Luke 12:33

[Guest]

wayne-- many of us here, but clearly not all, attend a traditional church with a varying number of congregants.

let's assume that we decided, as per the Acts church, to follow that model, i.e. sell everything, move into community, etc.

how would this be done, as a practical matter?

thanks, TK

[Guest]

wayne-- many of us here, but clearly not all, attend a traditional church with a varying number of congregants.

let's assume that we decided, as per the Acts church, to follow that model, i.e. sell everything, move into community, etc.

how would this be done, as a practical matter?

thanks, TK

I think first it might take a different view of the church than just a varying group of people who meet once or twice a week for ceremonial religious purposes.

If the church is a committed brotherhood (family?) where all aspects of a believer's life are a concern for the brothers and sisters, then those details can be worked out according to circumstances and the goals of the group. That is certainly the first step.

A group of persecuted believers were expelled from Nikolsburg by a "Christian" prince. In their poverty they decided to pool their resources. When they were able to establish themselves in peaceful circumstances they continued having all things common and organized themselves to send missionaries and to receive other persecuted, impoverished believers from hostile lands. This was the origin of the Hutterites.

[Guest]

it seems, short of drastic persecution, that it would be much easier to start the type of community you describe from a few like-minded individuals.

i have heard various people teach that perhaps end time persecution will in fact drive Christians into the type of community you describe.

TK

[Guest]

it seems, short of drastic persecution, that it would be much easier to start the type of community you describe from a few like-minded individuals.
TK

Indeed. Mission, persecution, and need seem often to force believers closer together and into the need/desire to have all things common. Some small groups of like minded believers will simply out of a common understanding of the scripture and a firm desire will also establish community. This was so in the first Anabaptist congregation at Zolikon Switzerland and the Palmgrove Community in Nigeria, as well as many others I know of.

A strong leader with the right message at the right time can also motivate a group to come together, as was the case with the Bruderhof Communities founded by Eberhard Arnold.

I'm inclined toward the model in which of a group of like minded believers establish a strong brotherly bond, and having close fellowship and working together more and more until some degree of community of goods becomes spontaneous and natural, or "Spirit led" as I think it was at Jerusalem. Perhaps Pentecost naturally lead to community of goods, and the real "sign" of the Holy Spirit's action is the love exhibited in this act of total surrender and community of goods

i have heard various people teach that perhaps end time persecution will in fact drive Christians into the type of community you describe.

Persecution can also be quite damaging on full scale Community. The Hutterites suffered greatly and were easy to target in their colonies in Europe. A significant Chinese communal movement was pretty thoroughly wiped out by the Chinese Communists (ironically enough).

[Guest]

If Jesus meant for His followers to literally sell their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor, then how would there be any possessions to hold in common? They would have sold them all.

Wayne said:

Now I have no doubt that Lazarus and Peter and others knew of this message. Look at how Peter responded when we read about the rich young man (Luke 18) to whom Jesus reiterated his teaching from Luke 12: "Look, we have left our homes and followed you." And Zacchaeus, another rich man, responded appropriately: "Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much."

So in light of all this it is no surprise that after the Holy Spirit infilled the believers they took the further step of having "all things common" as recorded in Acts 2 and 4, such that "there were no poor among them".

When Peter said they had left (aphiemi) everything (possessions, jobs, etc) this does not indicate they had been sold. John 21 would seem to indicate Peter still had his fishing boat and net.

As for Zacchaeus, he no doubt had much wealth left in comparison to the poor for he retained half of it. And what of Philemon, who owned a home large enough for the church to meet in and whose private property included one (Onesimus) or more slaves! And Philemon was not alone in being wealthy enough to own slaves, see Colosians 4:1 where Paul informs masters how slaves should be treated without any hint they should not have them. If a Christian is not to have private property, you would think, of all things, having slaves would be condemned.

Perhaps the key to understanding what Jesus was getting at is Luke 12:21; "So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."

[Guest]

If Jesus meant for His followers to literally sell their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor, then how would there be any possessions to hold in common? They would have sold them all.

I am inclined to not look for loopholes or logical fallacies in the hard sayings of Jesus. We know that Jesus sent one rich man away sad because he would not sell his posessions. Most of us are richer than the vast majority of fellow Christians in the world, so for my part I want to sort out how to put into practice what Jesus taught in the best way that I can.

Wayne

[Guest]

jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all that he had. indeed the ruler went away sad. we dont know what would have happened if the ruler had begun selling all his possessions. maybe jesus would have stopped him, just like God stopped abraham from slaying isaac. jesus likely knew he would not comply, so he would serve as an object lesson. the reason i say this is that i dont think jesus told anyone else to sell all their possessions.

i dont think it is looking for loopholes at all. I, and others, are simply interested in knowing what Jesus actually requires. some think that liquidating all your assets is required, while others do not. i do not believe that Jesus taught this as a general principal (although he did to one specific person).

so either the great majority of us are horrible christians for not liquidating, or that is not the true test. i suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.

TK

[Guest]

jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all that he had. indeed the ruler went away sad. we dont know what would have happened if the ruler had begun selling all his possessions. maybe jesus would have stopped him, just like God stopped abraham from slaying isaac. jesus likely knew he would not comply, so he would serve as an object lesson. the reason i say this is that i dont think jesus told anyone else to sell all their possessions.

But isn't that what this discussion thread is all about? "Then Jesus said to his disciples..." (Luke 12:22) "Sell your possessions and give to the poor." (Luke 12:33)

How we deal with this is a different matter, but I really don't know how we can say the Rich young Ruler was the only man whom Jesus told to sell his possessions.

i dont think it is looking for loopholes at all. I, and others, are simply interested in knowing what Jesus actually requires. some think that liquidating all your assets is required, while others do not. i do not believe that Jesus taught this as a general principal (although he did to one specific person).

so either the great majority of us are horrible christians for not liquidating, or that is not the true test. i suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.

TK

I think it lies somewhere in between as well, certainly one can play an absurd game when discussing taking Jesus literally, but that never gets one anywhere. I would like to think of how we can apply Jesus' teachings in the most literal way we can, a way that strains our faith even, to His honor and glory rather than to our own temporal or eternal benefit.

[Guest]

hi wayne--

i must apologize-- i lost track of the original posting by homer about luke 12:33 and i thought we were talking about the rich young ruler story.

it appears that Jesus indeed tell his disciples to "sell your possessions" but he didnt say "all, " like he did to the ruler. is this splitting hairs or looking for loopholes? quite possibly!

i appreciate your input because you have given me a lot to think about. i think the problem that many of us have with what you are proposing is simply a practical one. i would submit that life is more complex now than it was then, but perhaps this is just an excuse as well.

TK

[Guest]

If Jesus meant for His followers to literally sell their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor, then how would there be any possessions to hold in common? They would have sold them all.

Jesus gave this instruction to one person which served as a paradigm for other disciples to follow.

After being filled with the Spirit on that special Pentecost, the disciples of Christ worked it out practically among themselves. It can be guessed from the words of Acts 2:45,6

And all who believed were together and had all things in common;

The first thing they did was to be "together". The second was to have community of goods.

Now, there were some goods which were not needed by the community

and they sold their properties and possessions and distributed them to all, as any had need.

The word "them" cannot refer to their properties and possessions. Of course, if they sold them, they couldn't distribute them to their brethren.
Indeed, the Greek word for "them" is neuter, whereas the word for "possessions" is feminine. If "them" referred to "possessions" it would have to agree in gender.

Actually "them" refers to the proceeds of their sale. A similar construction is found in Matthew 26:9

For this ointment might have been sold for a large sum, and given to the poor.