@Hank77
Come to think of it, I stayed at a commune for a little while and there were a bunch of different houses that were close together. I could imagine referring to the houses by the people staying in them. (although I don't remember if that happened while I was there) So the idea that Peter owned the house may not necessarily be the case--it may just be a way to reference the house. Also the boat could have been kept by their group so that they and Jesus could travel on the sea of Galilee for their ministry. After Jesus was crucified they could have easily started using it for other purposes again. Just something to think about.
Also I wanted to clarify something about what I mean by "situational" I basically saying this because I don't want people to believe this and then join a cult. I think the verses before Luke 14:33 make the case that this decision should be made carefully. I don't necessarily think the community needs to be exactly like the one Jesus had or the church in Acts.
@RDKirk
That's pretty close to my view. I do however think that if the community deemed it useful then the property would be sold. I know there are objections to this so you can look at something on that below from a paper on this topic that I helped write. (apologies didn't have time to remove all the LaTeX formatting) The section starts by talking about the church in Acts keeping all things in common (this was before I considered the usufruct idea to be important and I may have to rewrite some of this later)
Let's look at Acts 4:
"and of the multitude of those who did believe the heart and the soul was one, and not one was saying that anything of the things he had was his own, but all things were to them in common." (Acts 4:32)
Some people will focus on the phrase "the things he had" (in many translations "the things he possessed") to say that ownership was retained. However, one could simply instead focus on the phrase "all things in common." However, how do we resolve these seemingly conflicting statements? If I share with someone I still say that my possessions are my own. However, if someone asks me "is that yours?" and I say "no" how would anyone know it belongs to me? that is, I have given them away by my statement. The "things he possessed" must be talking about the things they had with them. Essentially, this can't be a state of ownership otherwise it would contradict the "all things in common" statement.
Young's Literal (quoted above) seems to be correct in not implying ownership by saying "the things he had." Also, Thayer's Greek Lexicon (although it does mention it as meaning property) has the definition that the usage in Acts 4:32 falls under as "2. to come forth, hence to be there, be ready, be at hand . . ." as does Strong's.\cite{possessions thayer's strong's} G5224 is also translated as "existed" in the Apostolic Bible Polyglot.\cite{G5224 apostolic bible polyglot}
To add further evidence that they really did keep things in common the same word in Titus 1:4 is used for the "common" faith here: "To Titus, a true son in our common G2839 faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior." (Titus 1:4) as well as in Jude: "Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common G2839 salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 3)
Even Eckhard J. Schnabel who doesn't believe the church in Acts literally kept things in common admits that possibility from the language, but goes on to cite context which he thinks makes that possibility less preferable.\cite{Essenes common property} There are some parallels between Achan and Ananias that you can read about in the appendix section "Achan and Ananias" which also discusses evidence that the reason the punishment was so severe was that in both cases they took the Lord's name in vain.
"3 And Peter said, `Ananias, wherefore did the Adversary fill thy heart, for thee to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back of the price of the place?
4 while it remained, did it not remain thine? and having been sold, in thy authority was it not? why [is] it that thou didst put in thy heart this thing? thou didst not lie to men, but to God;'" (Acts 5:3-4 YLT)
Many commentators take this as "this wasn't required in any way." This may not be true, since all Peter is saying is that you had a free choice in selling the land and giving the money, not that it wasn't required to do this to be added to the church. Some commentators assert this as proof that no one was forced to give up their possessions. However, this confuses the issue since it is quite obvious from the new testament that Christians weren't forced to give up their possessions by the church leaders. The issue here is whether this was required for a deeper belonging in the church.
"3 And Peter said, `Ananias, wherefore did the Adversary fill thy heart, for thee to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back of the price of the place?
4 while it remained, did it not remain thine? and having been sold, in thy authority was it not? why [is] it that thou didst put in thy heart this thing? thou didst not lie to men, but to God;'" (Acts 5:3-4)
Many commentators take this as "this wasn't required in any way." This may not be true, since all Peter is saying is that you had a free choice in selling the land and giving the money, not that it wasn't required to do this to be added to the church. Some commentators assert this as proof that no one was forced to give up their possessions. However, this confuses the issue since it is quite obvious from the new testament that Christians weren't forced to give up their possessions by the church leaders. The issue here is whether this was required for a deeper belonging in the church.
In addition to what we've already discussed the following is another hint that this was about a deeper belonging.
\begin{quote}
"10 and she fell down presently at his feet, and expired, and the young men having come in, found her dead, and having carried forth, they buried [her] by her husband;
11 and great fear came upon all the assembly, and upon all who heard these things.
12 And through the hands of the apostles came many signs and wonders among the people, and they were with one accord all in the porch of Solomon;
13 and of the rest no one was daring to join G2853 himself to them, but the people were magnifying them,
14 (and the more were believers added G4369 to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women,)" (Acts 5:10-14)
\end{quote}
Compare that with where the same word for "added" is used:
\begin{quote}
41then those, indeed, who did gladly receive his word were baptized, and there were added G4369 on that day, as it were, three thousand souls, . . .
44 and all those believing were at the same place, and had all things common,
45 and the possessions and the goods they were selling, and were parting them to all, according as any one had need.
46 Daily also continuing with one accord in the temple, breaking also at every house bread, they were partaking of food in gladness and simplicity of heart,
47 praising God, and having favour with all the people, and the Lord was adding G4369 those being saved every day to the assembly. (Acts 2)
\end{quote}
While the word translated "join" is actually less intimate than it sounds and just means to get next to:
"And the Spirit said to Philip, `Go near, and be joined G4369 to this chariot;'"
(Acts 8:29)
It is also used for employment:
"and having gone on, he joined G4369 himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him to the fields to feed swine,"
(Luke 15:15)
In 1 Corinthians 6:16 it is used for sexual intimacy but in a totally different context so I think we can regard this word as less intimate in this context.
Therefore the general population are those referred to when it says "no one dared to join himself to them." The place where they didn't dare join is on Solomon's Porch; i.e. to fellowship with them. The incident with Ananias and Saphira would have scared others who weren't serious about giving up their possessions. Yet it says "And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women, 15 so as into the broad places to bring forth the ailing, and to lay [them] upon couches and mats, that at the coming of Peter, even [his] shadow might overshadow some one of them;" This refers to those who were added to the commune since in the next verse it says: "16 and there were coming together also the people of the cities round about to Jerusalem, bearing ailing persons, and those harassed by unclean spirits -- who were all healed." This means that the incident with Ananias would have scared people who just wanted to casually be around them or wanted to pretend to be part of them but that it wouldn't have deterred people who were serious about being added to the church and giving up their possessions. The same idea is foreshadowed in the Tanahk, see: \ref{foreshadowing in the tanahk}
In addition to "common" G2839 can mean "profane".\cite{common faith} This is similar to the word H2764 used in the case of Achane in Joshua 7:1\cite{H2764 H2763} although there isn't a direct connection between the H2764 in Joshua 7:1 and G2839 in Acts 4:32 through the Septuagint.
This is possibly because the silver that Achane stole was supposed to be devoted to God: "But all the silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are consecrated to the Lord; they shall come into the treasury of the Lord.” (Joshua 6:19)
With Achane the property could be devoted to the temple or be profane, while in Acts maybe property could be devoted to the community or be profane. The word G3557 is used in both Acts 5:3 and Joshua 7:1 LXX for "stealing."
There is a pattern stated in Acts 4:32 and exemplified by Barnabas bringing all the money from the land and laying it at the Apostles feet. This is the pattern that Ananias and Saphira broke. It is true that they lied and that is why they were punished, but why was the punishment so severe? If they were simply punished for holding back (or stealing) according to the Torah they would be required to pay back the money they stole adding the 5th to it? Leviticus 6 covers this specifically including stealing through lying or swearing falsely about something, yet apparently that isn't what they did. So the punishment makes more sense if they were required to sell everything to join the Church (maybe as official members). Hence they violated Deuteronomy 5:11 and Exodus 20:7 "`Thou dost not take up the name of Jehovah thy God for a vain thing, for Jehovah acquitteth not him who taketh up His name for a vain thing."
Gesenius takes "vain" there to mean a "false witness." "Name" in Hebrew means "character" \cite{name means character} and the immediate context of many examples of violations of these commands (possibly both commands themselves) is about misrepresenting God's character by transgressing the law while in Israel, worshiping other gods, speaking evil of God, and swearing falsely among other things. There is a direct connection between Deuteronomy 5:11, Exodus 20:7 and Acts 5:3-4 since Peter describes what Ananias did as "lying to the holy Ghost." The word for "lying" is G5574 and is the root of one of the corresponding Greek words for the word "vain" (H7723) used in Deuteronomy 5:11 and Exodus 20:7. It is also the same word used for what Achane did in Joshua 7:11 G5574 in the Septuagint. Also in Joshua 24:27 it refers to idolatry as to "lie G5574 to the lord your God" (Apostolic Bible Polyglot) or "lest you deny H3584 your God." (NKJV) and there is a similar passage in Job 31:24-28 that not only refers to typical idolatry but says "If I have made gold my hope, Or said to fine gold, ‘You are my confidence’; . . . For I would have denied H3584 the God that is above" (NKJV) or "I lied G5574 before the lord of the highest" (Apostolic Bible Polyglot) \cite{in vain}
