Our small group bible study is currently making its way through the Book of Acts. We meet every other week and look at one chapter per meeting. A few weeks ago we studied chapter 5. It was interesting to see all the different views on what happened to Ananias and Sapphira and what it means for us today. Here's the passage,
But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things (Acts 5:1-11).
and below is what several theologians have to say about it:
"In those early days the Church walked with God in holiness and righteousness. Today, alas, the Church has gotten so far away from God, and there is so much sin and hypocrisy and unreality, that God (I say it reverently) does not think it worth while to deal with people like this, for the Church refuses to listen to His voice."
So the reason God isn’t punishing sin like this anymore is because there is too much of it? That doesn’t make much sense to me. This view is not supported by Scripture in any way that I am aware of, either.
"In our time, those found in dishonesty do not die as did Ananias and Sapphira, but something within them dies. Conscience chokes, character withers, self-respect vanishes, integrity dies."
This theologian doesn't explain why we don't still receive this type of judgment today. And again, no Scriptural support is given.
"What Ananias did also must be seen in the context of its time. This was a critical juncture for the early church, and such impurity, sin, scandal and satanic infiltration could have corrupted the entire church at its root. The Church has never been harmed or hindered by opposition from without; it has been perpetually harmed and hindered by perils from within. Why don't we see God judge the same way now? In part, because the church has so many 'branches.' Even if the entire body of Christ in the United States was to become corrupt through scandal or sin, there is plenty of strength in other parts of the 'tree.' The Church's administration to-day is not what it was, or there might be many dead men and women at the end of some services."
So because the Church is so big now, judgment like this is no longer needed? Once again, there is no Scriptural support given.
"Many find this passage shocking, but Luke would certainly disagree with efforts today to explain away hell or God’s punishment. He insists that outrageous and deliberate rebellion against God will be severely punished. God is not mocked. Though this same Luke is known for his stress on God’s forgiveness of repentant sinners, we should not overlook his balancing emphasis on a prudent fear of God’s power to punish when faced with unrepented sin and rebellion. God will go to any length to save sinners who are willing to return to him (Luke 15). But those who refuse to admit their sin and ask forgiveness will suffer the consequences of their separation from God."
Are we to look at this portion of Scripture merely as a warning to unbelievers, then? And again, why isn't this still happening today? Or is he saying that it still is?
"We are stunned in this passage by the suddenness of God’s judgment and seeming lack of pity or remorse on the part of Peter and the others. Furthermore, there seems to be no opportunity for repentance apart from Peter’s question to Sapphira in verse 8. Stories like this were quite common in the Old Testament, such as Nadab and Abihu consumed by the illegitimate fire they used (Lev. 10). Repeatedly in Deuteronomy, God told his people to root out evil from among them (Deut. 13:5; 17:7, 12; 19:19)."
Yay, Scriptural support! I find this explanation interesting. Certainly, the believers at this point in progressive revelation were all Jews and still under the Law, as nothing had yet been revealed that they weren't. So, to point back to OT examples of the same sort of thing seems perfectly justifiable. This theologian doesn't explain any of this, though. Nor does he say anything about why judgment like this doesn't happen today. Perhaps he believes it still does?
"In 4:32-35, Luke reiterates the point of emphasis of the summary in 2:41-47. But this summary also provides an interesting variation to the themes found in chap. 2. Now, the believers took the proceeds from their sales and laid it at the apostles’ feet (v. 35). To assume the posture of being at another’s feet is a gesture of submission in the OT (Josh 10:24; 1 Sam 25:24, 41; 2 Sam 22:39; Pss 8:7; 110:1). Luke also employs this language of being at another’s feet as a symbol of submission (Luke 7:38, 44, 45, 46; 8:35, 41; 10:39; 17:16; 20:43; Acts 2:35; 10:35; 22:3). So here in v. 35, laying the proceeds at the apostles’ feet is more than just a way of taking care of an administrative detail. As Luke Johnson has noted: ‘When the believers lay their possessions at the Apostles’ feet, therefore, they were symbolically laying themselves there, in a gesture of submission to the authority of the Twelve’ (Johnson 1977, 202). In just such an act of submission, Barnabas laid his gift at the apostles’ feet (vv. 36-37). Not everyone submitted themselves to the authority of the apostles, as the story of Ananias and Sapphira indicates (5:1-11). This story is linked linguistically to the previous two scenes by the words ‘at the apostles’ feet’ (v. 2) and depicts a negative example of community life. Ananias and Sapphira sell a piece of property, but they mock the community’s Spirit of unity, and they usurp the authority of the apostles when they lay only a part of the proceeds at their feet. Peter assumes the role of prophet when he confronts Ananias with the conspiracy (v. 3). Like Judas, Ananias has fallen prey to Satan (v. 3; ef. Luke 22:3), and like Judas, Ananias will not live to enjoy the material gains of his deceit (v. 5; see 1:17-18). Although Ananias has not lied verbally, the act of conspiracy itself was a lie to the Holy Spirit (v. 3). Peter’s remaining questions suggest that Ananias and Sapphira were not required to dispose of their property in this way, but could have retained authority over it (v. 4). But by taking this duplicitous action, they usurped the authority of the apostles. The offense was not simply against the community, Peter argues; it was against God. The problem was not simply a human one; it had serious spiritual dimensions, and as Ananias soon found out, serious repercussions. Upon hearing Peter’s words, he fell down and died (v. 5). After the disposal of Ananias and an interval — the narrator tells us — of about three hours (v. 7), Peter confronts Sapphira in what resembles a legal trial. The story drips rich with irony because the reader has knowledge Sapphira does not possess; the conspiracy is broken. Unknowingly Sapphira compounds the conspiracy with a verbal lie. Yes, she tells Peter, they sold the land for such and such a price (v. 8). Peter’s role as prophet becomes even more active when he predicts that this one who with her husband conspired against the community and God would now suffer the same fate as he (v. 8). And the final note of irony: Sapphira falls dead at Peter’s feet. She who had feigned to lay her possessions at the apostles’ feet now gives permanently in death. This grizzly story fulfills the threat of Peter’s earlier sermon: ‘everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out of the people’ (3:23). No wonder that a great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things (v. 11).”
More Scriptural support! I find this one interesting, too. Makes sense, except he doesn't explain why and when it all stopped.
"This event was an example — 'a taste' (Hebrews 6:4-5) — of what will happen during the Kingdom when anyone goes against the Divine order (Revelation 2:27; 12:5; 19:15). The Law will be written in the hearts of Israel in the Kingdom , so sin will be a very deliberate rebellion against the Spirit — as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira who had received the Spirit in the Kingdom sense (Acts 2:17-18). For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people (Hebrews 8:10; cf Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 10:16) ... This is what the writer of Hebrews was referring to in Hebrews 6:4-6 — For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame (Hebrews 6:4-6). — referring to those who sin after receiving the Spirit as He will be manifested in the Kingdom (and was for a time after Pentecost)."
Again, Scriptural support! So how long was this "time after Pentecost?" And why did this kind of judgment stop? It makes sense to me that as Israel continued to reject her Messiah, it stopped. When that was, exactly, I'm not sure. But notice that after the stoning of Stephen "a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles" (Acts 8:1-3; 11:19), so there was no more laying all that was sold at the apostles feet. And later we see Paul bringing relief to this church (Rom 15:25-26). No longer could it be said that "there was not a needy person among them" (Acts 4:34). It seems that the stoning of Stephen was the last straw, so to speak, for Jews in Jerusalem, the seat of Israel's government, to accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah. So did it stop there? Or do we see another example of it in 1 Corinthians 11:28-30? Perhaps judgment like this gradually stopped like the signs and miracles did???
So what do you think? In light of the whole of Scripture, which of these views makes the most sense to you?
But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things (Acts 5:1-11).
and below is what several theologians have to say about it:
"In those early days the Church walked with God in holiness and righteousness. Today, alas, the Church has gotten so far away from God, and there is so much sin and hypocrisy and unreality, that God (I say it reverently) does not think it worth while to deal with people like this, for the Church refuses to listen to His voice."
So the reason God isn’t punishing sin like this anymore is because there is too much of it? That doesn’t make much sense to me. This view is not supported by Scripture in any way that I am aware of, either.
"In our time, those found in dishonesty do not die as did Ananias and Sapphira, but something within them dies. Conscience chokes, character withers, self-respect vanishes, integrity dies."
This theologian doesn't explain why we don't still receive this type of judgment today. And again, no Scriptural support is given.
"What Ananias did also must be seen in the context of its time. This was a critical juncture for the early church, and such impurity, sin, scandal and satanic infiltration could have corrupted the entire church at its root. The Church has never been harmed or hindered by opposition from without; it has been perpetually harmed and hindered by perils from within. Why don't we see God judge the same way now? In part, because the church has so many 'branches.' Even if the entire body of Christ in the United States was to become corrupt through scandal or sin, there is plenty of strength in other parts of the 'tree.' The Church's administration to-day is not what it was, or there might be many dead men and women at the end of some services."
So because the Church is so big now, judgment like this is no longer needed? Once again, there is no Scriptural support given.
"Many find this passage shocking, but Luke would certainly disagree with efforts today to explain away hell or God’s punishment. He insists that outrageous and deliberate rebellion against God will be severely punished. God is not mocked. Though this same Luke is known for his stress on God’s forgiveness of repentant sinners, we should not overlook his balancing emphasis on a prudent fear of God’s power to punish when faced with unrepented sin and rebellion. God will go to any length to save sinners who are willing to return to him (Luke 15). But those who refuse to admit their sin and ask forgiveness will suffer the consequences of their separation from God."
Are we to look at this portion of Scripture merely as a warning to unbelievers, then? And again, why isn't this still happening today? Or is he saying that it still is?
"We are stunned in this passage by the suddenness of God’s judgment and seeming lack of pity or remorse on the part of Peter and the others. Furthermore, there seems to be no opportunity for repentance apart from Peter’s question to Sapphira in verse 8. Stories like this were quite common in the Old Testament, such as Nadab and Abihu consumed by the illegitimate fire they used (Lev. 10). Repeatedly in Deuteronomy, God told his people to root out evil from among them (Deut. 13:5; 17:7, 12; 19:19)."
Yay, Scriptural support! I find this explanation interesting. Certainly, the believers at this point in progressive revelation were all Jews and still under the Law, as nothing had yet been revealed that they weren't. So, to point back to OT examples of the same sort of thing seems perfectly justifiable. This theologian doesn't explain any of this, though. Nor does he say anything about why judgment like this doesn't happen today. Perhaps he believes it still does?
"In 4:32-35, Luke reiterates the point of emphasis of the summary in 2:41-47. But this summary also provides an interesting variation to the themes found in chap. 2. Now, the believers took the proceeds from their sales and laid it at the apostles’ feet (v. 35). To assume the posture of being at another’s feet is a gesture of submission in the OT (Josh 10:24; 1 Sam 25:24, 41; 2 Sam 22:39; Pss 8:7; 110:1). Luke also employs this language of being at another’s feet as a symbol of submission (Luke 7:38, 44, 45, 46; 8:35, 41; 10:39; 17:16; 20:43; Acts 2:35; 10:35; 22:3). So here in v. 35, laying the proceeds at the apostles’ feet is more than just a way of taking care of an administrative detail. As Luke Johnson has noted: ‘When the believers lay their possessions at the Apostles’ feet, therefore, they were symbolically laying themselves there, in a gesture of submission to the authority of the Twelve’ (Johnson 1977, 202). In just such an act of submission, Barnabas laid his gift at the apostles’ feet (vv. 36-37). Not everyone submitted themselves to the authority of the apostles, as the story of Ananias and Sapphira indicates (5:1-11). This story is linked linguistically to the previous two scenes by the words ‘at the apostles’ feet’ (v. 2) and depicts a negative example of community life. Ananias and Sapphira sell a piece of property, but they mock the community’s Spirit of unity, and they usurp the authority of the apostles when they lay only a part of the proceeds at their feet. Peter assumes the role of prophet when he confronts Ananias with the conspiracy (v. 3). Like Judas, Ananias has fallen prey to Satan (v. 3; ef. Luke 22:3), and like Judas, Ananias will not live to enjoy the material gains of his deceit (v. 5; see 1:17-18). Although Ananias has not lied verbally, the act of conspiracy itself was a lie to the Holy Spirit (v. 3). Peter’s remaining questions suggest that Ananias and Sapphira were not required to dispose of their property in this way, but could have retained authority over it (v. 4). But by taking this duplicitous action, they usurped the authority of the apostles. The offense was not simply against the community, Peter argues; it was against God. The problem was not simply a human one; it had serious spiritual dimensions, and as Ananias soon found out, serious repercussions. Upon hearing Peter’s words, he fell down and died (v. 5). After the disposal of Ananias and an interval — the narrator tells us — of about three hours (v. 7), Peter confronts Sapphira in what resembles a legal trial. The story drips rich with irony because the reader has knowledge Sapphira does not possess; the conspiracy is broken. Unknowingly Sapphira compounds the conspiracy with a verbal lie. Yes, she tells Peter, they sold the land for such and such a price (v. 8). Peter’s role as prophet becomes even more active when he predicts that this one who with her husband conspired against the community and God would now suffer the same fate as he (v. 8). And the final note of irony: Sapphira falls dead at Peter’s feet. She who had feigned to lay her possessions at the apostles’ feet now gives permanently in death. This grizzly story fulfills the threat of Peter’s earlier sermon: ‘everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out of the people’ (3:23). No wonder that a great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things (v. 11).”
More Scriptural support! I find this one interesting, too. Makes sense, except he doesn't explain why and when it all stopped.
"This event was an example — 'a taste' (Hebrews 6:4-5) — of what will happen during the Kingdom when anyone goes against the Divine order (Revelation 2:27; 12:5; 19:15). The Law will be written in the hearts of Israel in the Kingdom , so sin will be a very deliberate rebellion against the Spirit — as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira who had received the Spirit in the Kingdom sense (Acts 2:17-18). For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people (Hebrews 8:10; cf Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 10:16) ... This is what the writer of Hebrews was referring to in Hebrews 6:4-6 — For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame (Hebrews 6:4-6). — referring to those who sin after receiving the Spirit as He will be manifested in the Kingdom (and was for a time after Pentecost)."
Again, Scriptural support! So how long was this "time after Pentecost?" And why did this kind of judgment stop? It makes sense to me that as Israel continued to reject her Messiah, it stopped. When that was, exactly, I'm not sure. But notice that after the stoning of Stephen "a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles" (Acts 8:1-3; 11:19), so there was no more laying all that was sold at the apostles feet. And later we see Paul bringing relief to this church (Rom 15:25-26). No longer could it be said that "there was not a needy person among them" (Acts 4:34). It seems that the stoning of Stephen was the last straw, so to speak, for Jews in Jerusalem, the seat of Israel's government, to accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah. So did it stop there? Or do we see another example of it in 1 Corinthians 11:28-30? Perhaps judgment like this gradually stopped like the signs and miracles did???
So what do you think? In light of the whole of Scripture, which of these views makes the most sense to you?
No comments:
Post a Comment