John Calvin Commentary Acts 2:44

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common;" — Acts 2:44 (ASV)

Regarding the phrase And all, while I have translated it as joined together, the wording is, word for word in Saint Luke, Into the same, or into one. This may be interpreted as referring to the place, as if he meant that they were accustomed to dwell together in one place.

Nevertheless, I would rather understand it as referring to their consent (and agreement), as he will say in the fourth chapter, That they had one heart (Acts 4:32). And so he proceeds in an orderly manner: when he begins with their mind, he afterward adds their bountifulness, as a fruit proceeding from it.

Therefore, he leads us to understand that they were rightly joined together with brotherly love among themselves, and that they indeed demonstrated this, because the rich men sold their goods so that they might help the poor. And this is a remarkable example of love, and therefore Luke records it, so that we may know that we must relieve the poverty of our brethren with our abundance.

But this passage needs a sound exposition, because of fanatical spirits who feign a community or common sharing of goods, by which all civil order or government is abolished. For example, in this age the Anabaptists have furiously advocated this, because they thought there was no Church unless everyone’s goods were put and gathered together, as it were, in one heap, so that they might all take from it together.

Therefore, we must, on this point, beware of two extremes. For many, under the pretext of civil order, hoard and conceal whatever they have; they defraud the poor, and they think that they are especially righteous, as long as they take away no one else's goods. Others are carried into the contrary error, because they want to throw everything into confusion.

But what does Luke do? Surely he points to another order, when he says that discretion was used in the distribution. If anyone objects that no one had anything that was their own, seeing all things were common, we may easily answer. For this community or common sharing must be understood in light of the circumstance that immediately follows; namely, that the poor might be relieved as every man had need.

We know the old proverb, “All things are common among friends.” When the scholars of Pythagoras said this, they did not deny that everyone might govern their own house privately, nor did they intend to make their own wives common.

So this common possession of things, of which Luke speaks and which he commends, does not take away household government. This will appear more clearly from the fourth chapter, where he names only two out of so many thousands who sold their possessions.

From this we gather what I just said: that they brought forth and made their goods common for no other reason except that they might relieve the present necessity.

And the impudence of the monks was ridiculous, who professed to observe the apostles’ rule because they call nothing their own. Yet, nevertheless, they neither sell anything, nor do they care about anyone's poverty.

Instead, they stuff their idle bellies with the blood of the poor, nor do they regard anything else in their common possession of things except that they may be well and daintily fed, even if the whole world is hungry. In what way, then, are they like the first disciples, with whom they presume to compare themselves?