Ananias & Sapphira

Rick Larson · #1 (**permalink**) 06-28-2006, 06:22 PM

This morning I read the passage in Acts about Ananias and Sapphira and was a little perplexed afterwards. I've read this passage countless times before and I'm not sure why I haven't had these thoughts previously.

My main reason for being perplexed is trying to find the parallel for today. What is the principle here? Should we all be selling our houses and living in a commune? Or is it that God knows what we should be giving and if we don't he will strike us dead?

Also, what they did seems no normal, like something I would do. Isn't that terrible? I think a lot of you would do it too. Who wouldn't keep a little something for themselves? I'm not saying it's right, but could not some rebuking and counseling have been in order, rather than an immediate death sentence? It seems like there's more going on in this story than is being told.

Perplexed.

Rick

[Edited on 6-28-2006 by Rick Larson]

Scott Bushey · #2 (**permalink**) 06-28-2006, 06:32 PM

Keeping in mind, the church was in it's infant stages, progressing from one level to the next, as well as a cultural setting to take into consideration. I do agree with the premise, if any of us have valid needs, they should be reconciled witin the church. Most churches do step up to the plate in this regard. What I do have a problem with is the church down the street which is a plant has no roof on their slab and the church 3 miles west of it has 10 acres and 6 building; and is working ona new building project. This, IMO is atrocious.

Practically, the principle for us would be:
1) Do not lie to the HS (only an unbeliever would do this)
2) Outside of our tithing, give where and when we can.

[Edited on 6-28-2006 by Scott Bushey]

[Edited on 6-28-2006 by Scott Bushey]

Contra_Mundum · #3 (**permalink**) 06-28-2006, 09:56 PM

Remember exactly what A&S sin was = "Lying to the HS" (as if they could get away with that!)

Peter expressely states that the land was their own property, to keep or to sell, whatever. The communal "pool" was for the relief of those who were in need. In that early Christian community, the Spirit was so powerfully at work that it was normal for people to love each other with their property, holding nothing back.

AND, after it was sold the $$$ was theirs to dispose of HOWEVER they desired. A&S sin was that they decided they wanted the REPUTATION of benevolent givers, while they were hoarding part of the sale. Think about that for a moment. The heinousness of their sin was not in their desire to retain some of the profit, but it trying to pass off the GIFT as a TOTAL SACRIFICE. This was a grotesque disfiguration of the face of the church. These persons were hypocrites of the first rank!

Just as Nadab & Abihu were slain on the first day of Tabernacle service, in part as a permanent example of the seriousness of the holiness of God ("I will be sanctified by those who come near me!"), so too the first hypocrites in the church are slain by the Lord himself to teach us all, for the last 2000 years, just how evil is a hypocritical saint.

Are you a hypocrite? Are you ever tempted to play at the edges of hypocrisy? Once in a while? Consider how God is offended in you. Consider how he might just as easily strike you down as he did A&S. Consider how often he has instead shown you mercy and given you time and room to repent.

DTK · #4 (**permalink**) 06-28-2006, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Just as Nadab & Abihu were slain on the first day of Tabernacle service, in part as a permanent example of the seriousness of the holiness of God ("I will be sanctified by those who come near me!"), so too the first hypocrites in the church are slain by the Lord himself to teach us all, for the last 2000 years, just how evil is a hypocritical saint.

I have often considered the example of A & S every time I hear someone say to me, "I just want to be in a church just like it was in the days of the apostles, with pure worship and a pure ministry."

My response has been, "which one, the church in Jerusalem where God executes liars,...or one of the Galatian churches where the local rabbi used the knife on the uncircumcized...Or one of the churches that came under Christ's rebuke in the Book of the Revelation?"

I know, pastors can be such party-poopers.

DTK

VirginiaHuguenot · #5 (**permalink**) 06-28-2006, 10:17 PM

Very sobering words indeed! Matthew Henry has some good comments on this entire passage. Below are his comments specifically on their death:

Quote:

1. He died upon the spot: Ananias, hearing these words, was speechless, in the same sense that he was who was charged with intruding into the wedding feast without a wedding garment: he had nothing to say for himself; but this was not all: he was struck speechless with a witness, for he was struck dead: He fell down, and gave up the ghost. It does not appear whether Peter designed and expected that this would follow upon what he said to him; it is probable that he did, for to Sapphira his wife Peter particularly spoke death, v. 9. Some think that an angel struck him, that he died, as Herod, ch. xii. 23. Or, his own conscience smote him with such horror and amazement at the sense of his guilt, that he sunk and died away under the load of it. And perhaps, when he was convicted of lying to the Holy Ghost, he remembered the unpardonableness of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which struck him like a dagger to the heart. See the power of the word of God in the mouth of the apostles. As it was to some a savour of life unto life, so it was to others a savour of death unto death. As there are those whom the gospel justifies, so there are those whom it condemns. This punishment of Ananias may seem severe, but we are sure it was just. (1.) It was designed to maintain the honour of the Holy Ghost as now lately poured out upon the apostles, in order to the setting up of the gospel kingdom. It was a great affront which Ananias put upon the Holy Ghost, as if he could be imposed upon: and it had a direct tendency to invalidate the apostles' testimony; for, if they could not by the Spirit discover this fraud, how could they by this Spirit discover the deep things of God, which they were to reveal to the children of men? It was therefore necessary that the credit of the apostles' gifts and powers should be supported, though it was at this expense. (2.) It was designed to deter others from the like presumptions, now at the beginning of this dispensation. Simon Magus afterwards was not thus punished, nor Elymas; but Ananias was made an example now at first, that, with the sensible proofs given what a comfortable thing it is to receive the Spirit, there might be also sensible proofs given what a dangerous thing it is to resist the Spirit, and do despite to him. How severely was the worshipping of the golden calf punished, and the gathering of sticks on the sabbath-day, when the laws of the second and fourth commandments were now newly given! So was the offering of strange fire by Nadab and Abihu, and the mutiny of Korah and his company, when the fire from heaven was now newly given, and the authority of Moses and Aaron now newly established. The doing of this by the ministry of Peter, who himself with a lie denied his Master but a little while ago, intimates that it was not the resentment of a wrong done to himself; for then he, who had himself been faulty, would have had charity for those that offended; and he, who himself had repented and been forgiven, would have forgiven this affront, and endeavoured to bring this offender to repentance; but it was the act of the Spirit of God in Peter: to him the indignity was done, and by him the punishment was inflicted.

JohnStevenson · #6 (**permalink**) 06-30-2006, 09:38 AM

The story of Ananias and Sapphira is to the book of Acts what the story of Achan is to the book of Joshua. In each case...

- The people of God were experiencing victory.

- Greed caused the rebellious to "keep back" a part of the spoils. The Greek phrase in Joshua 7:1 of the Septuagint is identical to that which Luke uses here in Acts.

- The trespass involved the keeping of that which had been declared to be devoted to the Lord.

- The required punishment was the death of the offender.

Why did God kill these two people? It is because God takes His church and the vows made within His church very seriously, even if we don't. Take marriage vows. Divorce has reached epidemic proportions. It is a result of people not taking their vows seriously.

The point is that the God of the New Testament is the same God that is found in the Old Testament. He is very big and that you cannot take Him for granted.

Maestroh · #7 (**permalink**) 07-10-2006, 11:31 AM

I wanted to let everyone know I enjoyed reading the responses to this.

I first heard this story as a non-Christian back when we had Bible in public school on Monday morning. You may think I'm old, but this was in Mississippi in 1979. Some of us stayed back and had Bible; I forget where the other students went (I want to say Remedial Math, but don't quote me on it).

The teacher taught this story, and it really scared me to, well, not to death, but...

I look at this story and find some unfortunate facts. I've heard preachers try to exhort (or extort?) congregations using this as their 'tithe passage.' You see, Ananias and Sapphira (in this particular interpretation) didn't pay their tithes to the Pitch-a-fit Baptist Church, and God killed them for it. But enough attempts at humor for the day.

I think the previous points by Brother Stevenson about vows and the parallel with Joshua are dead on. They were sort of like those in Matthew 6, who blew a trumpet before giving alms to the poor - 'they have their reward.' Well, they got theirs, too: virtually every Christian for the past 2,000 years has HEARD of them or READ about them. But I'll betcha if that happened now, it would shake up quite a few congregations.

God bless,

Maestroh