To-day I would like to get some
thoughts on paper (is this paper?) about what I think of as the first
experiment of communism, though Dummelow’s One
Volume Bible Commentary points out that it is not communism because the
giving was voluntary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary has this definition:
a: a theory
advocating elimination of private property
Now, isn’t
that a fine definition of God giving all and we having all that God
gives? “…God giving all and man having all that God gives” My.
5:9-10. Also, the desirability of impersonalising good seems to be
emphasised. We none of us own or possess good, we merely and effortlessly
express it as the offspring of God.
Towards
the end of Acts 2, we find that, as a result of Peter’s preaching regarding
Jesus’ demonstration of the Christ, “about three thousand souls”… “continue
steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and in fellowship….”
That
fellowship included the pooling of their resources. One wonders how this
was accomplished. Did they all live together in communes? Like the
Essenes? (Wikipedia is informative on the Essenes).
We learn
in Acts 5 that this idealistic way of life seems to have come to an end with
the sad story of Ananias and his wife Sapphira and their dishonesty in holding
back some the funds from the sale of a possession. They both died. I remember when I first became aware of this
story I said to myself: “It was proved way back then that communism doesn’t
work, just as it hasn’t worked in our day.”
However, there was great progress
in the life of the early church after that episode with Ananias and
Sapphira. Multitudes were added to the Lord – both of men and
women. And the healing that went on! “There came also a multitude
out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them
which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one” Acts
5:16.
Joyce Voysey
Ed: I wonder if this sharing was an
effort to build a co-operative and cohesive community, rather than communism.
No comments:
Post a Comment