Mormon continues to reprise the information from the end of the last book. At that time he noted of the twelve:
3 Nephi 26:19
19 And they taught, and did minister one to another; and they had all things common among them, every man dealing justly, one with another.
The similarity of language suggests that this is an intentional linkage. It gives us no new information, however, so his function is not to give us history, but structural continuity. The people early in the world of 4 Nephi continue the righteous ways of those in the community of 3 Nephi.
Social: Even though there is an obvious similarity in the New World practice of “all things in common” with that of the earliest Christian communities in the Old World, we should note that the must have been important differences. The most telling difference was in the completely unrelated economic structures of the societies in which the Christians of the two worlds found themselves. The Old World was a monetary economy built upon land ownership, principles with which we are very familiar.
“Just as Judas carried the common purse when Jesus walked with his twelve discples (John 12:6, 13:29), so everything was held in common by the larger group of disciples. The narratives inserted give a more detailed picture of the community of property in the primitive church. Barnabas was singled out as one who had sold a plot of land and had given the money for it to the apostles (Acts 4:36-37). It would not have been necessary to stress this if “all of them” had done so.” (Johannes Munck. The Acts of the Apostles. Doubleday, The Anchor Bible. 1967, p. 22).
The ideal of the Old World Christian community required that one sell property and give the value over to the Apostles. Nevertheless, this was apparently neither an absolute requirement, as Munck indicates, nor was it a complete separation from individual ownership. The essence of the practice was the redistribution of goods for the benefit of all, but that did not necessarily require participation. Rather, it is probable that there was a connection between the degree of donation and the degree of participation in the redirection of those goods. Crossan notes:
“Recall from above that Essene communalism could range from donating one‘s entire property at Qumran to donating a minimum of two days’ salary per month in the other communities. I think of that communalism as a spectrum from maximum to minimum, but, whatever its specific details, it indicates that a holy Law for an unholy time demands modes of communal sharing. I emphasize, however, that sharing means both giving and taking. If, for example, one depends absolutely on the community, one must give absolutely to the community. Similarly, with Jerusalem. I leave open whether “all things in common” should be taken absolutely or relatively. I propose that there was a serious attempt to establish what we could call share-community to which one gave, at maximum, all one had or, at minimum, all one could. Against that background, the fault of (fictional?) Ananias and Sapphira was lying to the community, claiming to have given all when some was withheld, But that was a practical not just a theoretical lie. They were now taking from the community as if they no longer had any resources of their own. The story admits, in fact, that they did not have to sell their property and that, even after selling it; they did not have to hand it over to the community. But claiming an absolute gift was also claiming an absolute right, an absolute right to receive what one needed, an absolute right to share in the eucharistic share-meal of the community. All the Christ-hustlers were not in Galilee and Syria. In Jerusalem, then, as in Qumran; no deliberate lies about goods, no spurious claims to sustenance. What I see in both cases, with the Essene Jews and the Christian Jews, is a thrust toward establishing sharing community in reaction against commercializing community -an effort made, of course, to live in covenant with God. It is, in any case, the collection for the poor that convinces me to take Luke’s “all things in common” not as imaginary idealism or even patronal sharing but as communal sharing.” (John Dominic Crossan. The Birth of Christianity. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998, p. 472.)
The reason for communal sharing was to increase the availability of needed goods to those who would otherwise have no access to the necessities of life. One of the salutary effects of such efforts was to care for those who otherwise had no means. In particular, this allowed for a means to continue to support the needy in the community.
“Eusebius provides a letter from Cornelius, bishop of Rome, written in 251 to Bishop Fabious of Antioch, in which he reported that “more than fifteen hundred widows and distressed persons” were in the care of the local congregation, which may have included about 30,000 members at this time.” (Rodney Stark.The Rise of Christianity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1996, p. 104-5).
This was an unusual circumstance, for pagan religio-political systems had no consistent means of providing for the needy. There were distributions to the poor, but they were in connection with festivals. There was great uncertainty in such public redistributions. The early Christian method provided a more consistent means of mutual support.
The New World Christians were in a very different social situation. They could not sell land, because they did not own land. This was not a defect of their economic system, for no one “owned” the land in the sense that it could be purchased. There were traditional lands, but there was no conception of selling such lands. Even if one did, there was no money with which to buy it, and once sold, one’s entire ability to produce food and goods for living disappeared. The communal nature of the New World Christians had to be of a different type.
When Philo described the community of the Essenes he was doing so from an outsider’s view. He indicates that they had all things in common, although documents from Qumran do indicate some retention of personal ownership amidst a system of communal sharing. (Lawrence H. Schiffman. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls. Doubleday. Anhor Bible Reference Series. 1994, p.108). Nevertheless, his perspective is important precisely because it describes a rural community that has more in common with the New World than the urbanized Christians:
“… no one among them ventures at all to acquire any property whatever of his own, neither house, nor slave, nor farm, nor flocks and herds, nor any thing of any sort which can be looked upon as the fountain or provision of riches; but they bring them together into the middle as a common stock, and enjoy one common general benefit from it all.
(11.5) And they all dwell in the same place, making clubs, and societies, and combinations, and unions with one another, and doing every thing throughout their whole lives with reference to the general advantage; (11.6) but the different members of this body have different employments in which they occupy themselves, and labour without hesitation and without cessation, making no mention of either cold, or heat, or any changes of weather or temperature as an excuse for desisting from their tasks. But before the sun rises they betake themselves to their daily work, and they do not quit it till some time after it has set, when they return home rejoicing no less than those who have been exercising themselves in gymnastic contests; (11.7) for they imagine that whatever they devote themselves to as a practice is a sort of gymnastic exercise of more advantage to life, and more pleasant both to soul and body, and of more enduring benefit and equability, than mere athletic labours, inasmuch as such toil does not cease to be practised with delight when the age of vigour of body is passed; (11.8) for there are some of them who are devoted to the practice of agriculture, being skilful in such things as pertain to the sowing and cultivation of lands; others again are shepherds, or cowherds, and experienced in the management of every kind of animal; some are cunning in what relates to swarms of bees; (11.9) others again are artisans and handicraftsmen, in order to guard against suffering from the want of anything of which there is at times an actual need; and these men omit and delay nothing, which is requisite for the innocent supply of the necessaries of life. (Philo. The Works of Philo. Tr. C.D. Yonge. Hedrickson Publishers, 1963, p.745. From Hypothetica)
Philo’s description of an agrarian community living with all things in common is probably our best model for the way the social community among the Nephites operated. As an agrarian society, all had to work to supply food, clothing, and shelter. The results of their efforts were shared, so that if one family’s crops failed due to some natural problem, they could call upon others in the community for support through that lean time. This recalls King Benjamin’s indication that he had worked with his own hands for his support rather than tax the population (Mosiah 2:14).
Reference: Several Biblical passages loan phrases and constructions to this verse, which is not copied from any, but modeled upon pieces of each:
Acts 2:44
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Revelation 13:16
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
Hebrews 6:4
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
The passage from Acts is the most obvious reference, keeping both the phrase and the contextual meaning. Certainly there is no substantial difference between the conception of “all things common” in the Old and the New World. Each describes an economic experiment. It is important for the Book of Mormon context, however, that this New Testament phrase is intimately linked with the Book of Mormon theme of egalitarianism, marked by the next New Testament phrase “no rich nor poor.”
The combination of elements of “rich and poor,” “free and bond,” in Revelation suggests that verse as a linkage. The contextual usage of the terms in that verse not analogous, however, and the rich and poor may be more relevant to the Nephite egalitarian ideal than to the New Testament language. This is the context in which the “all things common” is seen. Once the Nephites have “all things common,” they have achieved a society that has neither rich nor poor, the very definition of the Nephite egalitarianism. The “bond and free” phrase also reflects Pauline language (such as 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galations 3:28). There are no records to tell us how early slavery was present in Mesoamerica, but when it was it was an economic institution, and the equality of access to needed goods would assure that there could be no slaves who purchased their debt with their labor.