House Assemblies, and the Breaking of Bread

[cgaviria]

The assemblies in the time of the apostles sold all their possessions and properties,

They sold their property and possessions and shared the money with those in need. (Acts 2:45 [NLT])

that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. (Acts 4:34-35 [NIV])

Because it coincided with these commands of Jesus Christ,

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Mark 19:21 [NIV])

When Jesus heard his answer, he said, "There is still one thing you haven't done. Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Luke 18:22 [NLT])

Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. "There is still one thing you haven't done," he told him. "Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Mark 10:21 [NLT])

Whereupon selling all possessions and properties is the ultimate act of humility,

Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you. (James 4:10 [ESV])

if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14 [NIV])

For the LORD, who is high and lifted up, looks upon the humble, but the proud he does not know.
(Psalm 138:6 [JB2000])

That is required for anyone to become a follower of Jesus Christ,

So therefore every one of you who does not give up all that he himself possesses, is not able to be My disciple. (Luke 14:33 [BLB])

In which case, after selling all properties, those in the assemblies either went city to city to proclaim the gospel in synagogues and public squares, to eventually teach in the houses of whoever favorably received them,

Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house!’ And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him. But if not, it will return to you. And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house. Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you. (Luke 10:5-8 [ESV])

As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, (Acts 17:2 [NIV])

While the man held on to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and came running to them in the place called Solomon's Colonnade. When Peter saw this, he said to them: "Fellow Israelites, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? (Acts 3:11-12 [NIV])

When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. For he vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah. (Acts 18:27-28 [NIV])

Or lived in temporary houses, which is evidenced with Paul renting a house for a time,

And Paul stayed a whole space of two years in his own hired house, and gladly received all the ones entering to him, (Acts 28:30 [ABP])

And since no other place of worship has been specifically designated by God for worship, other than the tabernacle after the deliverance from Egypt, or the temple in Jerusalem,

then to the place that the LORD your God will choose, to make his name dwell there, there you shall bring all that I command you: your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the contribution that you present, and all your finest vow offerings that you vow to the LORD. (Deuteronomy 12:11 [NIV])

Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem... "Woman," Jesus replied, "believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem... Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.
(John 4:20-24 [NIV])

"Our ancestors had the tabernacle of the covenant law with them in the wilderness. It had been made as God directed Moses, according to the pattern he had seen. (Acts 7:44 [NIV])

Then he called for his son Solomon and charged him to build a house for the LORD, the God of Israel. (1 Chronicles 22:6 [NIV])

Therefore, the assemblies did not construct buildings specific for the assembling of the brethren, especially after selling their own properties to humble themselves, which is why in relation to the command that the Passover must be observed in houses,

Speak unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month let each man take a lamb according to the families of the fathers, a lamb per family; and if the household is too small and is not able to eat the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of persons; each one according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb... it is the LORD's passover. (Exodus 12:3-11 [JB2000])

The brethren thus assembled in their houses,

and Apphia the beloved, and Archippus our fellow-soldier, and the assembly in thy house: (Philemon 1:2 [YLT])

salute ye those in Laodicea -- brethren, and Nymphas, and the assembly in his house; (Colossians 4:15 [YLT])

and the assembly at their house; salute Epaenetus, my beloved, who is first-fruit of Achaia to Christ. (Romans 16:5 [YLT])

Salute you do the assemblies of Asia; salute you much in the Lord do Aquilas and Priscilla, with the assembly in their house; (1 Corinthians 16:19 [YLT])

Because since Jesus Christ became the actual true Passover lamb that the command of the Passover foreshadowed,

Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. (1 Corinthians 5:7 [NIV])

And instituted the "breaking of bread" in remembrance of him, otherwise called "Lord's Supper", at the final Passover he observed,

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19 [NIV])

For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. (1 Corinthians 11:26 [NIV])

The Passover that was once observed in houses, then became the breaking of bread that was subsequently also observed in houses, whereupon as opposed to an annual observation of the Passover, the breaking of bread was then observed every time the brethren assembled, which was daily or as often as they could, hence,

Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, (Acts 2:46 [NIV])

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. (Acts 2:42 [NIV])

Which is why Paul gave specific instructions that when they break bread every time they assembled, which was done in their houses, that they should all wait for one another to eat together,

When therefore you assemble yourselves together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in your eating each one takes his own supper first. One is hungry, and another is drunken. (1 Corinthians 11:20 [WEB])

Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest your coming together be for judgment. The rest I will set in order whenever I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34 [WEB])

As such, the assembling of the brethren ought to be done in houses, assembling daily or as often as possible, with the breaking of bread observed at every assembling, as was originally done at the assemblies of the apostles.

 

[nikolai_42]

If the church was told to eat at their own homes before coming together and they were meeting in the homes of other believers, somewhere in your post there is a leap between everyone being required to sell all they had (including properties) to be a disciple of Christ and everyone actually having their own home (and, presumably, food) to eat in before they came together (in another believer's home). Surely you can see the logical disconnect. Aquila and Priscilla were noted believers in whose home a church met. But if you take the words of Jesus the way you evidently have (selling ALL possessions is a REQUIREMENT to follow Jesus - that is your assertion), then Aquila and Priscilla shouldn't have a home to live - or meet - in.

 

[cgaviria]

If the church was told to eat at their own homes before coming together and they were meeting in the homes of other believers, somewhere in your post there is a leap between everyone being required to sell all they had (including properties) to be a disciple of Christ and everyone actually having their own home (and, presumably, food) to eat in before they came together (in another believer's home). Surely you can see the logical disconnect. Aquila and Priscilla were noted believers in whose home a church met. But if you take the words of Jesus the way you evidently have (selling ALL possessions is a REQUIREMENT to follow Jesus - that is your assertion), then Aquila and Priscilla shouldn't have a home to live - or meet - in.

You must've skimmed through the study, not seeing the part that after selling all properties, the assemblies lived in temporary houses, which is evidenced with Paul renting a house.

 

[nikolai_42]

You must've skimmed through the study, not seeing the part that after selling all properties, the assemblies lived in temporary houses, which is evidenced with Paul renting a house.

That Paul did doesn't prove everyone else did. The very same case could be made that men like Paul would have done that because of the transient nature of their missionary work. I understand the argument and believe it was common, but I don't see that it was necessarily universal. You quote Acts 3:34-35 as saying that from time to time those who owned things sold them and brought the proceeds to the disciples. That is, it wasn't a strict observance at all time everywhere. The guiding principle is found in Acts 4:30

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
Acts 4:30

Not that they (necessarily) gave up ownership by selling, but that they recognized that all they had was at the disposal of those who needed it. Even Jesus' command doesn't say that everyone is to sell all that they have, but rather give it up. Just as we are to die daily - that our lives are not our own, being bought with a price - it doesn't necessarily follow that we literally lose our lives. But rather that we are God's to do with as He desires. We, however, still make plans and determine to do things. The difference is that we say with James "If God wills, I will do (whatever)...". If someone has the deed of ownership to a home, they may have a legal right to it, but if that same person opens it up to whomever will come in, they are being a steward of what God has given.

To make modern application, if you rent a home from a landlord, it is the landlord who decides what you can use the home for. And while I know there have been other issues in owned homes, when it is yours, you are free to do with it what you wish. When it is the landlord's, he (or she) is free to do that. From the perspective of using a home for the ministry, ownership is far more conducive to doing so.

I understand the analogy (that we brought nothing into this world and can take nothing out - that we are not our own - so we need to not own anything to visibly represent this spiritual truth) but the purpose of the early church being free from possessions (when and as they were) was to reduce burden - not add to it. As burden is added by so doing, it negates the purpose of selling.

 

[cgaviria]

That Paul did doesn't prove everyone else did. The very same case could be made that men like Paul would have done that because of the transient nature of their missionary work. I understand the argument and believe it was common, but I don't see that it was necessarily universal. You quote Acts 3:34-35 as saying that from time to time those who owned things sold them and brought the proceeds to the disciples. That is, it wasn't a strict observance at all time everywhere. The guiding principle is found in Acts 4:30

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
Acts 4:30

Not that they (necessarily) gave up ownership by selling, but that they recognized that all they had was at the disposal of those who needed it. Even Jesus' command doesn't say that everyone is to sell all that they have, but rather give it up. Just as we are to die daily - that our lives are not our own, being bought with a price - it doesn't necessarily follow that we literally lose our lives. But rather that we are God's to do with as He desires. We, however, still make plans and determine to do things. The difference is that we say with James "If God wills, I will do (whatever)...". If someone has the deed of ownership to a home, they may have a legal right to it, but if that same person opens it up to whomever will come in, they are being a steward of what God has given.

To make modern application, if you rent a home from a landlord, it is the landlord who decides what you can use the home for. And while I know there have been other issues in owned homes, when it is yours, you are free to do with it what you wish. When it is the landlord's, he (or she) is free to do that. From the perspective of using a home for the ministry, ownership is far more conducive to doing so.

I understand the analogy (that we brought nothing into this world and can take nothing out - that we are not our own - so we need to not own anything to visibly represent this spiritual truth) but the purpose of the early church being free from possessions (when and as they were) was to reduce burden - not add to it. As burden is added by so doing, it negates the purpose of selling.

"To give up all that you have" is to sell all that you have. Hence why Jesus Christ said, "sell all your possessions..." in another passage. These two statements relate to each other. And because the early assemblies did just that, as is indicated in the book of Acts, then it must be assumed that the houses that they did assembled in, were rentals, as we see evidence of renting with Paul renting a house for a period of time. I have a more in depth study of this here, http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-and-Sell-All-Your-Possessions-and-Properties .

 

[nikolai_42]

Since I may not be able to stick around to respond quickly to you, let me add that I don't necessarily see the house church model as binding either. I recognize that it was common - and was the model of the early church - but one could make the argument that separation unto God requires (when it can be achieved) separation from what is common. That is, after all, at the heart of the definition of holiness.

And Moses took the tabernacle, and pitched it without the camp, afar off from the camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the congregation. And it came to pass, that every one which sought the Lord went out unto the tabernacle of the congregation, which was without the camp.
Exodus 33:7

We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.
For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.
Hebrews 13:10-14

The argument could be made that the separate church building is reflective of this. Not that this justifies lavish spending on it, but simply that there be a separate place apart from the house that men come to to worship God. Indeed, it could even be a rented building (but there again there are concerns over what one can reasonably do in a building not their own). Having been in meetings in people's homes, I know the distractions that abound and the sense that, in some way, it can seem like a visit instead of coming together to worship God. Going without the camp implies that separation that is often not achievable in a home.

Note, also, that the dwelling in booths was just a temporary thing itself (7 days out of a year - Lev 23:42)

 

[nikolai_42]

"To give up all that you have" is to sell all that you have. Hence why Jesus Christ said, "sell all your possessions..." in another passage. These two statements relate to each other. And because the early assemblies did just that, as is indicated in the book of Acts, then it must be assumed that the houses that they did assembled in, were rentals, as we see evidence of renting with Paul renting a house for a period of time. I have a more in depth study of this here, http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-and-Sell-All-Your-Possessions-and-Properties .

Again, I point out that the command Jesus gave was not sell everything, but forsake it :

So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:33 (KJV)

Should true believers be selling (or just outright walking out on) their families?

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Matthew 19:29

And if we follow that literally (without exception), what do we do with the way Mark quotes Jesus :

And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
Mark 10-29-30

First, Jesus promises lands, houses etc... to those who forsake lands, houses etc... - is the believer then charged to sell that? But the more important thing I note is that it was Peter's question that prompted Jesus' response :

Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.
Mark 10:28

Did Peter simply stop fishing and walk out on his family? Why, then, was Jesus going to Peter's house in Matthew 8?

 

[cgaviria]

Again, I point out that the command Jesus gave was not sell everything, but forsake it :

So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:33 (KJV)

Should true believers be selling (or just outright walking out on) their families?

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Matthew 19:29

And if we follow that literally (without exception), what do we do with the way Mark quotes Jesus :

And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
Mark 10-29-30

First, Jesus promises lands, houses etc... to those who forsake lands, houses etc... - is the believer then charged to sell that? But the more important thing I note is that it was Peter's question that prompted Jesus' response :

Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.
Mark 10:28

Did Peter simply stop fishing and walk out on his family? Why, then, was Jesus going to Peter's house in Matthew 8?

Forsake means to sell. It is not just an attitude of the heart, it is an act of forasking, which is done by selling. Upon selling all properties, you then acquire much, hence why after the disciples had given up everything to follow Jesus Christ, when they began preaching, multitudes of peoples would lay all money at their feet from the sale of possessions and properties, in which case they received a hundredfold now in this time, while yet still having very little in this time.

 

[nikolai_42]

Forsake means to sell. It is not just an attitude of the heart, it is an act of forasking, which is done by selling. Upon selling all properties, you then acquire much, hence why after the disciples had given up everything to follow Jesus Christ, when they began preaching, multitudes of peoples would lay all money at their feet from the sale of possessions and properties, in which case they received a hundredfold now in this time, while yet still having very little in this time.

Not necessarily. If Jesus wanted to say "sell" He could have, but He said "forsake". Jesus says "sell" (pōleō) to the young rich ruler in Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21 and Luke 18:22. He says "forsake" (apotassō) to Peter and the other disciples. And while forsaking can translate to selling, it doesn't necessarily mean that. Peter - as far as we know - didn't sell his home. If he did, it might be considered part of forsaking his family (and ending up with his family out on the street). Having nothing, how would they eat? If everyone sold and only had enough food for that day, how would they feed strangers?

Note, too, that the disciples (having forsaken all) still receive lands and houses in "this time" as part of their reward. Does that replace their old lands and houses? Are their families replaced with other families?

 

[Nihilo]

Paul renting a house.

That Paul did doesn't prove everyone else did. The very same case could be made that men like Paul would have done that because of the transient nature of their missionary work.

Consider the common practice of local ecclesial communities putting up their pastor in a parsonage as part of their compensation, or otherwise paying for their housing. Instead of the pastors themselves "paying rent," their local ecclesial community does it for them.

 

[cgaviria]

Not necessarily. If Jesus wanted to say "sell" He could have, but He said "forsake". Jesus says "sell" (pōleō) to the young rich ruler in Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21 and Luke 18:22. He says "forsake" (apotassō) to Peter and the other disciples. And while forsaking can translate to selling, it doesn't necessarily mean that. Peter - as far as we know - didn't sell his home. If he did, it might be considered part of forsaking his family (and ending up with his family out on the street). Having nothing, how would they eat? If everyone sold and only had enough food for that day, how would they feed strangers?

Note, too, that the disciples (having forsaken all) still receive lands and houses in "this time" as part of their reward. Does that replace their old lands and houses? Are their families replaced with other families?

The thought I am scripturally conveying here is not living on the street, it is concerning ownership of property. Not everyone is called to the role of an apostle as Paul was, where he went city to city, having no house of his own to live in. As such, since the early assemblies sold and forsook all their properties, it must be assumed that any houses that they did live in, were rentals. As such, if any should desire to live in a house, which is likely the case with a man having a family, then let him rent a house.

 

[nikolai_42]

Please realize I don't think house churches are inherently bad. Nor do I think those that sell all to follow Christ are wrong. I just don't see either as being binding on the believer in scripture. I agree largely with the problems of building churches in terms of placing burdens on people and diverting money from what is necessary, but that does not mean all church buildings are wrong. I think much of what we read in the NT house church experience was out of necessity. It wasn't true, however, of Israel under the Old Covenant nor in the New Jerusalem (where the temple of God is the Lamb and is the center of the city and even lights it). Likewise, we are told by Jesus that the children of the kingdom are not as wise in their use of things and money as the children of the world are (Luke 16:8). So while there may be a call for the church administering all wealth, it's the use of what we have that is more critical in some ways than the selling of it (Luke 16:9). And when Jesus commends the sheep (in Matthew 25) for feeding, clothing and visiting "one of the least of these", is that because they did that one time (after they sold all they had and gave to the poor) or because they used what they had for the benefit of the church and others?

I'm just not sure everyone is required (for salvation) to sell everything in the very literal way you espouse.

 

[cgaviria]

Please realize I don't think house churches are inherently bad. Nor do I think those that sell all to follow Christ are wrong. I just don't see either as being binding on the believer in scripture. I agree largely with the problems of building churches in terms of placing burdens on people and diverting money from what is necessary, but that does not mean all church buildings are wrong. I think much of what we read in the NT house church experience was out of necessity. It wasn't true, however, of Israel under the Old Covenant nor in the New Jerusalem (where the temple of God is the Lamb and is the center of the city and even lights it). Likewise, we are told by Jesus that the children of the kingdom are not as wise in their use of things and money as the children of the world are (Luke 16:8). So while there may be a call for the church administering all wealth, it's the use of what we have that is more critical in some ways than the selling of it (Luke 16:9). And when Jesus commends the sheep (in Matthew 25) for feeding, clothing and visiting "one of the least of these", is that because they did that one time (after they sold all they had and gave to the poor) or because they used what they had for the benefit of the church and others?

I'm just sure everyone is required (for salvation) to sell everything in the very literal way you espouse.

The manner in which the early assemblies gathered is indeed binding, because these were part of the traditions and teachings passed down by the apostles,

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2 [NIV])

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:25 [KJV])

And it is because of the error of ignoring these traditions, that extremely elaborate basilicas were first built by the catholics, which is now mimicked by the extremely large and elaborate megachurches that are now built by the protestants. The intention of God was for his people to meet in houses, hence why the Passover festival was ordained to be observed in houses, which is related to the Lord's Supper, which was observed in houses every time the assemblies gathered.

 

[nikolai_42]

The manner in which the early assemblies gathered is indeed binding, because these were part of the traditions and teachings passed down by the apostles,

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2 [NIV])

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:25 [KJV])

And it is because of the error of ignoring these traditions, that extremely elaborate basilicas were first built by the catholics, which is now mimicked by the extremely large and elaborate megachurches that are now built by the protestants. The intention of God was for his people to meet in houses, hence why the Passover festival was ordained to be observed in houses, which is related to the Lord's Supper, which was observed in houses every time the assemblies gathered.

Did John not realize that "forsake" meant "sell"?

But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
I John 3:17

 

[cgaviria]

Did John not realize that "forsake" meant "sell"?

But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
I John 3:17

Because obviously after all the assemblies sold their possessions, they were left with the money from their sales, and this money was to be used to cover their own needs and also the needs of others, hence why they shared amongst each other as each had need. This very verse coincides with that practice and in no way negates it.

 

[nikolai_42]

Because obviously after all the assemblies sold their possessions, they were left with the money from their sales, and this money was to be used to cover their own needs and also the needs of others, hence why they shared amongst each other as each had need. This very verse coincides with that practice and in no way negates it.

So did the Roman Catholic church not go far enough? All they required was money at different times for different purposes. But if I read you correctly, you believe they should have required everything from their people and not built cathedrals.

Obviously, that's a bit of an exaggeration (the Roman Church's abuses were at least as much doctrinal as material), but the point holds that any organization (whether loosely organized or not) is liable to abuse. John was speaking to the individual believer, not the church as a whole, and the way you have it, the individual only had what he had...because of the church. Sounds like hints of Catholic sola ecclesia to me...the church was already meeting the needs of other believers by the proceeds they received from the sale of possessions. And weren't Ananias and Sapphira punished for NOT giving ALL the proceeds from the sale of their possession (singular)?

 

[cgaviria]

So did the Roman Catholic church not go far enough? All they required was money at different times for different purposes. But if I read you correctly, you believe they should have required everything from their people and not built cathedrals.

Obviously, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but the point holds that any organization (whether loosely organized or not) is liable to abuse. John was speaking to the individual believer, not the church as a whole, and the way you have it, the individual only had what he had...because of the church. Sounds like hints of Catholic sola ecclesia to me...the church was already meeting the needs of other believers by the proceeds they received from the sale of possessions. And weren't Ananias and Sapphira punished for NOT giving ALL the proceeds from the sale of their possession (singular)?

The money from the sale of everything should be kept by the members that sold their own possessions, and whenever needed, should be offered to whoever is in need or to appointed members in authority of the assemblies to be distributed as needs arise. Its fairly simple. The point here is to live humbly having few possessions, keep your money even if you have alot of money, yet share it freely as needs arise.

 

[nikolai_42]

The money from the sale of everything should be kept by the members that sold their own possessions, and whenever needed, should be offered to whoever is in need or to appointed members in authority of the assemblies to be distributed as needs arise. Its fairly simple. The point here is to live humbly having few possessions, keep your money even if you have alot of money, yet share it freely as needs arise.

With that I would agree. But the way you quote Jesus, there doesn't appear to be room for living with possessions at all.

 

[cgaviria]

With that I would agree. But the way you quote Jesus, there doesn't appear to be room for living with possessions at all.

Obviously there are things that are needed, such as clothes, a bed, things to cook with... selling all your possessions relates to selling everything that you don't essentially need, and reducing yourself to the basics, and owning no property. This is what humbling yourself means, and to live as a sojourner, who carries very little towards his destination.

 

[Eagles Wings]

Obviously there are things that are needed, such as clothes, a bed, things to cook with... selling all your possessions relates to selling everything that you don't essentially need, and reducing yourself to the basics, and owning no property. This is what humbling yourself means, and to live as a sojourner, who carries very little towards his destination.

What has me questioning you, Christian, is how humble is humble enough?

Is your issue simply with ownership of property?

Holding onto legal tender could be considered ownership as well then, and you said that was okay as long as it is used for the good of others, as the owner sees fit.