Were the Early Christians in Support of Socialism?

Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! Click Here

---

Hey everyone,

 

Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.

 

I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.

 

In this episode, we’re going to focus on three details that are relevant for apologetics in this upcoming Divine Mercy Sunday readings. The first comes from the first reading, which is taken from Acts 4:32-35, where we’re told the early Christians didn’t claim any possessions to be his own but had everything in common. Of course, the relevant topic is whether this provides biblical justification for socialism. The remaining two details are taken from the Gospel reading, which is taken from John 20:19-31. The relevant topics that we’ll focus on are the apostolic power to forgive sins (and its corresponding Sacrament, the Sacrament of Reconciliation), and the early Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus.

 

Let’s start with the first reading and the question of whether the early Christians were socialists. The relevant verse is verse 1, where Luke records, “The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common.”

 

Does this give biblical justification for socialism?

 

The short answer is no. My colleague at Catholic Answers, Trent Horn, deals with this text in his online article entitled “No, the First Christians Were Not Socialists.” Some of my responses here are taken from his article.

 

First, this text itself doesn’t support socialism because it never says the Christians were obligated to hold everything in common and to revoke their rights to private property. Such obligation would be necessary to prove Christian approval of socialism because essential to classic socialism is the rejection of private property. This was the reason Pope Leo XIII, in his 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, said, “the main tenet of socialism, [the] community of goods, must be utterly rejected.”

 

The text only records that the early Christians held things in common and didn’t claim anything to be their own. The mere affirmation that they did this doesn’t logically entail it was mandated. It could very well have been voluntary.

 

Secondly, we get a hint that this was voluntary from a similar passage in Acts 2:45. Luke records, “they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.” Scholars point out that the verbs for “sell” (Gk., pripaskō) and “distribute” (Gk. diamerizō) are imperfect, which suggests an ongoing selling and distribution of goods as needs arose rather than a completed sale and distribution of goods that had occurred initially at conversion. New Testament scholar Craig Keener states the following,

 

The imperfect verbs suggest not a sale of all property upon conversion but believers selling their property when needs arose and contributing to a common fund supervised (at this point) by the apostles (Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Volume I).

 

Given the early Christians weren’t mandated to get rid of their private property entirely upon becoming a Christian, we can reasonably conclude they were permitted to have ownership of goods to the extent that it didn’t conflict with the needs of others. And that’s definitely not socialism. That’s Christianity!

 

Thirdly, as C.S. Dessain points out in his contribution to A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, when Luke says, “they held everything [or all] in common,” we shouldn’t interpret “everything” in too literal of a way. “All things,” he writes, “in Lucan parlance has no absolute sense, and in 32 a general picture is being given.” We know this is true because just a few verses later, when Peter is talking to Ananias about his sold property, he says, “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own?” This seems to suggest that Peter acknowledged Ananias’s rightful ownership of his property, even while he was a Christian.

 

Given that the text of our first reading itself doesn’t justify the belief that the early Christians were socialists, and that we other texts which positively suggest the early Christians were not mandated to hold things in common and in fact were permitted to have private property, we can conclude that the early Christians were not socialists.

 

Let’s now turn to the Gospel reading, which is taken from John 20:19-31. There are two details that I want to focus on. The first is verse 23 where Jesus tells the apostles, “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

 

The most obvious thing to say about this verse is that it seems to reveal Jesus’ institution of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, giving the apostles the authority to forgive sins. The Council of Trent infallibly interpretated this passage to reveal this very thing. But Protestants beg to differ.

 

There are many counters that Protestants give to our interpretation of this text, many of which I address in my book Meeting the Protestant Response: How to Answer Common Comebacks to Catholic Arguments. So, I’ll only share one here.

 

Notice that essential to our interpretation is the assumption that Jesus was giving this authority only to the apostles (and, by way of extension, their successors). This assumption hasn’t gone unnoticed by Protestant apologists. For example, Ron Rhodes, in his Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, writes, “The context of the verse indicates that this declarative power is not limited to some select group (like priests), but every Christian has this right.”

 

Rhodes doesn’t specify exactly what in the context suggests that the power is not limited to Christ’s ordained ministers—the apostles and their successors. So, we can’t interact with Rhodes on this front. However, we can challenge his assertion and give positive reasons why the context does in fact indicate that the power to forgive and retain is unique to the apostles.

 

First, it’s only the apostles who are the addressees of the instruction. At first glance, the text doesn’t seem to support this, since it uses the broader term “disciples” (John 20:19, 20) instead of the more restrictive terminology of “apostles” or “the Twelve.” The author, traditionally understood to be John the apostle, does use “disciples” in the broad sense to include others besides the twelve apostles (John 6:60).

 

But when we look at the wider and immediate context of John’s flowing narrative, we see that Jesus is addressing only the apostles in John 20:23.

 

Let’s start with John 18:1-2, where John clearly uses “disciples” to refer to the twelve apostles. He writes, “When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples across the Kidron valley, where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered . . . for Jesus often met there with his disciples.”

 

Matthew tells us it was only “the twelve” disciples who were with Jesus at the Last Supper and in the garden. Matthew 26:20 reads: “When it was evening, he sat at table with the twelve disciples.” Then, in verse 36, Matthew records, “Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane.” “Them” in verse 36 refers to the “twelve disciples” mentioned in verse 20.

Therefore, John’s use of “disciples” in 18:1-2 refers to the twelve apostles.

 

The next few uses of “disciples” are found on the lips of others besides the author himself (John 18:17, 19, 25). These don’t directly specify a reference to the apostles, but neither do they exclude it.

 

In 20:10, John refers to Jesus’ “disciples,” and it’s a reference to at least two of the twelve apostles: Peter and John himself. “The other disciple” is commonly seen as a reference to the author himself, who, as we said above, is traditionally understood to be John the apostle.

John 20:18 tells us that Mary Magdalene, after she had spoken with the risen Jesus, went and told the “disciples” that she had seen the Lord. Given that John used “disciples” to refer to two of the Twelve just a few verses earlier, it’s reasonable that “disciples” here refers to either Peter and John (who are referents immediately available) or the rest of the Twelve. At least the use of “disciples” in this verse doesn’t exclude a reference to the Twelve and is consistent with it.

The next two appearances of “disciples” are in verses 19 and 20, which are the verses in question.

 

So let’s look at what comes immediately after. Verse 24 reads, “Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.” Then in verse 25, John writes, “So the other disciples told him, ‘We have seen the Lord.’” John comments, “But he [Thomas] said to them, ‘Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails . . . I will not believe’” (v. 25).

 

Notice the first “them” in verse 24 refers to “the Twelve.” The second “them” in verse 25, therefore, reasonably refers to “the Twelve” as well. And right in the middle, in verse 24, is a use of “the disciples.” Given its context, it’s clear that “disciples” refers to “them,” which in turn refers to “the Twelve.”

 

So, at the beginning (the garden in John 18:1) and end (Jesus’ address to Thomas, who doubted) of a flowing narrative, in which Jesus’ instruction to forgive and retain sins is embedded, John uses “the disciples” in reference to the twelve apostles. And every time in between, its use for the twelve is either clear or at least not excluded. Moreover, one of John’s clear uses of “the disciples” as a reference to the twelve apostles comes immediately after Jesus’ address to “the disciples” concerning the power to forgive and retain sins (20:19-20, 23).

 

Given this evidence, we have good reason to conclude that “the disciples” (John 20:19,20) to whom Jesus gives the instruction to forgive and retain sins in John 20:23 is a reference to the twelve apostles. And if it’s only the twelve apostles, who are Christ’s ordained ministers, then the argument is that this is not a power for all Christians, but one given to Jesus’ ordained ministers.

 

We can add a couple more pieces of evidence. Consider that John records how Jesus “breathes” on the apostles: “He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” Jesus never breathes on anyone else (unless you include God breathing the breath of life into Adam—Gen. 2:7). So what’s going on here is definitely something unique that’s not meant for every Christian.

 

Also, notice that Jesus communicates the Holy Spirit. This communication of the Holy Spirit signals something unique because it’s separate from the outpouring given on the day of Pentecost, which appears to be for the wider Christian community. The narrative flow from Acts 1:15 (“the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty”) through Acts 2:4 (“they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues”) seems to indicate that more than the Twelve were present when the Spirit descended. And similar outpourings were given multiple times throughout the early Church when people converted (Acts 10:44-48, 19:6).

This wide communication of the Spirit stands in stark contrast to the outpouring of the Spirit given for the forgiveness of sins. Not once outside John 20:23 is such an outpouring extended to the wider Christian community.

 

Rhodes asserts that the context reveals that this declarative power is not for a select group of ordained ministers, but the right of every Christian. But the evidence given above tells a different story. Jesus gives the instruction to forgive and retain sins only to the apostles. He does something entirely unique: he breathes on them. And he gives them a private outpouring of the Holy Spirit that’s never extended to the wider Christian community. If this is not evidence of a unique power given to Christ’s ordained ministers, the apostles, then nothing is!

 

The last detail in the Gospel worth highlighting for our apologetical purposes is Thomas’ profession of faith: “my Lord and my God.” The Greek literally reads, “THE lord of me, and THE God of me.” This clearly shows that Thomas believed Jesus was God.

 

The exchange also reveals that Jesus understood himself to be God. Notice Jesus doesn’t rebuke Thomas for calling him God. Jesus is either blaspheming by accepting the reference of God, or he’s God himself. Given Jesus’ character testified to throughout the Gospels, I don’t think it’s reasonable to conclude he was a blasphemer. Therefore, he must be God.

 

Conclusion

 

So, the readings for this upcoming Divine Mercy Sunday, Year B provides us with plenty of content for apologetical discussions. We have opportunity to talk about

 

• Whether the early Christians were socialists,
• The authority the apostles had to forgive sins and whether Catholics are correct in this conclusion, and
• The divinity of Jesus.

 

I’d say that’s a pretty good pool of apologetical topics for a Sunday Liturgy of the Word.

 

Well, my friends, that does it for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. As always, I want to thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well at sundaycatholicword.com. You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Cy Kellet’s Catholic Answers Focus, Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s A Daily Defense, all of which can be found at catholic.com.

 

One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.

 

I hope you have a blessed Divine Mercy Sunday, Year B. Until next time, God Bless!