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

[Matthew]

I have an issue with Acts 5. Doesn't it show us a cruel and greedy New Testament god?

It would be great if someone could explain Acts 5 to me as I have absolutely no idea what the message of the story is supposed to be.

In short - Ananias and Sapphira were two members of the early church and sold some land. They gave part of this money to Peter and the church but kept some for themselves. God tells Peter they are lying about the amount of money they have donated (they could have given more) and he outs them. They then suddenly die (it's implied that God kills them) and the story ends.

It would be great if someone could explain what their take on this is as I am absolutely clueless and it appears to be essentially just greed from the early church and supreme cruelty from the New Testament God.

I've seen people say that it's supposed to highlight how grave God treats sinning (especially lying) but this makes even less sense to me as Peter himself is the de facto "Christian that lied about Jesus" during the build up to the Crucifixion. God doesn't kill him and those lies are used to highlight the importance of forgiveness when Jesus later confronts him.

In fact isn't the whole point of Jesus death to prevent God from simply killing us for sinning and giving Christians a second chance?
This makes absolutely zero sense to me and I'm keen to see what actual Christians think of this story.

[jimwalton]

Not greed, not cruelty. The Church wasn't demanding that people sell their properties or give everything away. Acts 2.45 says they were doing it willingly to take care of the poor.

Now let's add to this picture an ancient practice. Other groups (like the Essenes and the Pythagoreans) had a rule that you had to turn over all your worldly possessions to the community, which would then be shared by all for subsistence. But they also had a mandatory waiting period (like probation), during which someone could change their mind, take their property back, and leave the community. The early Church had none of these things, but that doesn't mean that some people weren't thinking this way. Perhaps A&S were, but that's speculative. It's at least part of their possible cultural understanding.

A&S choose to lie to the apostles (and therefore indirectly to God himself). Again, it was part of their cultural understanding that this was a huge no-no (A Greek inscription from Epidauros, along with 2 Kings 5.20-27, show that most ancient people knew the danger of lying to God or one of his representatives.

So here we have A&S being grossly hypocritical—wanting praise for giving all, but keeping some back for himself.

Let's add to that: Richard Hays says, "Possessions in Luke/Acts function as symbols of response to God. Zacchaeus’s uncoerced generosity is a sign of repentance and faith, whereas the hesitant stinginess of the rich ruler—or worse, the dishonesty of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5.1-11) betrays an unrepentant heart, closed toward the grace of God."

We can add to that also. There is a parallel here between A&S with Achan in Joshua 7. Both were "swindlers" (Josh 7.11; Acts 5.2-3). In both cases God unleashes unusually harsh discipline on these key families for the identical sin at exactly the time when the community of his people were just getting going. They were vulnerable—poised for greatness but also very susceptible to extinction if they take a wrong step. We learn that God uses this first infraction as a case in point to show people his displeasure. We also see such judgment in other places of "first"s: Ex. 32; Lev. 10.1-2; Num. 15.32-36; Num. 16.1-35.

So the point is that God values the purity of his people. Holiness is the highest value. We also learn that God will take whatever steps necessary to preserve his community. He's a teddy bear for those who love him; he's a mama bear for those who threaten his children. He values relationship (love commitment), not religion (doing your ritual duty). He values truth, not hypocrisy or deceit.

My answers may raise more questions. Feel free to ask.

[Ponytail]

> The Church wasn't demanding that people sell their properties or give everything away. Acts 2.45 says they were doing it willingly to take care of the poor.

Curious where you got that from? Act 2:45 reads: "they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need." Nothing about it being voluntary.

[jimwalton]

Nor is there any term, hint, or implication that the church demanded it and it was coerced. There are hints, in contrast, that it was voluntary.

- In the story of Zacchaeus (Lk. 19.1-10), when he came to Christ he volunteered to share his money with others (in this case, those whom he had cheated).
- Acts 2.46 mentions gladness of heart, which hints of freedom and joy more than it does of coercion.
- Acts 4.32-36 implies that they sold freely and gave freely. Verse 34 says that "from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them," indicating they didn't have to sell to join the community or to be in good standing, but sold as they wished to provide for the poor.
- Further teaching is found in 2 Cor. 9.6-7 to show what Christian behavior was supposed to be like: "Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and however sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

From these texts I can conclude that giving was voluntary. I would request texts from you, in rebuttal, that teach that giving was by demand or compulsion.

[Ponytail]

> Nor is there any term, hint, or implication that the church demanded it and it was coerced.

Agreed, it was expected once you joined the community.

> In the story of Zacchaeus...

Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, “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.” Then Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham.

Sure, voluntary, but also necessary.

Acts 2.46...

All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts

Yes, after joining the community, selling all possessions, and sharing all, they had glad and generous hearts. Not sure how this implies it was not prescriptive, or expected, that you would sell all you have once you joined the community.

Acts 4.32-36...

Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Important to note that no one claimed personal property, everything was held in common. "Time to time" appears to be a mistranslation, of all the versions here only NIV and GOD'S WORD® Translation use it.

Further teaching is found in 2 Cor. 9.6-7...

Yes, of course it is better to give cheerfully. This does not mean that those who joined the community we see in Acts were not expected to sell all their possessions. If Paul was writing to the Jerusalem Church then this would be more applicable.

> From these texts I can conclude that giving was voluntary.

I repectfully disagree, it was voluntary to join the community, but expected that you would sell your possessions and share all in common.

> I would request texts from you, in rebuttal, that teach that giving was by demand or compulsion.

Sure, I'll keep it to Luke since it is likely the same author of Acts and that is what we are discussing.

Beginning with the Magnificat we see that the hungry will be fed and the rich sent away empty (Luke 1:52-53). So for the rich to enter the Kingdom, they cannot remain rich.

In Luke 3 when the crowds ask John what they should do, he replies to that "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.” -- This appears prescriptive.

Luke 6:24 makes clear that the rich are in trouble. "“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation." -- Again, the rich cannot remain rich to enter the Kingdom.

Luke 6:30 "Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again." -- Not much voluntary about this.

Luke 12: 32-33 “Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys."

Luke 14:33 Speaking to a large crowd that was following him, Jesus states: "So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions."

Luke 18:22 - The Rich Ruler -- "When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”" -- The questions asked after and the comment by Peter make it seem as though the teaching on wealth is not just for the "rich ruler."

I think it pretty clear that Jesus in Luke is teaching that the rich cannot enter the Kingdom, and in some cases prescriptively commands that people sell all their possessions. We can say this was only for some people, or argue that is only for those who were greedy, but that would be to read more than what is there.

Then after these teachings on wealth we see the community in Acts acting accordingly. They are selling all their possessions, sharing them amongst themselves, and no one is going with need. They were newly converted, meeting daily, with joyful and generous hearts. I conclude from this that it was prescriptive in the community in Acts to sell your possessions once you joined.

[jimwalton]

> it was expected once you joined the community.

You can't just say it, you have to give evidence. I'll deal with your citations further down the post.

> "Zacchaeus's donations: Sure, voluntary, but also necessary.

Jesus didn't ask for them; Jesus didn't demand them. The action was initiated by Zach. The appropriate response to greed is repentance. Zaccahaeus understood that he couldn't come to Jesus and continue to participate in systemic, institutionalized sin (tax collectors abusing their office and power). It meant publicly giving reparations and embarking on a new lifestyle. The problem wasn't his wealth but rather how he had acquired it. He understood that joining with Christ was agreeing to justice. Zacchaeus was convicted and volunteered to restore wealth to those he had cheated.

> Acts 2.46: Not sure how this implies it was not prescriptive,...

Because there is no prescription stated—ever.

> Acs 4.32-36: Important to note that no one claimed personal property, everything was held in common. ... "time to time"

Acts 4.32 indicates that they shared the use of their possessions, not the ownership of them. There was no prescription or expectation that they would sell all they had.

As far as the translation "from time to time," A.T. Robertson (3 doctoral degrees, arguably the most distinguished Greek scholar of our era), says the translation of "from time to time" is warranted. The term "sold" (πωλοῦντες) us a present active participle which, Robertson says, by implication is used to suggest antecedent (past) time. He says that "Here [πωλοῦντες] includes the notion of repetition (iterative present): "from time to time"; "There is thus a starp contrast from the specific instance of Barnabas," in v. 37, who made a one-time gift. So "from time to time" is not a mistranslation.

> 2 Cor. 9.6-7

You have yet to show any proof that there was any compulsion or prescription. Will deal with your texts further down the post.

> it was voluntary to join the community, but expected that you would sell your possessions and share all in common.

As I have already shown, there was exception to share in common, but no expectation to sell. Selling was purely voluntary.

The texts:

Luke 1.52-53: The principle that God exalts the humble and casts down the proud was a common theme in the OT. In addition, Scripture repeatedly teaches that God desires economic justice, that the hoarding rich should share for the uplifting of the poor. There is no notion in Scripture that riches are evil or ungodly. God made Abraham, Joseph, Solomon, and Daniel very wealthy men. These men certainly entered the Kingdom.

Luke 3. The biblical prescription is to end economic injustice and to destroy greed and abusive consumption. Stop using your powers and resources to oppress others, maintain inequalities, and separate between power and the powerless, the rich and the poor. The command here is to share.

Luke 6.24. The problem is not being rich, per se. Wealth was not the problem, but what they were doing with their wealth. Jesus’s point, though, is that generally those who are rich have so much accumulated because they hoard from the poor, or treat them unfairly (Illustration: the US industrial workforce before the genesis of labor unions. But it’s true even today that management doesn’t pay labor what they’re worth, and commensurate with the work they are doing.) Those who are rich often have as much as they do because of oppression (Illustration: We pay Chinese, Dominican, Haitian, and Mexican wages at 50 cents an hour so we can have clothes at a reduced rate in America. Or, they pay the Mexicans 50 cents, charge us $70, and pocket the rest.) These are the people Jesus is talking about. Woe to you. There will be no comfort for you in the life to come.

Luke 12.32-33: Practice the Jubilee! Redistribute capital! Earthly treasures are temporary and often lead to abuses and oppression.

Craig Keener says, "While giving up possessions was not a foreign practice in Luke’s day, it certainly wasn’t the norm. Only some marginal philosophic sects and Jewish monks who lived in the wilderness near the Dead Sea actually demanded the sacrifice of possessions. Most people, like most people today, would have found Jesus’ words frighteningly difficult. They had either too much—or too little—to give away. Luke is stressing that financial sacrifice is fundamental to Christian discipleship. Jesus urges not just the rich ruler but all of his disciples to sell their possessions and care for the poor—in return for treasure in heaven." So it's not riches that are particularly the issue here, but commitment to economic justice and to trust God's provision.

Luke 14.33: Jesus always talks in spiritual terms, using what sounds like metaphors, hyperbole, and even ridiculous demands to refer to spiritual truths. In Jn. 6.54, he tells people to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Therefore he is not saying that you have to give every away and give everything up physically, but spiritually. He is talking about souls, not possessions. He wants no spiritual competitors, compromise, or not counting the cost. Just like 2 Cor. 8-9, 14: Contribute generously so that there will be fair balance. Paul advocates sharing, not renunciation of possession.

Jesus came to bring good news to the poor, to liberate them from their oppression and economic deprivation. The Church has to live in justice. It will involve the rich giving much away and the poor being supplied. It's actually a lot like Communism. You can have things, but have an open hand.

Luke 18.22. The chapter is couched in a prophetic context of justice (widow & unjust judge). God's kingdom starts with justice, and the first step of justice is restitution to the poor. Secondly it involves changing the system that enriches people unfairly and steps on the poor. It's more about working to improve unjust systemic problems that create suffering and oppression than it is about selling all our possession.

It's not wealth that keeps people from the kingdom, but self.

[Ponytail]

Ahh, a lesson in spiritualizing Scripture.

> You can't just say it, you have to give evidence. I'll deal with your citations further down the post.

So you don't think Zacchaeus needed to sell all he had?

> Jesus didn't ask for them; Jesus didn't demand them.

That's not what I said, I said it was necessary. Do you disagree?

> The appropriate response to greed is repentance. Zaccahaeus understood that he couldn't come to Jesus and continue to participate in systemic, institutionalized sin (tax collectors abusing their office and power). It meant publicly giving reparations and embarking on a new lifestyle. The problem wasn't his wealth but rather how he had acquired it. He understood that joining with Christ was agreeing to justice. Zacchaeus was convicted and volunteered to restore wealth to those he had cheated.

Ya, I don't disagree. You referenced Zacchaeus as someone who voluntarily gave away his wealth, and I was saying he had to if we he wanted to enter the Kingdom.

> Because there is no prescription stated—ever.

Except I never said it was stated, only implied. Which it is. It is the Greek translation we evidently disagree on.

> Acts 4.32 indicates that they shared the use of their possessions, not the ownership of them. There was no prescription or expectation that they would sell all they had.

I think the Greek (against Robertson) states it was communal ownership—not just use.

> As far as the translation "from time to time," A.T. Robertson...

Yes, I have seen you are a fan of Robertson on other posts. He has added a phrase not found in the text. And I find that worrisome, even if it is for the sake of clarity. I would trust other scholars more who don't add phrases for the sake of clarity. I suspect we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

> As I have already shown, there was exception to share in common, but no expectation to sell. Selling was purely voluntary.

Based on a phrase not even in the text. It was not time to time, and it was not only use, but possession that was shared.

Selling was purely voluntary in the sense that if you didn't want to join the community you didn't have to sell.

> Luke 1.52-53...

The text I referenced speaks of the rulers and the rich, not just the humble and the proud. There is "no notion" that Christ has a problem with wealth?? It's like every five lines in the Synoptics... As to your OT examples, yes? As an Anabaptist I start with Christ and read back. Because there was polygamy, slaves, stoning, murder, by big time OT figures, God was fine with it?

The primacy of the NT over the OT might be an issue here.

> Luke 3...

A prescriptive command to share, might I add.

> Luke 6.24...

Your interpretation is not in the text. All it states is, "woe to the rich, for you have received your consolation." No reason to add things about greed and exploitation, although I agree those are sinful.

> These are the people Jesus is talking about.

Not found in the text. He's speaking "with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea, Jerusalem, and the coast of Tyre and Sidon."

> Luke 12.32-33: Practice the Jubilee!...

Ya, that's what I have been saying all along... Craig Keener is agreeing with me in that quote. This is the crux of the issue, "Most people, like most people today, would have found Jesus’ words frighteningly difficult." So we spiritualize them.

> So it's not riches that are particularly the issue here

Yes it is, and people not giving it up.

> Luke 14.33...

How does this sound like a spiritual truth? He literally says possessions, not souls. And we see the community in acts doing this. The same disciples who he asked to sell everything.

> Paul advocates sharing, not renunciation of possession.

We aren't discussing Paul. We are discussing the community in Acts. Let's not widen the goalposts too far. Luke/Acts are what are on the table. There are clear commands in Luke from Jesus that we then see in the community in Acts.

> Jesus came to bring good news to the poor, to liberate them from their oppression and economic deprivation. The Church has to live in justice. It will involve the rich giving much away and the poor being supplied. It's actually a lot like Communism. You can have things, but have an open hand.

Mostly agreed If only many others saw things this way. A tragedy of the Western Church.

> Luke 18.22. The chapter is couched in a prophetic context...

Nah. There were no chapters in the early manuscripts (as I am sure you know), and there is a clear shift after verse 14. The two parables, and then a shift to the children, the ruler, Jesus' prediction, and the blind beggar. The two parables start with "told a parable..." and we don't see that with the ruler. It is clearly not a parable, and not only about prophetic justice.

> It's not wealth that keeps people from the kingdom, but self.

Wealth certainly doesn't help

We are basically on the same page, maybe just different paragraphs in the story. Feel free to reply, feel free not to. I appreciate the dialogue either way!

[jimwalton]

I'd be glad to reply. I'm enjoying the conversation.

> So you don't think Zacchaeus needed to sell all he had?

It depends what you mean by "needed." If he were going to truly repent from his sins, there needed to be restitution. The term "chief tax collector" is otherwise unknown, so its precise significance is not known. It seems to point to the regional head of the local taxation department, or at least the local head of it. It seems to be saying he had others under him in hierarchy. Given this position and status, Zacc could have become rich without cheating people and stealing from them, but it seems from v. 8 that he had been personally involved.

On the other hand, there is no indication that he "needed" to do this as a prerequisite to become part of the community, especially since he is giving back to his victims and not to the community leaders.

> Acts 4.32 and the Greek translation

Your link to a page of Greek wasn't helpful. The understanding is not in the sheer mechanics but in their bearing. It translates down to "All the believers assembled were (state of existence) of one heart and mind. Not even one said (in the sense of claimed) that they had anything to themselves, but had all things communally." The point being made is the communal mindset and actions to alleviate need. If we stick with the specific terminology and grammar of the text, there is no notion of coercion or requirements for membership. Instead we see (if we are sticking to the text) a harmony of perspective and affect that motivates them to radical community.

The Greek is not decisive about, in the end, who owned their private possessions. But let's jump to v. 34

> Acts 4.34

Again, we can examine the Greek. We can leave Robertson behind and just deal with it ourselves.

οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐνδεής τις ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς: For no one (same term as v. 32) among them existed in a state of need.

ὅσοι γὰρ κτήτορες χωρίων ἢ οἰκιῶν ὑπῆρχον πωλοῦντες: "For those who possessed possessions (who owned stuff; state of existence) of land or houses sold them." "Sold" is present active participle: (1) present = idea of progress. Action in progress, or state in persistence; (2) active voice = the subject is merely represented as acting or existing. Describes the subject as producing the action (it is causative); (3) Participle generally contemplates action as real. It is used when the real object of the governing verb is a person or thing whose act or state is described by the participle.

So in saying they sold their stuff, the author, through his choice of verb is saying that the community, in the course of time and repetitively, acted to produce real sales.

This, to me, is where the insertion of "from time to time" originates. I don't see in the language anything about the community demanding such action, and certainly that it didn't happen all at once.

Especially, as I read in Acts 5.4, that Peter says that after they sold their property the money was still at their disposal.

As to the rest, our conversation is spreading wide. In the Scripture I see a variety of perspectives on wealth.

1\. God cares how you got it (legally and justly, or exploitatively?).
2\. God cares what you are doing with it (indulging in luxuries or helping the needy).
3\. God cares what it is doing to you. Money is a gateway to all kinds of sin (1 Tim. 6.10).

God doesn't seem to be against money or wealth. He Himself made Abraham, Solomon, and Daniel very wealthy people. For some (though not always), material things are a manifestation of God's blessing.
4\. We are accountable stewards of whatever God has given to us.
5\. We are responsible for others (Acts 2.42-47; Phil. 2.4; Mt. 25.31-46).

By the same token the Bible recognizes the great dangers of money (1 Tim. 6.9). As Slash (Guns-n-Roses guitarist) said, "Money will trash you out." It tempts people to wander from God (Dt. 31.19-22).

Luke, in his Gospel, treats money and wealth uniquely. From my study of the Gospel, he uses money as a symbol of godlessness (just as he uses leprosy as a symbol of sin). It's one of the things we have to take into account as we quick-quote Luke. To Luke the poor are the symbol of godliness and the rich of godlessness. I take it as a literary technique of Luke's, not to be taken in a literal sense, since some poor people are quite godless and some rich people are godly. Zechariah is probably fairly well-to-do (certainly not uber-rich), and Mary is probably rather poor.

Luke's version of Jesus's trip to Nazareth (4.14-30) highlights that Jesus has come for the "poor" (the godly).

Luke's version of the Beatitudes (6.20-26, in particular) has the same scalpel. He uses poverty to symbolize godliness.

Jesus's parables in Luke often pertain to money or possessions (7.41-42; 9.58; 10.30-38; 11.5-13; 12.13-21; 12.22-34; 12.42-48; 14.16-24,etc. etc. etc.). Landowners, shred managers, rich fools, Pharisees and tax collectors ten minas. The story of the rich ruler. The widow's offering.

When Jesus sends out the 12, he sends them out as paupers (9.3). He rebukes the Pharisees for their greed (11.39).

It's part of Luke's m.o. But he breaks the symbolism at decisive points. After we read of the tragedy of the rich young ruler (18.18-29), and disciples think that anyone with wealth can't come into the kingdom, we read the story of Zacchaeus (19.1-10) and of a man of extreme wealth who comes to the kingdom. Then we get a story of "The Parable of the 10 Minas," where it doesn't matter how much or little you have, but of what you do with it.

It's a complex issue. I honestly don't see that the early Christian community demanded sale of possessions. They were caught up in Jesus, and became people of generosity and grace.

[Ponytail]

> I'd be glad to reply. I'm enjoying the conversation.

Great!

> It depends what you mean by "needed."...

I don't really disagree with anything there. It just seems to me from the text that Zacc gave away all he had, and then Christ grants him salvation. So I am curious, did he have to sell it for salvation? Or are you saying the text just doesn't tell us that?

> Your link to a page of Greek wasn't helpful.

I thought it was, ha! Anyway, the point being made is that you stated, "they shared the use of their possessions, not the ownership of them."

And all I am saying is that the text does not speak to the "use" of the possessions. Just the possession and claiming of them. I think the simpler reading is that the possessions were communally owned.

> Again, we can examine the Greek...

Sure. I must admit, I am having trouble figuring out exactly what is being argued, and have done some googling to try and figure it out. I came across this:

"The imperfect verb ἔφερον (epheron, were bringing) and present participle (πωλοῦντες, pōlountes, selling) in combination suggest a gradual liquidation of assets, not selling everything all at once." From here, citing this.

> I don't see in the language anything about the community demanding such action, and certainly that it didn't happen all at once.

Sure, I can grant that it was not all at once. Doesn't change my point much.

> Especially, as I read in Acts 5.4: "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!"

Yes, at his disposal of course. He literally had the money. While it was unsold was it not his? Yes. Meaning once it was sold it no longer was. That is why he needed to give all the money and especially not lie about it.

> As to the rest, our conversation is spreading wide.

I thought I was trying to narrow it!

> God doesn't seem to be against money or wealth. He Himself made Abraham, Solomon, and Daniel very wealthy people. For some (though not always), material things are a manifestation of God's blessing.

This is where we disagree. God is against money and wealth because they are not the ideal. Referencing OT folks does not affect the way I view the Kingdom and the New Covenant--it was less that ideal. And I completely disagree that God blesses people by making them materially wealthy. It would undermine a significant amount of Gospel texts.

> From my study of the Gospel, he uses money as a symbol of godlessness (just as he uses leprosy as a symbol of sin).

Another place we disagree. As soon as we turn something that is material into a spiritual symbol we can say only the spiritual teaching actually applies. I don't think this is true. We see them literally following the commands of Jesus' material teachings in Acts.

> Luke's version of Jesus's trip to Nazareth (4.14-30) highlights that Jesus has come for the "poor" (the godly).

I read this not only as a spiritual text. Jesus is talking abut social and material things.

> Luke's version of the Beatitudes (6.20-26, in particular) has the same scalpel. He uses poverty to symbolize godliness.

Once you substitute "poor" for "godliness" the text loses its social and material meaning, and I think that is a disservice.

> and of a man of extreme wealth who comes to the kingdom.

You mean Zacc? He's broke now.

> Then we get a story of "The Parable of the 10 Minas," where it doesn't matter how much or little you have, but of what you do with it.

Yes, the parable is obviously not talking about actual money, hence why it is a parable. You are conflating parable with narrative.

. It's a complex issue. I honestly don't see that the early Christian community demanded sale of possessions. They were caught up in Jesus, and became people of generosity and grace.

I honestly think we make it more complex than it is. My original comment stated, in response, that I saw in the text "nothing about it being voluntary." You replied it was not "demanded" nor "coerced." I wrote, "Agreed, it was expected once you joined the community." And then I added "prescriptive" and "expected" to describe what I read. I don't think I ever stated demanded.
I think my point still stands.

[jimwalton]

Well, it seems we aren't going to come to agreement.

> "The imperfect verb ἔφερον (epheron, were bringing) and present participle (πωλοῦντες, pōlountes, selling) in combination suggest a gradual liquidation of assets, not selling everything all at once."

Right. They didn't have to sell everything to join the community. They could sell gradually, or partially, as they wished. That's where it changes your point.

> God is against money and wealth because they are not the ideal.

In Genesis 13.2 we discover that "Abram had become very wealthy," presumably by the blessing of the Lord (Gn. 12.2-3). In Genesis 14.23, Abram refused recompense from the king of Sodom so that he couldn't say "I made Abram rich."

We have a direct mention of God blessing Solomon with wealth in 1 Ki. 3.13. And in Daniel, God blesses Daniel with the abilities to interpret dreams (Dan. 2.27-28), knowing that the prize for such interpretation was wealth (Dan. 2.6, 48). God was directly instrumental in making these men rich.

But what about the NT? Joseph of Arimathea (Mt. 27.57) is described as a rich man who had become a disciple of Jesus. There is no mention of him giving away all he had. He was a disciple AND he was rich.

> Once you substitute "poor" for "godliness" the text loses its social and material meaning

Oh, not at all. The text has layers of meaning. Luke is deeply about the social and political implications of Jesus's teachings. But it is also about the kingdom of God, and Luke is not shy to use social realities as symbols of spiritual realities. Light and salt are real but also symbolic. The woman anointing Jesus's feet had tremendous immediate meaning in her love, gratitude, devotion, humility, and worship. But it had a deeper spiritual meaning in that (she didn't know it) it was a preparation for his burial.

Richard Hays says, "Possessions in Luke/Acts function as symbols of response to God. Zacchaeus's uncoerced generosity is a sign of repentance and faith, whereas the hesitant stinginess of the rich ruler—or worse, the dishonesty of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5.1-11) betrays an unrepentant heart, closed toward the grace of God."

> You mean Zacc? He's broke now.

No he's not. He will give HALF of his possessions to the poor (Lk. 19.8; the Pharisee of Lk. 18.11-12 bragged that he gave 1/10th). He will pay back 4 times of what he cheated out of people (the Law required no more than the original amount + 1/5, Lev. 6.5; Num. 5.7; restoration was required of a thief, Ex. 22.1). Zacc is agreeing to do more than was necessary, but he also had assets from legitimate income. If Zacc was emptying himself, he would have said, "I will repay 4 times the amount if I have cheated anyone, and I will give everything else to the poor."

And Zacchaeus's salvation is not dependent on his offer of restitution and charity. Jesus is affirming that Zacchaeus's action demonstrates that the kingdom of God and its values had entered "his household."

> Yes, the parable is obviously not talking about actual money, hence why it is a parable. You are conflating parable with narrative.

Of course the parable is not talking about actual money. I am not conflating parable with narrative. All I was saying is that Luke talks about money and possessions A LOT, and they have a lot to do with the point he is making about spiritual matters.

> I think my point still stands.

I still disagree with your position.