arket economies are built upon the foundation of private property. Private property is the basis of all material wealth, and when it is used productively (i.e. to create more wealth) it benefits not only the owner, but others as well.
Twice in the Book of Acts there are accounts of how the believers "had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need" (Acts 2:44-45; see also Acts 4:3235). All too often these passages are held up as proofs that Christianity is economically communistic, and that private property and free markets are evil. This fits in nicely with the tenet of modern civil government that some people have too much stuff, and that the magistrate must relieve them of some of it and give it either to those who have less, or to everyone. In the Bible this is seen as envy (Matt. 20:1-16), but in modern parlance it goes by "redistributive justice."
What do the Scriptures teach about private property? Biblically, private property is an institution established by God. The commandment "You shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15) presupposes ownership. If there is no such thing as private property, there can be no theft. The same implied premise underlies the tenth commandment: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's" (Exodus 20:17).
If it belongs to your neighbor: keep your desires off. We find these commandments being affirmed throughout the Scriptures. In his letter to the Romans, Paul includes the injunctions against theft and covetousness in the list of those which are summarized as, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Romans 13:9). We see in the teaching of Jesus that material wealth is a blessing and a reward. "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions and in the age to come eternal life" (Mark 10:29-30). It is a mark of good stewardship when we preserve our property for our descendants. "A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children . . ." (Proverbs 13:22).
There are many other passages where private property is affirmed by God. Given all the biblical teaching on the blessedness of the Godordained institution of private property, what are we to make of these two passages in Acts?
It is important to start with the caveat that we must be very careful when attempting to find doctrine in historical narrative. The fact that some event is recorded in Scripture does not mean that it is a rule for godly living. Historical narrative may provide an example of how a commandment is to be applied, but the commandment must be separately expressed.
The context of the times in which these first-century Christians were living lends a ready explanation for what they were doing. Acts 2:42 says that the believers "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers." Part of the apostles' doctrine was that the Lord would soon return in judgment, that Jerusalem would be destroyed, and that there would be great tribulation from which the Christians would need to flee (Matthew 24:144). Given that outlook, it is not surprising that they chose to liquidate their assets. It is true that they used the proceeds to help each other out, and that helping those in need is an express commandment of God, but it was not necessary to sell everything they owned if this was all they wanted to accomplish.
Even as the believers were selling off their holdings, Peter was affirming the institution of private property. When Ananias and Sapphira sold their land, they kept some of the proceeds back but told Peter they were giving the whole price. Note Peter's response:
"Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God" (Acts 5:3-4).
Ananias did not die because he kept all or part of what was rightfully his. He was struck down by God because he lied about it.
Finally, remember that the question is not whether we should give of our wealth to help those in need, but whether the magistrate should redistribute wealth through force. The magistrate does not wield the sword in order to coerce charity. Alms are to be passed individually or distributed through the church, but they are to be the result of grace rather that compulsion. "So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Corinthians 9:7).
If one citizen takes the property of another, he is guilty of theft. It is no less theft when the taking is done by the civil government, even if it is done in the name of economic "justice." Those in need will never be helped that way. Prosperity can never be achieved by doing away with private property as the means of producing wealth. Prosperity comes through submission to God's law, which recognizes private property. It is not a coincidence that people freed from sin by the gospel of God's grace build prosperous economies and provide for those in need and they do so without government engineering. Redistribution, like all other forms of rebellion against God, will only make things worse.
