CHAPTER VI COMMENTARY UPON COMMENTATORS They "hear the word of the kingdom and understand it not.” SURELY to any unbiased and thoughtful student of history, the communistic efforts of the early Christians must seem of great significance. They show unmistakably what the disciples did immediately after their great teacher was taken from them. Jesus came to bear witness unto the truth and all of his truth he gave to his little group of disciples. Among his last recorded words to them were, "If you know these things, happy are ye if ye do them." The emphasis was upon deeds-upon what he wished them to do. Who can believe that, with the spirit which then possessed them, they could immediately have done something not desired by the Master? They were then making their supreme sacrifices and doing the greatest deeds of their entire lives, and they were seeking first-there can be no doubt of it—the kingdom of God, and were working out the laws and customs of the new society. It is strange that these scenes and acts should not have attracted more attention from the leaders of religious thought, and it is amazing to observe the contemptuous manner in which the popular expositors treat of this early Christian communism. They preach it, as Rauschenbusch points out, with a sort of "deprecatory admiration. It is so useful for proving how noble and loving Christianity was, but it is so awkward if anybody should draw the conclusion that we to-day ought to share our property. But many an ecclesiastical body would be happy if it had 119 as much Scripture to quote for its favorite church practices." (1) As an example of what Rauschenbusch means in this last sentence, let us recall how often we are reminded from the pulpit that Jesus said "the poor ye have always with you." To those to whom these words appear as the most important utterance of Jesus upon social questions, Hermann Kutter, the Swiss clergyman, addresses this rebuke: "It is terrible that you should call to mind the divine word only when it is to legitimatize your mammon." (2) The manner in which the commentators interpret the passages describing the early Christian communism often gives evidence of ignorance, prejudice and malice. These are strong words, but they are just. Some of the most learned students of the Bible seem to be wholly ignorant of the meaning of communism. Many of them could not have taken the trouble to look up a definition of the word. Moreover, they are so prejudiced against what they think of as communism that they refuse to entertain for a moment the thought that Jesus could have been a communist. And lastly, they are so full of malice that they search for every scrap of evidence obtainable in the effort to prove that communism was neither advocated by Jesus nor practiced by his disciples. A few show so much bias that they twist verses which actually support communism into arguments against it. Fortunately, the sources of light on the subject can be dealt with in a few pages and we shall take them up and consider them. Smith, Dollinger, Harnack, Pfleiderer, "The Encyclopedia Biblica," "The Catholic Encyclopedia," the new "Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia" and many other authorities use over and over again the same few verses as arguments against communism. "The Catholic Encyclopedia" sums up its conclusions as follows: "The New Testament teaches complete self-denial, but not communism; and to conceive of the first congregation in Jeru salem as communistic is to misunderstand both the passage (sic) describing it (Acts ii, 5) and Christianity." Even the citation is incorrect in this instance. And instead of one there are several passages "describing it"; but perhaps the writer thought them of too little consequence to require his personal attention when preparing his condemnation of communism. "The Encyclopedia Biblica" ends its more careful study with these words: "(Still) it is not true that communism was prescribed as obligatory. In any case the community of goods did not last long, though the view that it came to an end when the society was dispersed by the persecution (Acts viii, 1-4) is no more than a conjecture." We are strongly of the opinion that the latter is not a conjecture. The letters of the younger Pliny show how savagely the early Christian organizations were suppressed under the Roman emperors. The Christians were not permitted to assemble; and their attempts to eat at the same table were looked upon with suspicion. They were feared as conspirators and as revolutionists and their groups were invariably dispersed. Of course this made communism of any sort impossible. The other point made in the article-that communism was not obligatory-may be sound, but another interpretation of the verses upon which the conclusion is based, seems to us more plausible. We doubt if any conclusion can be arrived at because certain important facts are lacking. The position taken by "The Encyclopedia Biblica "is that taken by nearly all the scholars and seems to us very clearly stated by Dr. William Smith who says that "the community of goods, which he (St. Luke) describes as being universal amongst the members of the infant society, is specially declared to be a voluntary practice (Acts v, 4), not a necessary duty of Christians as such (comp. Acts ix, 36, 39; xi, 29).” (3) Let us see. Dr. Smith refers here to the story of Ananias and Sapphira who sought to become |