A careful scrutiny of the relevant passages of the Book of Acts shows that: (1) the condition which prevailed in Jerusalem did not continue ; (2) tlie churches organized by St. Paul (whose companion St. Luke was) show no trace of the community of goods, nor is any condemnation ex- pressed because of this ; (3) tho.se who had houses and lands sold them ; (4) Peter in what he said to Ananias (Ac 5^) clearly indicated that the right to private property was not questioned ( ' Whiles it remained, was it not thine own ? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power ? '). No theory, tlierefore, can be established on the basis of what we find prevailing among the hrst Christians in Jerusalem. We must rather suppose that in the special circumstances of that church an exceptional condition in relation to property was produced.
An analysis of the teaching and example of Jesus brings out quite clearly that the denial of a right to the possession of private property cannot be extracted from them. It is true that many strong statements are found in the Gospels as to the disadvantages of riches, and that the poor are represented as liaving a special interest in the Kingdom of God (Mt 6'9, Lk I822, Mk lO^s, Lk 6=»-2^ 1215, Mt 6-4 1924 115). Far-reaching deductions have been drawn from these in condemnation of the prevailing industrial order. And their spirit is manifestly very different from that Avhich the modern industrial and conmiercial struggle tends to produce. But their full force can be realized in connexion with the common effect of riches upon
* For discussions on the relation of St. Luke to Ebionism, see Keim, in. 284 ; H. Hoitzmann, op. cit. ; Colin Campbell, Critical Studies m Luke's Gospel ; B. Weiss, Life of Christ, vol. i. bks. iv., V. ; cf. Peabody, op. cit. p. 192. |
character, and they do not involve any condenma- tion of the possession of private property. It is to be remembered, too, in connexion with this, that no single statement of our Lord can be wisely taken by itself and pressed to the extreme con- clusion logically possible. This is to forget His method of teaching, which aimed ' at the greatest clearness in the briefest compass' (Wendt, Teach- ing of Jesus, i. p. 130). ' One who proposes to follow literally the specillc commands of Jesus finds himself immediately plunged into contradic- tions and absurdities. He accepts tiie teaching of Jesus concerning non-resistance, "to him that smitetii thee on one cheek offer also the other," but soon he hears this same counsellor of peace bid His friends sell their garments "and buy a sword"' (Peabody, ch. i. ).
We must therefore set over against the words of Jesus in which He seems to condemn the possession of riches, facts and sayings which forbid any com- munistic conclusion being drawn from them. Thus Jesus and His disciples had a fund for their com- mon necessities (Jn 13"). Moreover, the disciples owned boats and nets, to which tiiey returned after the crucifixion (Jn 213'''-). Peter's house appears to have been the headquarters of Jesus at Capernaum (Mk 129 21). There is no condemnation of the settled life which Martha, Mary, and Lazarus lived at Bethany (Lk \Qi^«-, Jn 121^- ). Zacchajus, who was a rich man, was not asked to give away all tiiat he had, but rather commended for giving a portion (Lk IQi-"). Mary's action in ' wasting' the costly cruse of ointment (Mt 26''^) was justified and praised. The centurion who had built a synagogue for the Jews in Capernaum (Lk V- 1") received the highest praise, but nothing was said about his wealth, evidently considerable. Nicodemus must have been a man of substance, but no question of his relation to his property was raised (Jn 31-21). Again, some force must be allowed to the fact that in several of the parables (Lk W^, Mt 2133) jggus used the rights which men have over their property to illustrate the duty which all owe to God. This argument cannot be pressed too far, but still such illustrations would be practically impossible to one who held that the possession of private pro- perty, with the power it gives over others, is wrong.
2. On the assumption, then, that Jesus does not condemn the possession of private property, it re- mains to discuss the place which property is to hold in the life of a Christian, and the use which he is to make of what he owns. The ruling considera- tion in this discussion is that Jesus in His teaching looks not so much to the circumstances of men's lives as to the kind of men they are and may become. His teaching, therefore, about property must be considered in relation to the effects of its acquisition and use upon character. In regard to the acquisition of property, the teaching of Jesus is directed against that greedy temper of mind in which worldly advantage is regarded as of supreme importance, and a man's wealth as the sole criterion of his worth. He also condemns dishonesty and oppression in the acquisition of wealth, which spring from this temper (Mt 23l^ Mk 12-10, lj^ 20^'). He warns men against covetousness on the ground that ' a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth ' (Lk 121^). He calls the man a fool who had much goods laid up for many years, and was not rich towards God (Lk 12i''-2i). He condemns over-care about making provision for the necessities of this life (Lk 1222-w^ Mt 6i«-34). And He declares that ' whosoever will save his life shall lose it ; but whosoever shall lose his life for mv sake and the gospel's, the same shall .save it' (Mk 835, Mt 103« 1625, Lk 92^). Thus it is clear that Jesus expects His followers to cultivate a