Since communism is a socioeconomic theory put forth in the nineteenth century, thinking that the early church practiced communism seems anachronistic. It is. Yet ever since Karl Marx gave the world communism, people have filtered Acts 2:42–45 through his ideas:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. . . . 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.
One of Marxism’s most famous slogans seems to fit Acts 2 well: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” But that takes Marxism and Acts 2 out of context.
Communism advocates several ideas that are foreign to Old and New Testament theology. It abolishes private ownership of property, seeks a classless society, and uses the power of the state to coerce the populace toward fulfillment of both goals. There is no support in Scripture for these extremes. Two of the Ten Commandments presuppose private property and criminalize its theft (Ex. 20:15; Deut. 5:21). Wealth is the fruit of labor (Prov. 10:4; 13:4). Inherited wealth is also not condemned (Deut. 21:16; Prov. 19:14). Financial inequality is the inevitable result of inequality in ability and giftedness, interest in wealth, a society’s opportunities for economic advancement (or lack thereof), and positive versus self-destructive personal decisions (Matt. 25:14–30). While, in Jesus’s words, there will always be poor (John 12:8) and therefore unequal economic classes, God doesn’t disdain the poor. Instead, he is displeased when they are oppressed by the wealthy (e.g., Deut. 24:14; Prov. 14:31; Zech. 7:10; James 2:6).
Marxist interpreters of Acts 2 miss the obvious fact that everything we read in that passage was voluntary. There was no all-powerful (or ecclesiastical authority) state demanding redistribution of income and wealth. In Acts 5 believers were voluntarily selling property and distributing the proceeds among the believers. Even when Ananias and his wife sinned by deceptively withholding part of a property sale, Peter scolded, “And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?” There is no coercion in this picture.
Acts 2 does not justify Marxist theory for another reason: it would contradict the teaching of Jesus. It was Jesus who spoke of the kingdom of heaven as distinct from the earthly state (Matt. 22:21). When we prefer (or insist) that the state fulfill tasks Jesus gave to us as disciples and servants, we dishonor the principle of his distinction. Care for others is a spiritual duty, not something to be handed off to secular authority.