displays of power but instruments of care, ways of demonstrating God’s goodness to a hostile audience.

Following this prayer, the church is again “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 4:31), which sets the frame for the profile that follows (Acts 4:32–37): The “full number” of believers were of “one heart and soul,” no one regarded their possessions as their own, and they held all in common, such that “there was not a needy person among them.” Those who owned land and real estate sold them and brought the proceeds to the apostles so it could be distributed as needed. They held their material possessions with open hands, as resources with which to meet the needs of others (so also Acts 6:1–7). Luke identifies Barnabas as a specific exemplar (Acts 4:36–37).

In direct contrast to Barnabas, Luke follows this with a negative example of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11). The latter sold a piece of property, kept a portion of the proceeds for themselves, yet presented the remainder as though it were the full amount. They were both struck dead.

Key exegetical details that clarify

Peter’s rebuke of Ananias and Sapphira, however, makes clear that this sacrificial giving was voluntary; no one was required to sell their possessions and give away the proceeds. As Peter says to Ananias and Sapphira, “Before it was sold, did it not belong to you? And when it was sold, was the money not at your disposal?” (Acts 5:4). The issue wasn’t simply that Ananias and Sapphira had kept “part of the proceeds from the sale of the land” (Acts 5:3). The property was theirs. The money from the sale was theirs. Rather, their sin was lying, offering a portion of the proceeds as if it were the entirety of the proceeds (Acts 5:1–11). In other words, they wanted the reputation of a Barnabas without the sacrifices of a Barnabas. They pretended to be generous without actually practicing generosity, and so lied to the Holy Spirit.

This episode, however, makes clear that the sharing of possessions in Acts was entirely voluntary. No one was compelled to sell their possessions or hand over what they owned. No one was required to surrender private property as a condition of membership, such as in the Qumran community. Rather, this giving was an expression of genuine, sacrificial, Spirit-empowered care, not a community rule or an economic policy.

Additionally, the verbs Luke uses in Greek to describe this practice are in the imperfect. The imperfect presents a verb’s action, not as a once-for-all snapshot like the aorist, but as something ongoing. As Darrell maintains, the imperfects here seem to have an iterative function, meaning this selling and giving was a habitual pattern within the community, not a single complete act in which everyone liquidated all their assets. Rather, this sort of generosity arose again and again as needs appeared.

Use the Grammar section in Logos’s Exegetical Guide to locate comments on your passage within Greek and Hebrew Grammars.

For instance, later in Acts 12:12, immediately after God miraculously freed him from prison, Peter goes to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, where many believers are gathered and praying. We see here that Mary clearly still owns her house; she has not sold it. This indicates that not everyone in this early Jesus community had sold all their property. That said, we do see Mary using her house sacrificially, opening it up to the believers. Her hospitality is then another mode of the generosity the Spirit produces—using what one has in service to others, rather than clinging to it as merely one’s own.

Descriptive—not prescriptive—yet commended

Some point out that the Jerusalem church’s generosity apparently left it financially depleted, requiring Paul later to organize a collection from gentile churches on its behalf (2 Corinthians 8). On this reading, the early community’s radical giving was admirable but ultimately unsustainable, a cautionary tale rather than a model.

Yet, as Darrell points out, the picture Luke paints of this early community is unqualifiedly positive. He provides this portrait to show what Spirit-filled generosity looks like in practice. In fact, as Kirk E. Miller points out, Luke’s phrase “there was no one needy among them” seems to be a deliberate allusion to Deuteronomy 15, which speaks of the sabbatical year and its intent that “there will be no poor among you” (Deut 15:4). In other words, this new covenant community is becoming what God always intended his people, Israel, to be. The Spirit is realizing what the law of Moses had always aimed toward.

When interpreting the Bible, we ought to distinguish between what is descriptive vs. prescriptive: Just because the Bible describes (recounts) something, does not mean it prescribes (commands) that thing. In fact, the Bible describes many things (e.g., murder, stealing, assault) we ought not repeat. So Acts, as narrative, describes what happened in the early church without necessarily prescribing such things as normative or things we are meant to replicate.

Yet this distinction does not mean the Bible’s narratives are neutral, without an implicit message for us. In the case of Acts 2:44–45 and Acts 4:32–37, although the specific actions recounted here are not prescribed, they are nonetheless commended as exemplary of the type of generosity that ought to characterize Christian communities. They aim to stir the reader.

As Darrell points out, this fits how ancient biography functioned: You observe virtues and vices such that you are persuaded, even if not commanded. Narrative teaches, among other things, by example.

Additionally, the early church’s generosity was an outworking of Jesus’s teaching.

• Jesus taught, “Sell your possessions, and give to the needy” (Luke 12:33).
• So Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell everything (Luke 18:18–30).
• Jesus commended Zacchaeus for giving half of his possessions to the poor and restoring fourfold what he had stolen (Luke 19:1–10).
• On the other hand, Jesus told a parable of a man who built bigger barns to store his material riches yet was not “rich” toward God (Luke 12:13–21).

Thus, the Jerusalem believers may well have understood themselves as simply doing what Jesus said. In this way, Acts 2:44–45 and Acts 4:32–37 present a descriptive account of a prescriptive ethic already taught by Jesus himself.

The practical significance

As these passages exemplify, we are ultimately stewards, not owners, of what we possess. We should ask ourselves, How can I use what God has entrusted to me to serve others? As Galatians 6:10 says, “As we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.” See also 1 Timothy 6:6–10, 17–19, which provides some of the New Testament’s most direct teaching on the Christian’s use of wealth.

Within the church, this means treating fellow believers as genuine family, people whose material needs are your concern. This finds visible expression in things like the church’s care for its widows (1 Timothy 5:9–16; see also Acts 6:1–7), the kind of coordinated giving Paul describes in 2 Corinthians 8, or a church’s well-funded, actively used benevolence ministry, where the church has decided to set resources aside to care for the needs of its members as they may arise. These things translate the spirit of Acts 2:44–45 and Acts 4:32–37 into the ordinary life of a congregation.

Advice for those teaching or preaching

Clearly explain the text, noting the voluntary nature of its giving. Yet do not so hedge the text (it’s not communalism; it was voluntary; it’s descriptive not prescriptive) that you drain the text of its intended force. Caveats are necessary, but they are not the point. Rather, the text’s point centers on the exceptional, exemplary nature of this Spirit-filled community’s life together. Don’t lose that point in the midst of your qualifications.

So allow the passage be challenging. Allow the congregation to squirm under its conviction as needed. The passage presses us to ask, Am I attentive to the needs of those around me? Do I see my finances and possessions as existing for myself? Or do I hold my resources loosely enough that I am free to serve others with them—even at great cost to myself? As C.S. Lewis said,

I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words, if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charities expenditure excludes them.¹

---

Logos values thoughtful and engaging discussions on important biblical topics. However, the views and interpretations presented in this episode are those of the individuals speaking and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Logos. We recognize that Christians may hold different perspectives on this passage, and we welcome diverse engagement and respectful dialogue.

Let us know what you think

What might it look like to practice the spirit of Acts 2 and 4 in our churches today? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Darrell Bock’s recommended resources on Luke-Acts

Additional suggested resources on Acts

Related articles

• Is It Wrong to Want to Be Rich? | Malcolm Foley on 1 Timothy 6:6–10
• To Have or to Hold? What the Bible Says About Money
• Baptism of the Holy Spirit: What It Means & How We Get It Wrong
• Acts of Persuasion: Why Did Gentiles Convert to Christianity?
• Women in Acts: Women’s Role in the Birth of the Church

1. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (HarperOne, 2001), 86.