Michael Heiser on Acts 2

In previous posts, Art has revealed that he is a fanboy.

I, too, must confess some fanboy tendencies of the paradigm-shifting Old Testament and languages scholar, Michael Heiser.

Here are eight points he makes about the "Acts 2-teaches-socialism" canard:

1. The Bible neither forbids nor condemns private property.

2. The Bible neither forbids nor condemns private possessions.

3. The Bible neither forbids nor condemns running a private business (entrepreneurship). Consequently, profit is neither forbidden nor condemned.

4. Lending and borrowing (with interest, depending on Jewish or Gentile status) were also not forbidden or condemned in principle. Excess in these respects is condemned, and borrowing receives attention in wisdom literature to prompt wise choices in that regard (such as ability to repay and the consequences of failure in that regard).

5. While Scripture does condemn the economic abuse of the poor, there is no expectation in the Bible that the state is responsible for providing a citizen’s livelihood.

6. Old Testament laws for the care of the poor are aimed at the individual, not the state. That is, the expectation is that Israelites would care for the poor by obeying God’s laws. There was no police force or Israelite IRS to enforce these laws. When abuses happened, Israelite elders or officials (after the monarchy) could punish individuals and call for restitution. But this is not socialism or communism for the reasons that follow.

7. The Bible contains no laws that call for a classless society. In fact, biblical law presumes social classes. The same can be said of the teachings of Jesus. Jesus presumes social classes and never calls for their abolition. What he calls for is righteousness among members of social classes (i.e., righteous relationships). The words of the apostles in the epistolary literature is entirely consistent with this. Paul and others benefit from the benevolence of wealthy individuals (e.g., Luke 23:50; Acts 17:12) and business owners (e.g., Acts 16:14) and never link their conversion or walk with God to surrender of all their possessions or their business. The very idea of giving to the poor according to one’s ability (Acts 11:29) requires differing financial statuses.

8. The New Testament does not include the erection of a new theocracy as part of the mission of the Church. There is no call for the Church to be the State, or the State to be the Church. They are separate entities in the teaching of Jesus. (And history has yet to provide a good outcome when two are married).

Read the whole insightful post here.