As Part One closed, we found that the members of the nascent church began to liquidate their assets—lands, homes, goods—under God's inspiration for two reasons: 1) their conversion had made them reprioritize the importance of their physical wealth, and 2) God inspired them to prepare for the coming scattering of the church. Unlike socialism, no one forced them to do these things; their giving was completely voluntary.

Consider one effect of their choice: When 3,000 people (Acts 2:41) started selling what they had, the buyers, not to mention their neighbors, could not help but notice. This significant financial movement testified to the believers' dedication and commitment. As we say, they were willing to put their money where their mouth was. Their faithfulness was evident through what they did with their possessions. Their witness was even more impressive because the selling arose from their own convictions, not because the new church had instructed its members to sell all they had. The church leadership gave no directive on the matter or even intimated that the disciples should sell their possessions.

Acts 4 records events in the Jerusalem area at this time that parallel what happened after Pentecost:

Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need. (Acts 4:32-35)

This episode begins with Peter healing a lame man outside the gate of the Temple (Acts 3:1-10). In the subsequent events, the apostle preached another sermon, similar to his Pentecost message (Acts 3:11-26). He again called for repentance and reminded the audience that "every soul who will not hear that Prophet [meaning, Christ] shall be utterly destroyed from among the people" (Acts 3:23). His sermon had some teeth, and after it, many more believed. Acts 4:4 reports, "the number of the men came to be about five thousand." God was really moving people through the apostle's preaching.

Thus, the people's response to Peter's second message mirrored what happened in Acts 2. It motivated them to act on their belief, and they gave generously to those who had need. However, notice again that the apostles gave no command or even a "suggestion" that they do this. Neither membership nor good standing in the church depended on turning everything over to them for redistribution. The people did this themselves—voluntarily—after doing their own accounting.

A repeated phrase in a short section of Acts shows the change taking place within the new disciples' lives:

• Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need. (Acts 4:34-35; emphasis ours throughout)
• And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet. (Acts 4:36-37)
• But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles' feet. (Acts 5:1-2)

The phraseology of laying money at the apostles' feet can indicate kneeling or even bowing, and thus, deference. But remember what was taking place at the time. The converts were transferring their allegiance from the Old Covenant system—the Temple, the Levitical priesthood, and the centrality of Jerusalem. Placing money at the apostles' feet and the deference involved publicly demonstrated their diminished confidence in the Temple system's future. Instead, the converts acknowledged Christ's superiority through their deference to His appointed representatives. The new converts did these things of their own volition. In no way was it a fleecing of the flock by men who sought to enrich themselves for worldly dominion.

These public presentations show that church members trusted the apostles to oversee the distribution of their gifts to the needy. However, this situation lasted only a short time before the apostles decided that their time would be better used in spiritual matters (Acts 6:2). So, they created the office of deacon to oversee the distribution—as they said, to "serve tables." While church representatives were involved in coordinating, there was still no coercion.

The infamous story of Ananias and Sapphira takes place in this context. As mentioned above, Acts 5:1-2 shows them selling property and laying some of the proceeds at the apostles' feet. Socialist interpreters will suggest that Ananias and Sapphira's sin was that they did not give all the money to the apostles, based on verse 3: "But Peter said, ‘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?'" However, verse 4 gives the lie to socialism and communism, explicitly stating that the apostles fully believed in the right of individuals to their wealth and property: "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?"

The sin of Ananias and Sapphira was not that they kept back part of the proceeds. As Peter says, the land was their own—they could do with it as they pleased. After they sold it, the money also was entirely in their control, and the apostles made absolutely no claim on it. Instead, their sin lay in giving the impression that they were donating the whole amount, a form of false witness (see Deuteronomy 23:21-23). They desired to appear more generous than was true, and God executed them for their hypocrisy. The transgression God judged them for was not in what they rightly possessed but in their pretense.

In Part Three, we will examine another facet of socialism, dependence on the benevolence of others or the state for one's upkeep rather than engaging in productive labor.