In the Book of Acts, the early Jesus movement community in Jerusalem is described as “holding all things in common.” Some social progressives have used the example of this community as an archetype of how one could live in a socialized community. This interpretation would be bolstered by discussions such as that of Barnabas in Acts 4:32-37 who contributes all of his possessions and places it at the apostles feet to the effect that “there was not a needy person among them, for as many owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.”[1] This seeming command to hold things in community is at tension with the case of Ananias and Sapphira who sell land and hold a portion back for themselves. They are charged of lying to the community for holding some money back, not for holding the money back at all. Further, in Acts 12:12, Peter goes to the house of Mary who seems to be a member of the Jesus movement – how does she have a house if all houses were sold and the proceeds held in common?
Some scholars have questioned whether Acts portrays a historical situation at all, or if the discussion of holding things in common is only a literary ideal that never existed. Others suggest that the text never really requires the relinquishing of property and as such, it was entirely voluntary. This discussion is usually based upon the idea that such a radical renunciation would not fit with the general picture of the apparent quick conversions in Acts. At times, the argument even degenerates into the discussion of that such kind of renunciation would be too hard for potential converts and the community could not have grown. This short argument will address these objections and argue for a mitigating position that would allow for complete renunciation to be part of the group, but also allowing for less serious devotees to have attendance by means of a type of formal membership ritual which did require complete renunciation.
First, the laying of goods at the apostles’ feet seems to be a ritual. The first notation of the ritual in chapter two pairs the laying of money at the apostles’ feet with other standard ritual acts: “All who believed were together and had all things in common. They would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people.”[2] Two elements are noted – first is the pairing of breaking bread and laying out possessions. Second is that this activity is done in the temple – a geographic location where their activity is centered around preaching, prayer, and breaking of bread – all ritual practice.
Another aspect of the ritual seems to be the giving of all of one’s possessions and laying them at the apostles’ feet. The critique of Ananias and Sapphira when they withhold a portion of the offering is that they could have done whatever they wanted with the money, but they offered it at the apostles’ feet. If they are going to do this, then it needs to be completely offered not partially. The figure of Barnabas is at least depicted as giving all of the money he obtained from the selling of his field at the apostles’ feet. Further, it is narrated that “no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.”[3] Such clearly indicates that to go through the ritual of placing the money at the feet of the apostles implied that it was the entirety of the money of the individual.
If this act is seen as a ritual, it puts the case of Ananias and Sapphira in context. When they improperly offer a portion of their land and place it at the feet of the apostles, they are not only deceiving the apostles, but they are now improperly acting in a ritual act – one of the ways that they worship their God. This would make more sense as to how Peter argues that they are not deceiving the community but they are deceiving God. This ritual act is between the giver and God, not between the giver and the community.
If this is a ritual that is common to the group, then why the curious response of Peter when Ananias is discovered to have withheld a portion: “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!”[4] If it was expected that all members held all things in common, how was it that it was apparently acceptable for Ananias to have this piece of property or the money for himself? The problem is not that he withheld the money, but that he lied about giving over a portion. The text then suggests that there is a way that one can be in communion with the group but not hold everything in common (if they would have been allowed to keep the land had they chosen to do so).
Different scholars present different solutions to this problem. Some argue that the community never really held all things in common as a requirement for joining the group and as such, the offering would be voluntary. Others argue that no one really held all things in common but that this was a literary type that was created by the author to depict an “ideal church” for later readers. The problem with both of these theories is that they aren’t supported by the text. The text does seem to argue for one’s joining of the group contingent upon offering all one owns at the feet of the apostles. Further, to question the historical veracity of the practice is to miss the point. Whether the author is describing a historical community or an ideal literary community, the picture painted in the book ought be consistent with itself.
Brian Capper has proposed a solution that makes as much sense as any for the situation. Given that the laying of the money at the feet of the apostles is a ritual, it well could be a type of entrance ritual into the community proper. Capper argues that similar practices were instituted at Qumran (which they were) and that one would present all of one’s property while entering into the community provisionally before one became a full member.[5] This argument is quite attractive; however, it is unnecessary to suggest that the Jerusalem community need be like the Qumran without any evidence that the two know of one another.
The argument that this ritual is necessary for full membership in the community is helpful to explain how this seeming contradiction can be rectified. If this ritual is an entrance ritual into the community proper, then this is what Ananias and Sapphira fail to do. They could have merely attended the group without being members (probably not participating in the Eucharist and not being baptized, but listening to the sermons and prayers in the temple) and kept possession of their land; however, they attempted to join the group without giving up everything and thereby lying to God. They are saying that they want to be in full communion with God and fully devoted, but then they are denying that very statement by means of their actions. Had they not made this commitment, then such a position would have been completely acceptable, it was the bringing of the two together that caused the problem.
The concept that there could be followers who were not members of the community would begin to make sense of some of the wildly large numbers in the book of Acts. How is it in the book that it suggests thousands join the group regularly – “So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added.”[6] – while at the same time seeming to continue to be a small group that continues to meet in the outer court of the temple? The possibility could be posited that not all of those figures would have been fully entered into the group, they would have merely been attending the public events and as such the “core group” would not be the cast of thousands presented. This is not a necessary conclusion, but it might help make sense of a secondary issue.
The apparent contradiction in the structure of the Jerusalem community cannot be easily solved. The solution posited here does do a decent job relieving the tension. However, the author is well aware that the suggestion that this is an entrance ritual is not necessarily supported by all of the evidence of the text. However, at this point, it seems the best way to solve the issue without simply dismissing the evidence as literary construction which, for some reason, contradicts itself.
Ben, Thanks for this, which helps me reflect on this gritty issue. The more I think about it, it seems the more possible it was that there was some accepted form of community living located in the location of the 'Upper Room' of Acts 1-2, the more the narrative of 'community of goods' and the possibility of a 'dual' economic organisation in the early Jerusalem, including a near-'monastic' option, community could have gone together. If the community grew around or neighbouring an already existing communally-living group, the two lifestyle-options could have been available to early believers in the apostles' message, with a degree of compusion to 'follow the rules properly' for those choosing the more honoured path of renouncing property and sharing all. I think that is where Brian Capper goes more recently -- there is a piece in Richard Bauckham's collection on the Palestinian Context of the Book of Acts (1995, chapter 11) which picks up threads of arguments from Bargil Pixner and Rainer Riesner on the possibility of an Essene community on the southwest hill in Jerusalem (the traditional location of the Upper Room), but he also has a piece in Bruce Longenecker's Engaging Economics which seems to propose the 'dual structure' scenario, maybe more generally based culturally, in its conclusion. There are some other pieces by Capper on his academia.edu but I'm not clear if he still holds to the 'Essene Quarter' view, which is hardly a popular one amongst scholars, or relies more generally on property-sharing Essene communities having existed in Jerusalem and in nearby villages in Judaea. Best, Steve Miller, Albany NY.
ReplyDelete