Table Of ContentAll Things in Common
All Things in Common
The Economic Practices of the Early Christians
RomAn A. monTeR o
Foreword by Edgar G. Foster
All Things in Common
The Economic Practices of the Early Christians
Copyright © 2017 Roman A. montero. All rights reserved. Except for brief quota-
tions in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in
any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permis-
sions, Wipf and stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., suite 3, Eugene, oR 97401.
Resource Publications
An imprint of Wipf and stock Publishers
199 W. 8th Ave., suite 3
Eugene, oR 97401
www.wipfandstock.com
paperback isbn: 978-1-5326-0791-2
hardcover isbn: 978-1-5326-0793-6
ebook isbn: 978-1-5326-0792-9
manufactured in the U.s.A. April 24, 2017
“scripture quotations are from the nRsV© Bible (The holy Bible, new Revised
standard Version©), copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the
national Council of the Churches of Christ in the UsA. Used by permission. All
rights reserved.”
Contents
Foreword by Edgar G. Foster | vii
introduction | 1
1 The Economic Context of First-Century Palestine | 6
2 Economic Relationships | 15
3 The Essenes, a Jewish messianic Community | 27
4 hellenistic Concepts of Friendship, Common Property, and
Attitudes toward the Poor | 38
5 The Economic Practices of the Early Christians | 48
6 “The Tragedy of the Commons” | 70
7 The View from the outside | 76
8 The Theological origins of Christian sharing | 83
9 A Universal Community | 104
10 Why others get it Wrong | 110
Conclusion | 118
Bibliography | 125
Ancient Document Index | 129
v
Foreword
Academics classify economics as a social science along with psycholo-
gy, anthropology, sociology, and history; the social sciences usually are dis-
tinguished from the so-called hard sciences like physics, chemistry, biology
or astronomy. nevertheless, Biblical scholars (among others) have found
value in using the social sciences with the aim of illuminating scriptural
texts and their respective sociocultural contexts. one can point to stud-
ies written by malina, Pilch,1 and osiek.2 The last-mentioned study offers
some cautionary advice for scholars who choose to use social-scientific
approaches in their work, and osiek issues the reminder that the social
sciences have their individual strengths and concomitant weaknesses. For
example, economics like any other discipline, only models what transpires
in the actual world: scientific models do not wholly correspond to things
and events in the world. Einstein writes: “As far as the laws of mathemat-
ics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they
do not refer to reality.” modeling only approximates reality as opposed to
identically mirroring the external world.
The tentative or provisional nature of economic models is not the only
thing that osiek discusses; yet another concern for some is the marxist
foundation of social sciences. The “father of sociology” is Auguste Comte.
he originated the term “sociology” and proffered the view that society
unfolded in three stages—religious, metaphysical, and scientific. Comte
1. malina and Pilch, Social Science Commentary on the Book of Revelation; malina,
The New Jerusalem in the Revelation of John.
2. osiek, “The social sciences and the second Testament,” 88–95.
vii
Foreword
insisted that the religious and metaphysical stages depended on non-rigor-
ous and unsatisfactory methods to account for social phenomena, so they
lacked genuine explanatory power. he advanced the suggestion that nei-
ther religion nor metaphysics have the efficacious potency to account for
social phenomena. hence, Comte proposed that sociologists would even-
tually develop a scientific approach that would surpass the other two stages
with respect to explanatory potency. it is easy to ascertain the elements of
positivism at play with Comte’s approach since he privileged empiricism,
statistics and evolutionary thought. Positivism elevates the quantifiable
or focuses on what is measurable, and it supposedly operates without the
usual biases of other methods. nevertheless, opponents of positivism say
that no facts are unfiltered: we all start with specific preapprehensions.
The founder of sociology pioneered the way for marxist conflict theo-
ry; Karl marx consequently shaped his own thought to revolve around class
conflict, economic stages, and revolution.3 g.W.F. hegel, a german idealist,
who enjoyed iconic status at the University of Berlin, provided the elements
that marx apparently needed to develop a comprehensive theory of his-
tory and class conflict.4 But while hegel portrayed the Weltgeist abstractly
or ideally unfolding throughout history by means of a triadic dialectical
movement (thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, as it were), marx understood
history’s dialectical progression to occur by dint of economic changes, that
is, via alterations whereby one type of economic system leads to another
opposing system, which ultimately culminates in a classless society wherein
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” becomes
the applicable and governing slogan. marx asserted: “in a higher phase of
communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to
the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and
physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of
life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased
with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of
co-operative wealth flow more abundantly,” then each would give from his
ability “to each according to his needs.”
marxian thought has exercised great influence in China, north Korea,
Cuba, and the former soviet Union. Keith Ward considers elements of this
3. marx has been described as “the greatest critical theorist of the industrial Revo-
lution and nineteenth-century capitalism.” stevenson, haberman, and Wright, Twelve
Theories of Human Nature, 187.
4. Ward, The Case for Religion, 64.
viii
Foreword
philosophy to be “both theoretically dubious and highly value-laden” and
possibly “wish-fulfilling.”5 Contra the teachings of Jesus, marx appeared
to emphasize humanity’s limitless ability to produce ideal circumstances
(rather than looking to god’s sovereign rule); all we need are the right con-
ditions to make social environments flourish. nonetheless, a theory like
marxism that stresses human potency and creaturely governance clashes
head-on with the Christian doctrine of sin, on one hand, and divine om-
nipotence from another perspective. only god is able to bring about libera-
tion, not the creature. Ward also contends that marxian theory potentially
fails on two other fronts: 1) human life is characterized by aggression and
avid desire; 2) marxist governments have been tried and found wanting. of
course, there are possible responses to these criticisms, but the important
question is whether “communitarianism” in the relevant sense is feasible
within a Christian setting.
marxism and Christianity seem to be diametrical opposites: hardly
anyone disputes that point. so is it possible to redeem elements of this
philosophy so that it becomes applicable for communities like the ancient
Christian ecclesia? Roman A. montero’s work All Things in Common makes
an interesting proposal by employing the famous marxist slogan as a spring-
board for discussing practices of the early Christian congregation, concern-
ing which luke narrates in Acts of the Apostles; however, montero argues
that while marx might have articulated the slogan, “From each according to
his ability, to each according to his needs,” there is evidence that early Chris-
tians somehow lived by the slogan since luke reports that certain followers
of Jesus held all things in common with one another following Pentecost
(Acts 2:44; 4:32). montero invokes history and economics in the process
of setting forth an arresting narrative. Yet how does he contribute to the
growing use of social-scientific approaches in Biblical studies?
The aforementioned proposal, which indicates that ancient Christians
shared all things in common, is not entirely new.6 The lukan account of
Acts testifies to a sharing of communal property in some sense, and the
Apostle Paul later writes about an equalizing taking place between giver
and recipient (2 Corinthians 8:13–15), an idea that he finds supported
in the hebrew Bible (Exodus 16:18). Paul’s advocacy for equalizing ma-
terial goods ultimately occurs within the context of a letter addressed to
Corinthian Christians (cf. Romans 15:25–27; 1 Corinthians 16:1–4). in
5. ibid., 66.
6. see Crawford, What Is Religion?, 165.
ix
Foreword
this particular correspondence, the author exhorts his readers to support
a ministry for poor Christians; moreover, one encounters similar ideas in
the Qumran scrolls of the Dead sea Community. Tertullian (ca. 160–240
C.E.), a north African apologist belonging to the church, likewise refers
to the ecclesiastical practice of holding material goods in common (Apol-
ogy 39.11). still, montero’s study is unique insofar as he argues that early
Christians lived by the communitarian principle, they shared all things in
common, and the early followers of Jesus subsequently thrived—even out-
lasting the indomitable Roman Empire that persecuted the nascent eccle-
sia, sometimes quite brutally.
montero suggests that the practices outlined by luke were not lim-
ited to a few congregations or to a circumscribed area. To the contrary, he
thinks early followers of Jesus applied “From each according to his ability,
to each according to his needs” across the entire greco-Roman world for at
least the first two centuries of the Christian community’s existence. if his
idea turns out to fit the evidence, then a case would be made that when this
principle is applied within a Christian setting or implemented properly,
then it possibly might yield a unified and budding community that honors
god. nevertheless, how does one go about examining such an idea? Which
scholarly methods should be utilized?
The current study invokes historical, economic, and sociological
evidence while refusing to ignore scriptural or theological factors. The
methodology is varied: Jewish texts are examined; so are Christian and
greco-Roman sources. Economic practices receive the primary emphasis,
but they are coupled with historical analyses of primary sources and the
study demonstrates adequate sensitivity for sociocultural context. What-
ever one might think of marxism and its possible relationship with the
early Christian community, students of the social sciences and scripture
will find montero’s study to be refreshing, objective, and a genuine con-
tribution to our knowledge of ecclesiastical history. he also goes beyond
theoretical considerations in order to show the practical relevance of the
texts from Acts and the author’s intriguing suggestion posits that the early
communal practices outlined by luke ultimately originated with Jesus of
nazareth. The main arguments in this book, while provocative, admittedly
run counter to the contemporary promotion of laissez-faire capitalism. But
that has been the longstanding conflict between scripture and modern-
day capitalism. Regardless of which economic theory that one espouses,
x
