Did Israel and the Early Church Practice Social Justice?

Many woke evangelicals will argue that both the nation of Israel and the early church were communal societies, and that socialism is more aligned with a capitalistic view. In this the third of my series on woke Christianity. I will answer the two most common examples that are cited by Progressive Christians as example of Biblically sanctioned wealth redistribution. I have all ready  demonstrated that the commonly cited texts of Matthew 25:31-46 and Luke 10:25-37 do not support the establishment of a social welfare state. One of the great misconceptions I often hear espoused is that Israel and early church were similar to a modern socialist systems. The two examples I am given are the year of Jublilee in the Old Testament and a description of the early church in Acts. 

The concept of Sabbath rest is central to the Old Testament. The Year of Jubilee establishes a Seventh Year of Rest. The concept was that the economy would go through a reset on the The Jubilee Years; unpaid debts would be forgiven, slaves freed. All forms of bondage are released. It is a symbol of forgiveness. Seven is the number of completion or perfection, so the idea was that when GOD's work came to consummation all would be free. It was a reflection in their daily lives of the people's deliverance from the bondage in Egypt. Like much of the Law, the practices and principles were reflective of the completed work of Christ and do not function in the same way under the New Covenant. The New Testament teaches that the rest and release from bondage seen in the Old Covenant Sabbath Law is fulfilled in Christ's redemptive work (Hebrews 4: 8 & 9

 So it is evident that the Jubilee Year was not intended to be a universal model for all economics. The year of Jubilee can not be used as an example of how Israel worked as one of the reasons that Israel was sent into captivity was their failure to obey the Sabbath Law (Lev 26). The Year of Jubilee was additionally instituted in a nomadic amphictyony economy that was relevant to a particular cultural situation. We have shown that the Old Testament from Gen - Malachi supports private property and that Ahab and Jezebel were deposed from their kingdom because of their redistributive actions (1 Kings 21).  The Year of Jubilee was never intended to be a model for a national economy, and neither was the economic practice  of the 1st Century church.

When I get into this discussion with my social justice Christian friends someone almost always says something like this, "Well the church in the book of Acts lived communally," no one had private property they "held all thing in common" early Christian had no private property. They argue that capitalism values materialism and  greed and reflects the paganism of the Roman empire and West. Whereas, the argument goes, socialism is compassionate, and based on a desire to care for one another. The early church, the argument goes, was much like a modern Israeli kibbutz, where they all lived together and took care of each other. I usually retort, "Yes, and 'Kum Bye Yah My Lord '" was a favorite hymn. I have all ready shown that the New Testament in general and Jesus in particular, supported private ownership of property, personal wealthy accumulation, and salary's based on the worth of the work rather than the time worked. So for the church to have established such a system in their infancy would have contradicted what Jesus taught Further, the New Testament church warned against providing for people who could take care of themselves (2 Thessalonians 3:10: 1 Timothy 5:9 -16). So what was it that was going on in the book of Acts?  

The book of Acts records an early system the disciples instituted to take care of need of the poor believers:

34There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. 36Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, 37sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (Acts 4: 34 -37)

 There it is, isn't it clear? Those who had wealth surrendered it to those who had not. The early church operated on the foundational principle of socialism "From each according to his ability to each according to his need..." Or did they? On close examination it is evident that this was not an abdication  of private property rights for the common good. 

One of the foundational principles of biblical interpretation is that an incident in scripture does not establish a precedent. The fact that Jesus walked on water does not mean that if we have enough faith we can walk on water. To understand the significance of this event we must understand the historical, grammatical and theological context of an event. The phrase "... it was distributed to each as any had need is not explained." We are assuming this is a 19th century style socialist community, but it was not. On second reading this passage doesn't support redistribution in the socialist sense. Property owners sold their property and gave away the proceeds of the sale; in other words the profit.  In a communal situation individual owners would neither sell property (because in a socialist system it is not theirs to sell.) Nor would they acquire profits from sale.  The fact that individuals sold and had "proceeds" implies something other than communism. The language hear is unclear as to what exactly took place. There is just not enough information given to conclude that this was some communal situation, furthermore, the text explains that did not become normative. 

In the next Chapter a man and his wife, Annanias and Sapphira, who agreed to participate in this system of benevolence, sold a piece of property, and only gave part of the proceeds to the apostles, keeping some for themselves. When it is discovered that they withheld part of the proceeds from the sale, they are brought to Peter for judgment. When their deception is revealed both are struck dead by the Holy Spirit.  My social justice friends will say, "See Peter condemned him, because of his greed, he kept part of the profit for himself, profit belongs to the community. We have no right to claim ownership of anything. " But that is clearly not what Peter says.

1. Annanias and Sapphira were condemned for dishonesty not for greed. The Apostle Peter said, they were condemned because they made a commitment before God and the church and only honored it partially, "Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?... 7After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you^a sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” 9But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.?" They were dishonest and unfaithful to a commitment, not for making a profit orpossessing property.

2. Peter is clear the Ananias and Sapphira had been able to sell the property for a profit and keep the proceed for themselves. Those participating in this system kept their rights as individual property owners. Speaking to Annaias Peter said, "4While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?" They maintained ownership of the property before selling it, and would still have it for their use afterward. 

What ever this was, it was not a situation where the property was owned communally. This was a voluntary and temporary situation to take care of the poor and needy among them. Annaias and Sapphira were condemned because they lied to Holy Spirit. This system of benevolence ultimately failed to meet the needs of a growing community of the poor. The church abandoned this system of holding all things in common; it did not produce economic growth and was unable to sustain the need of a growing church:

"1Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists^a arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution." (Acts 6:1)

The Hellenists were Jews were those who had remained dispersed and lived in the former Greek Empires.  As the gospel advance outside Jerusalem these were the Jews that were coming to faith, and the "daily distribution" was insufficient for their needs. So not only was the system that was established in Acts 5 something other than pure communism, it was fails to supply the needs of the poor. This is why socialism always fails, It does not produce anything. Prices increase. Supply lines break. It merely redistributes what you all ready have. There is absolutely nothing biblical about socialism in any form. Because private, ownership and productivity is central to the biblical cultural mandate. 

God gave man the field to work it and produce from it (Gen 2:15). Man was called to "be fruitful and multiply." Everything about the planet God created implied productivity; humans would take what God had given them and increase it. Socialism assumes there is are a limited number of resources, and that we all must share from the same limited resources none of us should ever have any more of anything than any one else. Nothing could be further from the Biblical view of economics. Absolutely nothing in scripture supports the social justice view of wealth redistribution, it is false teaching.

Social justice advocacy is false teaching because it denies the truth of God. God had given us what we need. We have no need to take what belongs to others. Producing for our own use is a reflection of the image of our own Creator. So it's time for those who claim to be Bible teachers to recognize the reality the capitalism is aligned with scripture and socialism is a demonic lie.  Those who would advocate that an outside party like the state or the church take possession of all things and distribute them equally to all people are flatly denying the very fundamental principles upon which biblical culture is built. Social Justice Christianity is a lie  we must avoid.