Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Acts

[Ponytail]

> as they wished.

This is not stated. They were selling things off over a period of time, and 4:32 shows they had all thing in common.

So the correction to my stated point would be: It was expected that once you joined the community you sold all you had, over a period of time.

> In Genesis 13.2 we discover that...

As I previously stated, the OT is not going to convince me of anything. Especially if Christ commands directly against it.

> But what about the NT? Joseph of Arimathea (Mt. 27.57)...

Yes, I grant you this. I have only been arguing from Luke and Acts though. You keep needing to go outside the texts being discussed to make your point.

> But it is also about the kingdom of God, and Luke is not shy to use social realities as symbols of spiritual realities.

The Kingdom of God is a social reality being realized. Not only a spiritual reality. I agree with the rest.

> Zacc is agreeing to do more than was necessary, but he also had assets from legitimate income.

Agreed, he gave away half. He starts with 100% of his wealth. Then down to 50%, and then offers to pay back 4X. I have no idea how much he cheated, and neither do you I suspect, but based on the fact that he was known as a sinner we can assume it was a significant amount. Let's say 10%. To pay back, there goes 40%. So he is left with 10%. Not exactly rich anymore.

> And Zacchaeus's salvation is not dependent on his offer of restitution and charity.

Text does not say this. If anything, it appears the opposite. Once he agreed to give wealth away, Christ granted him salvation.

> I still disagree with your position.

I wouldn't have it any other way. I just don't see sufficient reason to think that the community we see in Acts were not selling all they had and sharing it. It may have been a progressive selling, but it was a selling with communal ownership nonetheless. The sin of Ana and Sap was that they did not produce all their sale and they lied about it. When I read the text I see no reason to assume it was not expected that those who joined the community would also sell what they owned. It is neither stated it was voluntary, nor expected, so we are left to conjecture. Given wider biblical teachings you come to the conclusion it was certainly voluntary, and based on the teachings found in Luke I come to the conclusion it was clearly expected.

Not sure there is way we can come to a conclusion, it sounds like we actually agree on the centrality of wealth as a topic of Christ's teachings, and I think that is a good thing.