Should Christians give away all they possess except for basic necessities?

So in helping God's saints who have got into actual debt through their folly, I believe the way is not to help them without sincere repentance on their part, and a resolve to walk in the ways of the word in regard to those things, which says, Owe no man anything, but to love one another. (Rom. 13:8.) If I help a saint, for instance, encouraging him thereby to set up in business without capital to carry it out; I am only encouraging him in a path of dishonour to the Lord, in which the Lord can by no means go with me. Under the government of God I believe the principle is true as set forth in Psalm 37:25: "I have been young and now am old, and yet saw I never the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging their bread." God has promised food and raiment to His children (Matt. 6:24-34), with the caution, Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you. The words, "Are ye not much better than the fowls? How much more shall he not clothe you, oh ye of little faith?" come in with unmistakable truth to faith wherever it is. Again, Your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. See also Luke 12:22-31. Again, Let your conversation be without covetousness, and be content with such things as you have, for He hath said, I will never leave thee nor forsake thee, so that we can boldly say, The Lord is my helper, I will not fear what man can do unto me. (Heb. 13:5-6.) All these sure promises ought to give confidence to the saints in the care of the Father, and prevent then from ever getting into debt, like other men. And indeed how can I give to others if I am in debt myself? I am then giving what is not my own, a terribly solemn thing when it is professedly done in the name of the Lord: I am taking what ought to be in another man's pocket, and giving it to the Lord. Is not this hypocrisy?

But lastly the question comes in, How much are we to give to the Lord? Now, dear reader, this question would never come in, if you understood that you and all yours are entirely bought for the Lord. Israel's men, women, and children, and cattle, were all for Jehovah. All had to come out of Egypt. Moses would not hear of the compromise, that the men were to come out of Egypt, and the wives, children, and cattle to be left behind. Not a jot or tittle was to be left in Egypt or to be lavished on Egyptians. All was for Jehovah, and for the support of their families and other Israelites through the wilderness, but for nothing more. And so in a much higher sense all that the Christian possesses is the Lord's. The Lord says as to the principle of it in Luke 12:33, Sell that ye have and give alms; provide yourselves bags that wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth. On the day of Pentecost all was given up, and laid down at the apostles' feet, to be distributed equally amongst all. Truly this did not go on in the later times of the church. But the principle surely remains, and so in 1 Timothy 6 the rich are exhorted to do good, to be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate, laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold of eternal life. And such principles as are shown in 2 Corinthians 9:8-11, and Ephesians 4:28, would surely be a check to saints who seek to get rich, as showing that the only purpose of labouring, and getting the blessings of God on it should be for the purpose of being an increased blessing to others, to abound in every good work, to have to give to him that needeth. As to usury, it was absolutely forbidden between Jewish brethren: to the stranger they might lend on interest, but not to their brethren. If they took a pledge it was to be restored before evening, lest their poor brother should cry to God and He would hear him for He was gracious. Dreadful is it to hear of brethren who boast of their high standing and privileges in a heavenly Christ, yet lowering themselves below the level of the righteous Jew in their walk, leading their poor brethren into sin, in the matter of buying farms or land, which they cannot pay for, and then exacting interest, notes, and all kinds of things afterwards, for the payment of it, thus becoming their oppressors. May the Lord lead His beloved saints to consider His principles in giving, and to abound individually in every good work!

There follow also, as surely, the fruits in practical life. The innate selfishness of the heart is surmounted by the influx of spiritual blessing which expands while it overflows it. There was no communistic law among these gathered saints; it would have spoiled all, if there had been; it was a unity of heart which allowed none of them to say that what was really his belonged to him. The sale of lands and houses was optional and unsolicited, as we see by the very specification of those who did this. There was therefore no general renunciation of personal title; but a love that knew no holding back from the need of another. It was the instinct of hearts that had found their real possessions in that sphere into which Christ had risen. The glorious fact of resurrection to which testimony was being given now with power took them of necessity out of the world; and great grace was on them all. The deeper need which could not be thus met found still the means to meet it in the actual sale of possessions on the part of those that had them; so that there were none that lacked: the money being laid at the apostles, feet. It is not necessarily that all sold all they had; but that this was the way in which the need was met: the history following, and which grows out of this, seems to make this plain.

A glance at the reports of a Church congress, or the columns of a religious weekly, will show at once what prominence this subject has in the thoughts of most persons. Turning to the New Testament, we fail to find this prominence given, though, as in all else, enough is said to guide the people of God. At Pentecost, gifts of their means was as liberal as the sense of the grace of God to them. There were none that lacked: houses and lands were freely disposed of to meet the needs of the poor (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:34-37). The effort to make this appear like the socialism of the day fails entirely when we see the unique position of the believers at Jerusalem. There were large numbers of strangers, and many poor. Needs were great and pressing; love was ardent, faith bright. But even then it was entirely voluntary, not compulsory — which is a complete reversal of socialistic demands. (See Acts 5:3-4.) The love and faith remain for all time; the conduct is left to the individual believer, though liberality is ever the mark of those who have learned of God.

Community of goods is not, however, inculcated in Scripture: it is entirely foreign to its spirit. The rich had their duties, and the poor theirs as well (1 Tim. 6:17; James 1:9-10). All able were to work that they might have to give, not to the common purse, but to the needy. (Eph. 4:28; 2 Thess. 3:10, 12.) The needy Jews at Jerusalem were remembered and ministered to by their Gentile brethren (Acts 11:27-30; Gal. 2:10; Rom. 15:25-27. See also 2 Cor. 8 and 9). This liberality was to be shown wherever the need appeared, — even to the world, as ability was given. (Rom. 12:13; Gal. 6:10.) But it can be easily seen that these scriptures do not cover all the cases which seem at the present day to call for the expenditure of money. That the object of many of these calls is proper and necessary we have no question. The Lord's servants are to be supported while they work for Him at home and abroad; necessary expenses in the securing of meeting-places have to be met; the poor have to be cared for; Bibles and tracts to be printed and circulated.

In New Testament times many were punctilious in paying tithes of small things, while they neglected the weightier matters of the law — judgement, mercy, and faith. Matt. 23:23. A definite tenth or fifth is not enforced in the N.T., but liberality is enjoined. "God loveth a cheerful giver:" he that soweth sparingly will reap sparingly; and he that soweth bountifully will reap bountifully: "he that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord." Paul told the saints to lay by for the special collection he was making for the poor 'as God had prospered' each. God required of them according to what they had, and not according to what they had not. The poor widow who cast in the two mites cast in more than the rich, for it was her whole living. At the commencement of the church many gave up their possessions and the saints had 'all things common;' but failure soon came in, and we may learn from the general tenour of the epistles that such a state of things would not continue, though the principle abides that we do not call any of the things we possess our own.

A great wave of devotedness was passing over the infant Church in Jerusalem. Under the mighty impulse of divine grace earthly things were being held with a very loose hand. Property was freely surrendered (Barnabas being conspicuous in this,) and the proceeds were being laid at the feet of the apostles that all might share together (Acts 4:32-37). Did the Lord demand this of His people? Most assuredly not, for Christianity is characterised by grace, and God has taken the place of the Giver. But He values what His people voluntarily surrender, because it indicates appreciation of what He has wrought for them through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Such a communistic condition of things as obtained in the early Church was only possible while the Church was confined to one city. But liberal-heartedness is always pleasant in the divine sight. Alas, that it should be one of the rarest of Christian graces!

Next follows, as fresh as ever, that unexampled token of superiority to personal interests which Pentecost first beheld. 'And not one said that aught of his possessions was his own; but they had all things common.' Certainty this was in no sense law but grace; but is it not surprising that any believing the scriptures should elude the plain and blessed fact? It was a state of things beautifully suited to the church when it was all in Jerusalem, and in the full early bloom created by the ungrieved Holy Spirit: when saints were gathered to the Lord elsewhere, we find it no more. Communion of goods, so far as it was carried out in grace, in the nature of things could only be rightly whilst all the members were in one place. When the Lord wrought in other places, the saints were as near in divine relationship as those that dwelt in the same city. That which was peculiar to the assembly in Jerusalem then merged into more ordinary and comprehensive forms of love toward all the saints wherever found, for the church on earth is one, and we are members one of another, even if in the most distant quarter of the globe. We have then instruction and exhortation of the most precious kind about giving, as in Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 16; 2 Cor. 8-9, Gal. 6; Eph.4; Phil. 4; 1 Tim. 6; Heb. 13, et al., clearly supposing no such state as all things common, but rather rich and poor who were appealed to accordingly. The word of the Lord, though to us always true, was receiving its most marked application: 'Verily I say to you, There is no man that has left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world (age) to come, eternal life' (Mark. 10:29-30).

The coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost produced a marvellous wave of surrender amongst the newly saved. Their joy was great. Behold how they stood with God! Having been convicted of the awful crime of killing the Son of God, they had come to understand that His death was part of a divine counsel of grace, and that in virtue of His death and resurrection they were forgiven and blessed. Their affections followed earth's rejected One to the place where He had gone, and this made the things of earth of but small value in their eyes. Accordingly, they "sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need" (Acts 2:45). They did not understand union, for the Mystery had not yet been revealed, but they practised unity most blessedly. There were no suffering poor in the early Church in Jerusalem. Barnabas is specially named in connection with this remarkable wave of surrender. "Having land, he sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the Apostles' feet" (Acts 4:37). This community of goods was not demanded of them; but the voluntariness of it made it very precious in the sight of Him who for our sakes became poor that we through His poverty might be rich (2 Cor. 8:9)

Such is the change of dispensation. Moreover when Christ had gone to heaven, it would no longer he a question of any desiring their land, but they were to sell what they had, and give alms.

When first the apostles proclaimed that God had made this same Jesus both Lord and Christ, so real was it to those who yielded themselves to Him that they put all they possessed at His feet; they kept nothing back: lands, houses; everything belonged to Him for He was Lord, and they were His and without delay or regret they surrendered all to His disposal. Was that because they were a generous and large-hearted people? Not likely; they were Jews. It was because they wholly recognised the claims of Christ. Nor was the truth less effectual amongst the Gentiles who believed, for the churches of Macedonia, though in great poverty, first gave their own selves to the Lord and then placed what else they had at His command. So it is recorded for us in 2 Corinthians 8.

The kingdom was not yet publicly manifested, but its inner reality was such as to enable its subjects to sell their property and give alms, for their time on earth was realized as brief, and the exercise of faith was to look forward to a treasure in the heavens. Therefore the disciples were not to hold on to things here, where all could easily be taken away anyway, whether by robbery or by aging and corruption, and for those Jews all was taken by the Romans 40 years later. The same principle holds today: are we using what the Lord has given us for Him or simply to fulfill our greed for the latest fashion, a fancier home, the latest car, etc.?