Holding all things in common

[Cap]

There's a difference between "not claiming" your possessions are your own, and actively claiming that they belong to a particular organisational structure. To assume this means what we see today as a "commune" is basically a straw man argument - it reads a particular modern institution into these words, that can be interpreted in multiple ways, and then says "therefore this particular modern institution must be righteous because God blessed this past event that I've just assumed was the same".

To illustrate this with some specific examples:

Small example: In a serious commune like Gloriavale you don't even have petty cash, you have to get permission for everything. If you need cash, you have to request it for a particular purpose, and that purpose has to be to further the common goals of the community. You carry no cash except for that agreed purpose. So how can you drop a dollar in a beggar's hat / charity bucket / buskers violin case, if you have nothing that belongs to you to give?

Big example: Just imagine the elder's meeting that would occur if you walked home because you'd given away the van you were driving... You'd be excommunicated on the spot and probably then prosecuted for theft in the same way you would be if you gave away a vehicle belonging to your employer. Legally, a commune will use standard trust / company / partnership structures and even employment contracts etc to work within the legal framework of the country. So if you give away a large asset, you're actually giving away an on-the-books company asset, and are legally no different to an employee stealing from his employer.

Just to clarify, I don't think it's possible to have a community based on holding all things PHYSICAL in common, now days. I think the community that is being talked about is one spiritual. The physical may happen but it's not the point.

 

[frederick]

@Cap, he's already answered the question, and in more words than yes/no to make it very clear exactly what he means by it to ensure there was no misunderstanding. Let it go.

Back to the original topic, which is a good topic and I'd like to see us keep discussing it rather than debating Torah which seems almost completely irrelevant:


Those verses do not say "give everything you have to the church and start a commune". Rather, they say give everything you have "to the poor" or "give alms" (same thing said differently). Not the church, the poor.

If you give all you have to a commune, and live in the commune, you still have access to your possessions, you're just sharing them. But if you give them to the poor, you don't have them any longer.

Also, if you give all you have to a commune, you no longer have the right to give any of it away to the poor, as you no longer control it. You'd have to ask a committee for permission to give it to the poor, and anyone who has had experience with committees will know how lengthy and frustrating a process that would be. The more I consider it, the more I think these passages might be a very strong argument against forming a commune, because it may actually restrict your ability to be generous.

This brings me back to this being about attitude, not structure. If we "hold all things in common" by holding, in our minds, that they belong to God not us, and therefore belong to His people as a whole, we are able to give freely. So this is a mindset that allows us to do exactly what scripture says, within a structure (self-ownership of property) that allows us to do it immediately on the prompting of the Spirit without having to ask anybody else's permission first.

Thank you for articulating such wisdom in practical terms.

 

[rockfox]

Those verses do not say "give everything you have to the church and start a commune"

But this does...

Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

That sure looks a lot like the dissolution and redistribution of private property.

Granted there wasn't a church in the sense of a government corporation. But there was in the sense of a body of people with leaders. And we know that the Apostles were taking in money and goods for redistribution.

if you give all you have to a commune, you no longer have the right to give any of it away to the poor, as you no longer control it

Well neither did they after Acts 2 when they sold it all. But someone living the communal life still often gets a wage/stipend; still has the potential to share labor/money/physical goods. And the group itself can also do giving, just as regular churches do today.

Anyway, I'm not fully certain in my mind about the application of all this, more questions than answers. Thank you.

This brings me back to this being about attitude, not structure. If we "hold all things in common" by holding, in our minds, that they belong to God not us, and therefore belong to His people as a whole, we are able to give freely. So this is a mindset that allows us to do exactly what scripture says, within a structure (self-ownership of property) that allows us to do it immediately on the prompting of the Spirit without having to ask anybody else's permission first.

That could be. But could not the commune structure be one way to fulfill the proper attitude?
Is not the structure of self-ownership of property antithetical to the idea of 'all things in common'?
Self ownership with a spirit of giving doesn't seem like the same thing as 'all things in common'.
How would that godly attitude play out within the structure of self-ownership? In practice all I've seen among most Christians IRL is lip-service while pursuing the same consumerist lifestyle as everyone else and looking down on anyway who doesn't strive for mammon.

I don't think it's possible to have a community based on holding all things PHYSICAL in common, now days

Why? There are many such in existence right now. And what do you mean 'now days'? What has changed?

I think the community that is being talked about is one spiritual. The physical may happen but it's not the point.

How do you square that with...

Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

 

[steve]

If we are all sons of the Most High, members of the Kingdom of Heaven, brothers and members of the bride of Yeshua.
If we are servants and bought with a price.
If everything that we own is at the Father’s pleasure.
Then we are merely stewards of what belongs to the Kingdom and we defacto own all things in common.

I’m not at all attempting to say that this is what is meant in Acts, but I am saying that if we get our minds right we would be closer to being free of ownership mentality than we are.


When you rescue those that are in desperate straits and they steal you blind by way of thanking you, it helps to see yourself as merely a steward.
They are stealing from the Kingdom, it’s not personal.

 

[steve]

Could we live in community and hold all things in common? Theoretically.
But we would have to hold more of our beliefs in common then we do.
Having the goal of achieving a monolithic belief structure in order to live in community is artificial and forced.
If our goal is to become like the pattern Son and we can learn from each other along the way, we will get there organically.

The farther away we are from the foot of the cross, the more divergent our beliefs will be. At the foot of the cross our beliefs will be singular.
Offer each other the truth as you know it but refrain from requiring that they accept it. Let not division divide us. Use the irritants as a reminder to pray for one another in our individual paths toward the cross.

 

[frederick]

The farther away we are from the foot of the cross, the more divergent our beliefs will be. At the foot of the cross our beliefs will be singular.
Offer each other the truth as you know it but refrain from requiring that they accept it. Let not division divide us. Use the irritants as a reminder to pray for one another in our individual paths toward the cross.

Profound, brother. Profound.

 

[Cap]

Cap said: ↑
I don't think it's possible to have a community based on holding all things PHYSICAL in common, now days

Why? There are many such in existence right now. And what do you mean 'now days'? What has changed?

Ever community you see today is based on humanistic attempts. A community may appear to be functional but the real determination is in the governmental structure it operates under. And since I don't believe the Sons of God have been revealed yet, these communities are being run by a man. He may be a humble man and being as close to God as he can, but what happens when he dies, what guarantee the next will do the same? What happens when/if he falls into sin? Throughout history, specifically the ancient Israelite's, the failure of the community falls squarely on the leaders. I would venture to say that any community today is a result of weak in faith individuals that allow a man to lead them without significant proof that he is being lead by God.


Cap said: ↑
I think the community that is being talked about is one spiritual. The physical may happen but it's not the point.

How do you square that with...Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

NIV Acts 4:32 32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.

"Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common," (your version) these two statements are separated by a comma and could very well be two separate states. The 'holding of all things in common' could be a result of the 'now all who believed were together'.

In response to a threat they (the disciples) prayed, 30Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” And then after that, this happened, 31After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly. And because of that 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34that there were no needy persons among them. So, because of the power of God to unite them they were able to heal and provide signs and that is the reason there were no needy persons among them, not because people sold their possession. Yes, it did happen, but For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need., says it only happened from time to time. So, selling, or combining possessions was not the requirement, but an outcome. Healing and taking care of each other was.

 

[PeteR]

Way back in this thread, before it went sideways for a while, I said, 'behold the restoration of kol Israel.'

Before getting crazy, hear me out....

Yeshua/Jesus wasn't starting a new religion. For context of this discussion on community, back up to Acts 1 and note that the Apostles' most burning question is 'Lord, is it at this time you are going to restore (kingdom) Israel.'

The point is, He has a kingdom, and it is the restored two houses and they have a common set of rules. Isaiah 2:1-5 as one of many examples.

The whole of Torah is based on a patriarchal theocracy with very similar beliefs. The new body of believers in Acts were fully Jewish and keeping Torah, BUT they found themselves outside of the protection of family structure. Therefore, they had to function as a family while elders became the patriarchs.

Paul takes the same principles farther for those scattered in the diaspora. He wasn't teaching a new set of laws, rather he was giving application for how Torah should work in the abcense of patriarchal support and being in the Land.

The 'commonality of resources' was normally under the headship of the patriarch. But, in the abcense of that dynamic because believers in Yeshua were percieved to be outcasts, they had to set up a parallel system in Acts 4...

 

[Cap]

That's your belief, Martha.

Luke 10:38-42 (

At the Home of Martha and Mary
38 As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. 39 She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. 40 But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!”

41 “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, 42 but few things are needed—or indeed only one.[a] Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”

Apparently there were two sets of rules at that moment.

Mark 3:25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

Accept that there is another belief that God accepts besides yours.

 

[Cap]

Way back in this thread, before it went sideways for a while, I said, 'behold the restoration of kol Israel.'

Before getting crazy, hear me out....

Yeshua/Jesus wasn't starting a new religion. For context of this discussion on community, back up to Acts 1 and note that the Apostles' most burning question is 'Lord, is it at this time you are going to restore (kingdom) Israel.'

The point is, He has a kingdom, and it is the restored two houses and they have a common set of rules. Isaiah 2:1-5 as one of many examples.

The whole of Torah is based on a patriarchal theocracy with very similar beliefs. The new body of believers in Acts were fully Jewish and keeping Torah, BUT they found themselves outside of the protection of family structure. Therefore, they had to function as a family while elders became the patriarchs.

Paul takes the same principles farther for those scattered in the diaspora. He wasn't teaching a new set of laws, rather he was giving application for how Torah should work in the abcense of patriarchal support and being in the Land.

The 'commonality of resources' was normally under the headship of the patriarch. But, in the abcense of that dynamic because believers in Yeshua were percieved to be outcasts, they had to set up a parallel system in Acts 4...

The Hebrew nation was built on a set of laws and the Son of God came to reveal another way of interpreting them that better related to the personal relationship God wanted with His followers. This is never going to stop.

It has been mentioned before on different matters, if someone wants to make a statement it's beneficial to preface it with, "this is what I think", or "this is my two cents", or something else that doesn't make you the authority, it's just how YOU see things. Which is ok.

 

[Pacman]

The Hebrew nation was built on a set of laws and the Son of God came to reveal another way of interpreting them that better related to the personal relationship God wanted with His followers. This is never going to stop.

He came to reveal the correct way of "interpreting" them not another way. Walk as he walked that's the correct way. 1 John 2:6

 

[Cap]

He came to reveal the correct way of "interpreting" them not another way. Walk as he walked that's the correct way. 1 John 2:6

The correct way was with God's Spirit to help understand the meaning.

I will not be forced into a Zionist view that Jewish thought is always right. If it makes me look like the bad guy and disputing peace, so be it.

 

[Pacman]

The correct way was with God's Spirit to help understand the meaning.

I will not be forced into a Zionist view that Jewish thought is always right. If it makes me look like the bad guy and disputing peace, so be it.

Pete nor myself are promoting "Jewish thought" that is a straw man argument. We are promoting biblical thought. We do not claim to be house of Judah. He and I both are house of Israel and you likely are as well.

The fact is your Savior was a tassel wearing, clean eating, sabbath keeping, feast keeping Jew. Ignore that at your own peril.

 

[Cap]

Pete nor myself are promoting "Jewish thought" that is a straw man argument. We are promoting biblical thought. We do not claim to be house of Judah. He and I both are house of Israel and you likely are as well.

The fact is your Savior was a tassel wearing, clean eating, sabbath keeping, feast keeping Jew. Ignore that at your own peril.

I thought you were Judah. And exactly, when it gets right down to the rub, Jewish view is that others are going to hell and they are not.

WAS, is the key word in your statement, we are waiting to see how He appears to us in the future.

 

[Cap]

Pete nor myself are promoting "Jewish thought" that is a straw man argument. We are promoting biblical thought. We do not claim to be house of Judah. He and I both are house of Israel and you likely are as well.

This is really interesting. Of course it's always the strawman comes out when it's necessary to confuse things.

What you are saying is that your thought is biblical and other thoughts are not.

And in the idea of Judah and Israel bring the two wives of God and you are claiming to be Israel, that follows the Law. We have bigger problems than I thought. One wife is fighting herself.

 

[Pacman]

I thought you were Judah. And exactly, when it gets right down to the rub, Jewish view is that others are going to hell and they are not.

WAS, is the key word in your statement, we are waiting to see how He appears to us in the future.

The way he lived his life while physically walking this earth is the example we are supposed to be following, not what we think or assume he will be when he returns.

1 John 2:6 NASB
the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

 

[Cap]

How about if you want to continue this argument, do it in the Hebrew section.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

@Cap, I think its time this campaign against @PeteR comes to an end. You are both welcome to post your views as long as you’re not being dogmatic or requiring someone else to accept your views. That is unnecessary drama. Knock it off

 

[Cap]

You are both welcome to post your views as long as you’re not being dogmatic or requiring someone else to accept your views.

I am curious why I'm the only one singled out.

But, I have learned to expect it.

As long as a Torah thought is forced I will respond. Unless it's qualified with a expression of personal view.

Jude 1:3
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God's holy people.

And yes, I do believe this is a salvation issue.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Because he is addressing everyone, you are specifically addressing him and constantly making it personal. Stop. Martyrdom does not become you any more than stirring up strife.