The Church began at Jerusalem when God poured out the Holy Spirit upon Jesus’ disciples on the day of Pentecost.  One hundred twenty followers exploded to several thousand in one day (Acts 1:15; 2:41).  The core group was mostly from Galilee (Acts 1:11) and did not have residences in Jerusalem.  A smaller number of followers who were Jerusalem residents provided temporary living quarters (Acts 1:13) for their Galilean friends, but all of that changed on that Pentecost. 

Suddenly, a flood of Hellenistic Jews from surrounding nations and Roman provinces (Acts 2:5) were drawn to the small group.  It was from among these that the three thousand added came (Acts 2:41).  This unusual situation immediately brought about a new need: living conditions for a large group of aliens; consequently, a community of shared resources arose (Acts 2:44-45).  Those with homes opened them for others (Acts 2:46). 

Days went by (Acts 2:46; 3:1), perhaps weeks, we don’t know how many, but the situation of a growing cluster of people in Jerusalem without residences as well as the community of sharing to meet their needs continued (Acts 4:4, 32-37).

At that time an unusual event in the history of the early church in Jerusalem gives insight about the financial system in place.  Two residents who owned property sold it with intention to donate to the need but also to deceitfully hold back part for themselves.  The outcome was their deaths, not for withholding money but for lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1-10).  Plainly, the property and the proceeds of the sale were theirs; they could have donated as they pleased, but misrepresenting the truth was unacceptable (v.4). 

The group of Christ-followers in Jerusalem was practicing a system of sharing resources through centralized administration of donations for the welfare of all in need.  Because the gifts were voluntarily given the system was not socialistic, but for much of the same reason, it was not capitalistic.

The circumstances that precipitated the sharing of belongings and resources did not persist.  Eventually, tourists and pilgrims left Jerusalem to return to their homelands.  In the meantime, increasingly more permanent residents of Jerusalem joined the church (Acts 6:7).  Ultimately, persecution scattered the burgeoning group into areas of Judea and neighboring provinces (Acts 8:1).  When the figurative dust of the scattering settled, the church members resided in the nearby provinces of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria (Acts 9:31).  From there, the church spread beyond those provinces into Syria and southern Asia Minor (Acts 11:19).  Afterward, as Luke chronicled in the book of Acts, churches sprouted throughout Asia Minor and into Europe (Acts 20:1-6; 28:13-14).

Although most church members resided in their homelands where they received the Gospel and owned their own property, the sharing of resources with people in need continued (Acts 11:27-29).  After several decades, the church in Jerusalem numbered in the thousands (Acts 21:17, 20).  Many of these members were poor and benefitted from the sharing of resources from wealthier non-Jewish provinces (Rom. 15:25-26).  This brief survey of early church history found in the book of Acts is enough to demonstrate that the church did not confine itself to economic principles based on either capitalism or socialism. 

As made clear in previous Blog posts about the New Testament, Israel, and the book of Genesis, there is no God-ordained economic system for humanity that fits into the confines of these ‘isms.  Instead, the Bible tells and teaches of a system that is based on the grace of God, generously providing for humanity and encouraging humans –through the Law of love – to participate with each other in relations based upon trust in God, freedom of individuals and governments, personal responsibility, caring for each other, and generous sharing of wealth with those in need.  The Church is to teach and apply this Biblical guidance as illumination to a dark world driven by lust, envy, greed, egotism, and injustice.  The ‘isms do not provide this light.  They are merely human implementations of administrations that cater to both good and evil characteristics.  May the truth help us to discern between the imperfect and corrupt ways of man verses the good ways of God.

Through Jeremiah the prophet, the Holy Spirit inspired the promise of a new covenant to replace God’s covenant with Israel (Jer. 31:31-34).  Jesus Christ inaugurated this New Covenant at His Last Supper with His disciples before His crucifixion (Luke 22:20).  The writer of the book of Hebrews repeated Jeremiah’s prophecy in Heb. 8:6-12, adding in the next verse that it made the Old Covenant obsolete.  This New Covenant was not between God and a nation but God and His chosen people of all nations through Jesus Christ, as made clear in Gal. 3:26-29; the mention of “Israel” by Jeremiah applies to “the Israel of God” that is not limited to “the circumcision” – ancient jargon for Old Covenant Israel (Gal. 6:15-16).  Instead, as explained in Eph. 2:11-13, through Jesus Christ all previous foreigners to the covenants of promise are included.

The New Testament name of this group of people is “Church” – a group of people called out and set apart to belong to Jesus Christ (Mat. 16:18); they are not defined by tribal, geographical, cultural, or language distinctions.  The Church is not national, and it does not have a God-ordained economic system that looks like one of the ‘isms.

Jesus’ teachings to those who are set apart to belong to Him fly in the face of all economic principles of this present world.  He taught that money is a “master” of humans in this age (Mat. 6:34-35) and told His followers, “You cannot serve both God and Money.”  He said that “the meek” will inherit the earth (Mat. 5:5).  He considered the tiny donation of a poor widow greater that the large donations of the rich (Luke 21:1-4).  His measure and value of currency was altogether different than either capitalists or socialists.

Those set apart to belong to Christ are heirs of the promises of God (Gal. 3:29).  Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:15), which upon His return His followers – those who accept Him as their King – will inherit (Mat. 25:31-34).  Since Jesus came, all nations, including the vast Roman Empire, tiny Judea, as well as all nations today, while hosting this group of heirs of the Kingdom of God, have been free to use the economic system that they choose. 

With that said, what does the Church that consists of heirs of the Kingdom of God have to do with these ‘isms?  I know of people who confess faith in Jesus Christ and hold tenaciously to one of these isms as if Jesus commanded them to do so.  They listen to preachers and political talkers who impress these strong beliefs upon them.  My prayer is that this Blog leads them to the one reservoir of the mind of Jesus – the Bible – to look closely at what He and His Apostles said and did as recorded in the New Testament.  If they sincerely and carefully do that, it will become clear that God has something better in mind.  In the next Blog post, we will look at what the Spirit of God has to say through the Church about the ‘isms.

In biblical history, only one nation had the designation as God’s.  Yahweh covenanted with Israel to become His nation (Ex. 19:5-6, 24:8).  He chose Israel to be His people; they did not choose Him to be their God (Deut. 7:6); the choice had nothing to do with their population (Deut. 7:7) or character (Deut. 9:4-5).  It was Yahweh’s purpose, driven by His love (Deut. 7:8) and desire that all nations would learn from Israel about God (Deut. 4:5-7) so that He could bless them too (Gen. 12:2-3).

He brought Israel into the land of Canaan to take possession of it as their own land (Jos. 1:11).  He distributed the land to the various tribes of Israel to become their permanent inheritance (Jos. 14:1-5).  His intent was that all Israelites would own land, but He did not intend that some would find ways to buy out or otherwise gain possession of others’ inheritances (Lev. 25:14, 23).  Although He gave it to them, in reality they were tenants on His property, and He intended that all should benefit. 

Yahweh intended that there would be no poor people in Israel (Deut. 15:4), but that could only be if the nation completely conformed with His law.  Reality is that there would be poor people (Deut. 15:7, 11), and for those who became poor He established measures to help them through debt cancellation every seven years (Deut. 15:1-3), through temporary bond service (Deut. 15:12-15), and through the Jubilee year (Lev.25:10).

For those who were disadvantaged, Yahweh also made provision through Israel’s law.  Included were Levites, because they did not have inherited land; aliens for the same reason and because they lived under various other conditions (for example: lack of tribal or family support, language and cultural limitations, and real or imagined second-class citizenship) that made their lives more difficult; orphans and widows (Deut. 26:11-13).  Each third year one tenth of wages were to be set aside to give to those in these groups.  This is a form of what we might call Welfare today.  God’s law for Israel included it.

During this early part of Israel’s history, their type of government was Theocracy.  Yahweh was their king and ruled the nation through the priests, judges, elders that He selected through the law.  Israel’s laws preserved a type of capitalistic economic system with welfare provisions for the poor and needy, as well as socialistic-type distribution of the land.

Later, Israel’s government changed to a kingdom.  Yahweh did not intend the type of system that resulted, but He allowed it (1 Sam. 8:6-8, 22).  The human king brought about changes to the economic system that included government owned land, industry, and workforce (1 Sam. 8:11-18).  Under them, large construction projects were undertaken (temple and royal property), armies were deployed, and national industries were instituted (naval) (1 Kings 4:20-28; 9:10-12, 26).  Under the monarchy, the nation experienced a huge social and economic burden (1 Kings 12:4).  Israel never recovered from the change in government.  The years that followed only brought more and more social and economic disarray until finally they lived under occupation of foreign governments. 

Those who look at the Old Testament as a guide to divinely-established economic system cannot find it in God’s chosen nation of Israel.  In the next Blog post, we will consider the New Testament.

God, Creator of heaven and earth, gave humanity responsibility for ruling the material creation on earth (Gen. 1:26).   He “took man and put him in the Garden of Eden to take care of it” (Gen. 2:15).  Here there is no suggestion of how humanity would manage an economy. But God intended that humans would populate the earth (Gen. 1:28; 9:1), becoming tribes and eventually nations and migrating to various places on earth (Gen. 10:32).

In one early attempt to establish a city, humanity worked in a cooperative way (Gen. 11:3-4).  The attempt to build the tower of Babel was not a private venture; there is no indication of slavery or employment; instead, humans pooled their resources “to make a name” and “not be scattered over the face of the whole earth” (Gen. 11:4).  This seemed to be a united action of resistance to free humanity from the Sovereign rule of God over the earth.  God intervened, and the plan didn’t work (Gen. 11:5-9).  Although this passage does not discuss the economic ramifications of the effort at Babel, capitalism does not appear to have originated or influenced it; if anything, as the cooperative effort suggests, it had a socialistic-type appearance.

Later, Paul summarized God’s activity with early humanity in these words: “The God who made the world and everything in it… made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times and the exact places where they should live (Acts 17:24, 26).  Earth’s resources were in the land, which belonged to God, who exercised His prerogative to distribute to humanity.

Sometime after populations grew and nations began to arise, God sent Abram, later named Abraham, to the land of Canaan that it would become the land of his descendants (Gen. 12:1-2).  At that time, Abraham and others had “possessions they had accumulated” (Gen. 12:5), through which in time he became “very wealthy” (Gen. 13:2).  This was a form of capitalism.  There, Abraham’s descendants grew into several small tribes, one of which had Isaac and later Jacob as patriarchs.

The land of Canaan was not a settled nation under a central government.  Instead, it, and nearby lands, were home of many “kings” of city-states (Gen. 14:1-2) as well as large unsettled areas.  At the same time, Egypt was a nation under one ruler, Pharaoh (Gen. 12:10, 15; 39:1).

When Jacob’s family grew to about seventy people, a severe famine in Canaan led them to relocate to Egypt to survive.  This move, orchestrated by God, was preceded by a series of events that led to the ascendancy of Joseph, one of Jacob’s sons, to become Governor in Egypt’s government under Pharaoh (Gen. 41:39-43; 42:6).  Joseph administered a plan for national food-production and storage that not only provided for the survival of the people of Egypt but also for surrounding countries (Gen. 41:56-57).  Through this plan, Jacob’s descendants, the tiny tribe of Israel, survived in Egypt.  God told Jacob that the move was Providential and that there Israel would become a nation (Gen. 46:2-3).

Here we see more a form of socialism than capitalism.  Joseph administered a government-run food distribution program.  God directed Israel to participate and gain its benefits.  As the story went, the famine resulted in complete dependency of the Egyptian people on the government (Gen. 47:13-19).  Joseph established a system of taxation that funded the government (Gen. 47:23-26).  The pyramids and other extensive building of infrastructure and monuments in Egypt are evidences of the wealth and power of the government drawn from the citizens.  When new government leaders replaced Pharaoh and Joseph, the people became victims of severe abuse (Ex. 1:8-11), which we probably should conclude is one of the hazards of such a system.  What can we conclude about a God-ordained economic system from the Genesis account?  Clearly, there was none.  In the next Blog post we will continue to explore the Bible on this matter.

According to Wikipedia.com articles on Capitalism and Socialism:

One of the focal points of the political division between Americans is the ongoing debate about which ‘ism should be dominant in our culture: capitalism or socialism.  The Church in America cleaves upon the same divisions, instead of providing America with a light to see the best for our culture.  In the series of blog posts that follow under the caption “Capitalism or Socialism?” we will look into the Bible for guidance to help the Church to shine that light.

The story in Episode 3 above seems to go out of its way to point out that a Samaritan was the only leper among ten to show gratitude to Jesus for healing.  The story in this episode similarly adds what might seem to be an unnecessary detail about a Samaritan.  The story is the familiar parable of “The Good Samaritan” found in Luke 10:30-37.

Again, Luke wrote the story about one of Jesus’ teaching experiences.  It begins in Luke 10:25 where a Jewish “expert in the Law” asked Jesus a test question, possibly to find out how much Jesus really knew.  Jesus, knowing what the “expert” was up to, responded with a question, to get the man to tell what he knew about the Law (26).  The man’s answer, quoting the law of love, was correct (27-28), so Jesus told him to put it into practice.  But the “expert” wasn’t through.  He asked (29), “who is my neighbor?”

Jesus proceeded to tell the story about a traveler who was mugged by robbers and left lying on the side of the road.  A Jewish Priest, a man of God and notable religious leader, saw the injured man but passed by without stopping.  Next a Levite, another recognized Jewish religious person whose full time job was to minister in service to God, did the same, passing by without stopping.  Finally, a Samaritan came.  This man, member of a hostile race and competitive religion to Jews, compassionately turned toward the injured man, giving medical treatment to his wounds, transporting him out of the way to receive further care, and paying the full expense (30-35). 

Did it matter to the story the identifications of each of those who accosted the injured man?    Not unless Jesus wanted to point out to self-respecting, self-righteous Jews something that they did not understand about what matters to God and humanity – something that a Samaritan understood.  This “enemy” considered meeting a human need more important than his time, his money, and his cultural-religious views.

Jesus told this story so that his followers would look past race, religion, and personal interests to put into practice the intent of the law of love.  Herein is a strong message to all of us who consider ourselves basically good people in a world of the bad.  It is Jesus who defines what is good and what is bad, and being uncaring toward the needy, being racists, being religious bigots is anything but good!

The Gospel of Luke mentions the Samaritan issue several times.  Because Jesus spent most of his time in Galilee, the province north of Samaria, it was not unusual for him to encounter Samaritans whenever he travelled south to Jerusalem.  On one such occasion, he encountered resistance.  The Samaritan hostility toward the Jews in Jerusalem would have been stronger than at less religious places.  Luke 9:53 says that because Jerusalem was Jesus’ destination, he was denied entrance.

Some of Jesus’ followers were hotheads; Jesus nicknamed two of them, James and John, “Sons of Thunder.”  These bombastic young men were a lot like many today: they love and follow Jesus, but harbor a temperament quite unlike their Lord’s.  These guys reasoned, as some today, that famous Bible characters with explosive and violent tempers were okay as long as they did it for God.  They wanted to use the authority of God to do what the prophet Elijah did: call down fire from the sky (54) to zap their enemies.  Jesus did not take their reactions lightly; he turned around and rebuked them (55), explaining that he came to save people not destroy them.  These disciples actually were expressing a spirit whose intentions were the opposite of Jesus’.  Although they were called Jesus’ disciples, Jesus said they were unaware of who or what they were actually imitating.

The same can be said today for people who in the guise of Christianity express hateful and even violent intentions toward those they regard as religious or racial enemies.  Their angry reactions are so uncharacteristic of Jesus Christ that even people who do not consider themselves Christian are appalled.  These “Christians” acted like religious nuts!  Jesus’ rebuke then applies today!

In the time of Jesus, Samaria was a Roman Empire province situated between the provinces of Judea and Galilee. Although Jews were the predominant residents of Judea and Galilee, they were geographically separated by Samaria, whose residents were not Israelite. The Jews and Samaritans were rivals and enemies. They claimed to worship the same God—of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—but they disagreed on particulars of worship: whether the proper place was the temple in Jerusalem or the temple on Mt. Gerizim; whether or not Scripture included the Prophets and Writings (Psalms, etc.); and whether the Samaritans were descendants of Jacob as they claimed. There were racial and cultural tensions between the two groups.

John 4 describes a trip undertaken by Jesus and his disciples from Judea to Galilee through Samaria. Jesus encountered Samaritans and thereby provided an example of Godly relationships. Jesus chose a controversial place to rest and used the occasion to act out the neighborly viewpoint that he held toward Samaritans: He started by asking a Samaritan woman for a drink of water (7-8). The woman reacted according to her contentious viewpoint (9). Instead of addressing her statement, Jesus led her into a discussion that opened the Gospel to her (10). The woman redirected the discussion to the contentious issue of identification (11-12). Jesus ignored the issue and reverted to the Gospel (13-14). When the woman began to respond to him, he took the opportunity to tell her a truth about herself that she did not think he should have known (15-19). But instead of staying with Jesus’ thrust, she again diverted the discussion to a contentious issue (20). Jesus, again, did not take the bait but proceeded to reveal to her a deeper truth (21-24). This seemed to capture her attention, leading to an inquiry about the Messiah, about which Jesus directly responded (25-26). When his disciples returned, Jesus used the opportunity to teach them about sharing the Gospel (27-38). John concluded with a summary statement about the effect upon the Samaritan people of the village: many of them became believers in Jesus (39-43).

This story teaches us how to situate ourselves as Christ’s servants not on one side or the other of a controversy but on the side of all as people for whom Christ came. Jesus was for the Samaritans and shared the Gospel with them; at the same time, he was for the Jews and upheld them and their true heritage, and he did this without antagonizing the Samaritans. We, in turn, without condoning the behavior of any, can boldly and clearly share the truth of the Gospel about Jesus, who loves all and gave himself for all.