• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Holding all things in common

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cap
  • Start date Start date
C

Cap

Guest
Acts 2:44
All the believers were together and had everything in common.

It seems the original Apostle and disciples reached a state of being able to live in close proximity of each other, physically I assume, but more likely spiritually. It has been suggested that they, (or we should) reach/ed that state in an aggressive association with each other. I was wondering is that form of relationship biblical, or do you think that they lived in harmony with each other. Or, maybe the reason they failed was because they could not reach a state of harmony. Does anyone know about the biblical state they were in to reach that place? Which appears to be a place we should be able to reach to achieve a certain blessing.

I am having a hard time believing they had a strong aversion to each other.


The Fellowship of the Believers

42They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
 
Persecution broke up the fellowship and dispersed them from Jerusalem.

We will be heading back toward closer fellowship, likely forced by persecution.

Irony.
 
They started from a position of much greater unity from previous to Yeshua’s coming. One religion with peripheral divergencies. (Whether or not to fight against the conquerors being one of them.)
Those that accepted their Messiah then had unity that was centered in their new-found divergence from the religion that put him on the cross.

Yah would that we be unified in our understanding, but alas, we aren’t.
It starts with the heart, and that IS within our control.


Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
 
42They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles.

I think the reality is that no God fearing man is going to follow another man unless there is evidence of signs and wonders to follow his message, supported be scripture of course.

PeteR said:
Persecution broke up the fellowship and dispersed them from Jerusalem.
Click to expand...

Does it state this is the reason?
 
I’m not convinced that this was a communal type setting. We view it as such because of our proximity to communism. Rather, I think that they had reverted to an earlier form of community where if your brother had need you did not withhold your hand and your hospitality was much like Abraham’s. His tent was always open with a table spread just in case there were visitors or travelers. (Or so I’ve read).

I have also seen this in earlychristianwritings.com where one of the apologists were extolling Christianity because they took care of the widows and orphans and families of the men being persecuted for their faith.

I am entirely in favor of community like this and I think we do it to a degree here at BF. I also believe that if we had a first century tithe rather than a OT tenthing that this type of community “blessing” would be the natural outcome.
 
I really do believe that there is a blessing in trying to find that place were the believers were at that time. I don't think it's possible for an individual to change the world that we are currently in. It's going to take a coordinated effort on a group of like minded individuals. But yet, to achieve that that group would need God's evidences to prove they are being lead by Him. There is no way a group like that could be created without the Spirit of God leading, and all members no it beyond a doubt.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I’m not convinced that this was a communal type setting. We view it as such because of our proximity to communism. Rather, I think that they had reverted to an earlier form of community where if your brother had need you did not withhold your hand and your hospitality was much like Abraham’s. His tent was always open with a table spread just in case there were visitors or travelers. (Or so I’ve read).

I have also seen this in earlychristianwritings.com where one of the apologists were extolling Christianity because they took care of the widows and orphans and families of the men being persecuted for their faith.

I am entirely in favor of community like this and I think we do it to a degree here at BF. I also believe that if we had a first century tithe rather than a OT tenthing that this type of community “blessing” would be the natural outcome.
Click to expand...

That makes sense but where would a family go if they sold all their property?
 
Cap said:
That makes sense but where would a family go if they sold all their property?
Click to expand...
You are still confusing this model with communism.

In scripture it records some of the believers sold land. Not all or even most. The examples I’ve seen still hold private property, every man provides for his own, but everyone in the community (Christianity) is seen as part of extended family that has a shared interest in taking care of everyone if they have a need. Laziness does not constitute a need and would be an indication that they are a false swearer and a Christ monger.

Being hauled off to prison or a debilitating injury or disease constitutes need. A son establishing a new family in the faith would be a great opportunity to bless that young family.

There’s lots of ways to bless the family without nurturing indolence and laziness or creating an Uber wealthy heirarchy and the resulting impoverished masses. It starts with personal responsibility for providing for one’s own wives and children. And then being a good steward of the excess that God blesses you with and watching for opportunity to bless others in the extended family as well. A man who does his blessing this way would be regarded highly in the community while conversely a man who blessed others at the expense of his families basic needs would not be highly regarded as the result would be evidence that he has failed to provide for his own in order to buy others regard.
 
Cap said:
So in reality, the idea of holding all things in common, back then and today, would be more mental than physical?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, yes. Just as in the assembly.

1 Corinthians 16:2 . . . Let every one of you set by him in store as God hath prospered him.
Notice where he lays up his store. “By him”. Not giving it to someone else to store and disperse for him. (Though these men later entrusted it to another to deliver their gift as its recipient was not local.).

Same principle, same family, same structure of blessing.

Individual storehouses for immediate community blessing.

BTW. This is first century “tithing”. Not OT “ tenthing”. They are not the same thing at all. There is a vast difference between laying up treasure in heaven by free will investment in others and paying a percentage of your income to another for services rendered.
 
Then the concept of holding all things in common is not about selling property and living in a communal type arrangement but more in line with the foundations of creating the assembly of believers in a more personal home based setting. Where before the idea was that worshipping in the temple was that old way and now, with the view of 'holding all things in common' is basically changing the view from temple worship to home church setting. Yes/no?
 
I believe that a major proof that they did not live communally is the instructions for the care of widows.
If it was communal, there would have been no need to state that any widows younger than 60 should join a family, and that the community (church) would continue to care for the older ones.

1 Timothy 5:9 (KJV) Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
 
The “communality of thinking/thought” is worthy of strong consideration. Holding beliefs in common.
 
Cap said:
But yet, to achieve that that group would need God's evidences to prove they are being lead by Him.
Click to expand...
That line of thought scares me.
That’s what the son of perdition will use.
 
steve said:
That line of thought scares me.
That’s what the son of perdition will use.
Click to expand...

I agree %100 but, what other mechanism could be used to get believers to follow the Truth as far as God sees it as apposed to individual interpretations. Healing, signs and wonders was used before, what could be used?

However, as I write what I just wrote, it accorded to me, the Truth about PM was not revealed with physical signs and wonders, but something inside that matched the Word of God about marriage and relationships. So I suppose, any other Truth could be revealed the same way. So at some point, the truth about, let's say, animal sacrifice, or Sabbath, or any other divisions that separate the body of Christ today will one day be revealed the way God sees them and then we will hold those things in common just as PM.
 
Cap said:
Where before the idea was that worshipping in the temple was that old way and now, with the view of 'holding all things in common' is basically changing the view from temple worship to home church setting. Yes/no?
Click to expand...
No. Temple worship continued, but the believing community regarded each other a closer family than physical family and actively walked out Torah as a community loving neighbor as self.
 
PeteR said:
No. Temple worship continued, but the believing community regarded each other a closer family than physical family and actively walked out Torah as a community loving neighbor as self.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge the temple was destroyed and there hasn't been one scenes, except for the body of Christ being build. How would you explain this statement, "but the believing community regarded each other a closer family than physical family and actively walked out Torah as a community loving neighbor as self"? How is this represented today as whole?

Do you think you push Torah in the same frame as the church pushes monogamy as a way of life, when in reality we found that God has another way.

( I am hoping I can ask this questions without everyone getting bogged down in the torah non torah war.)
 
Acts 2, your reference passage occurred in 35-38 AD. Paul is sacrificing in Temple in 55 AD. Destruction was not until 70 AD.

Not poking your theology, just looking at sequence of events. History indicates Christian community didn't leave Jerusalem until right before destruction. Acts indicates they were involved in Temple life right up to their departure.

Re: my earlier statement that persecution forced many out of Jerusalem, see Acts 8:1-5.... the persecution was off and on because at time of Paul's arrest, we know at least 20,000 believers were in Jerusalem and keeping Torah including Temple service. Study exactly what James said and why in Acts 21:15-26 ff
 
Cap said:
Then the concept of holding all things in common is not about selling property and living in a communal type arrangement but more in line with the foundations of creating the assembly of believers in a more personal home based setting. Where before the idea was that worshipping in the temple was that old way and now, with the view of 'holding all things in common' is basically changing the view from temple worship to home church setting. Yes/no?
Click to expand...
Correct

steve said:
I believe that a major proof that they did not live communally is the instructions for the care of widows.
If it was communal, there would have been no need to state that any widows younger than 60 should join a family, and that the community (church) would continue to care for the older ones.

1 Timothy 5:9 (KJV) Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
Click to expand...

I think you’re right. Imagine an unbelieving new widow who hears that this group of people takes really good care of their widows so she decides to convert for no other reason than convenience (so that she can be taken into the number)

@PeteR id be interested in your definition of Temple worship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top