Why Acts 2:44-47 and 4:32-35 Are Normative for the Church

Sharing is caring!

[This post is the second of a three part series on Acts 2:44-47 and 4:32-37. You can read my first post here.]

So what is the church supposed to look like? Fortunately, the Bible gives us two very clear descriptions of what it is to look like. We find them in Acts 2:44-47 and 4:32-35. Unfortunately, these descriptions are not without controversy. (For a more thorough and even duller discussion of the following arguments, you can download my master’s thesis on the subject here.)

Arguments against viewing Acts 2:44-47 and 4:32-35 as normative for the church.

1. These passages are impractical. If people sell their possessions to meet the needs of others then they themselves become dependents. But Acts 2 and 4 don’t say that all believers sold everything they had. Rather, as needs arose within the community, they kept selling(In the Greek these verbs are iterative imperfects, indicating repetitive action.) things they had to meet those needs. And the needs were critical. In ancient times, widows and orphans often starved to death. Rather than watch fellow believers starve, Christians sold off assets such as land and jewelry in order to meet those needs.
2. They teach communism. It looks like these passages teach that the early church required new believers to sell all they had when they joined the church and put the money in a common fund that was in the control of the Apostles. But that picture is not accurate. InActs 5:3-4, Peter reminds Ananias and Sapphira that their contribution was completely voluntary and that their possessions remained under their control. So when Luke states that the believers “had everything in common” (Acts 2:44-45), he’s describing an attitude of commonality, not a common community fund.
3. They’ve been abused. Starting from the very beginning with Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, and continuing down through the centuries, these passages have engendered hypocrisy and have been used to justify cults. This is true. Satan is the chief obfuscater and capitalizes on our ignorance and misinterpretations of Scripture. But this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take them seriously and attempt to correctly understand them and practice them.
4. The early church was actually being disobedient. Jesus had commanded his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel. But the church in Acts 2 and 4 was solely focused on Jerusalem. So God had to send a persecution in order to disperse the church out from Jerusalem (Acts 8:1-3), or so the argument goes. Well, maybe. But one could also interpret the dispersion in Acts 8 as simply God providentially accomplishing His purpose. In fact, the dispersion in Acts 8 follows an amazing act of obedience: Stephens’ defense of the gospel and martyrdom. Nothing in chapter 8 states that God is in any way disciplining his church for disobedience.

Why Acts 2:44-47 and 4:32-35 are normative for the church.

1. These passages are repeated twice for emphasis. The descriptions of daily life in the early church occur early in the book of Acts, are lengthy and detailed, and are repeated twice. One gets the impression that Luke is highlighting these practices and wants his readers to take note of them.
2. Luke gives no hint of disapproval. Rather, it’s just the opposite. Luke describes the daily life of the early church in glowing terms.
3. The narratives end with positive accounts of widespread public approval and dramatic church growth. Luke tells us in 2:47 that believers enjoyed “the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.” It’s hard to believe that this kind of obvious blessing would result from inauthentic Christian behavior.
4. All of the major ideas in these passages are repeated in the rest of the New Testament. Here are just two of many possible examples:

All the believers were one in heart and mind: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” John 17:20-21

There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them:“This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?” 1 John 3:16-17

In reality, the problems we western Christians have with these passages are more cultural than they are exegetical or theological. Acts 2 and 4 run counter to our individualistic, materialistic and capitalistic culture on the one hand, and on the other hand we’ve seen groups – both religious (cults) and secular (communism) – try to put them into practice, but with really bad results.

So what’s the solution? I believe the solution lies in the concept of love. The Christians we read about in Acts 2 and 4 weren’t being forced to love each other. And they weren’t trying to love each other either. Rather, they had come to love each other. In other words, they had arrived at love. And because they had come to love each other, their actions were natural and spontaneous. We do things for people we genuinely love that we would never think of doing for people we don’t.

It’s this difference between trying to love someone and coming to love someone that I’m going to discuss in my next post.

So stay tuned.

This post first appeared in NewCommandment.org.

_______________________________________________________________

Learn how to form teams of men for every widow, single mom

and fatherless child in your church at NewCommandment.org.

_______________________________________________________________