What's up with Annanias & Sapphira's Deaths?

[Prodigal_Son]

I was studying in Acts the other day, and I came to the part where Peter and the others have converted thousands and they begin to live their rendition of the United Order.

Annanias and Sapphira sell some land, pocket some of the proceeds, and then lie to Peter's face about it - as they make partial payment into the Order.

Then, as punishment, both (seperately, but on the same day) die in front of Peter.

Here's my question:

What's up with the Law of Moses deaths? The Apostles are striving to teach the New Testament of Jesus Christ, but then these two casualties SCREAM direct-and-immediate Old Testament punishments.

Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? I'd love to feel this thing out and draw some additional conclusions beyond those which I currently have.

Thanks, all!

[Moksha]

Perhaps this is an example of Bart Erdman's thought that things get misinterpreted or altered over time. The scripture given by Prodigal certainly does not jive with the teachings of Jesus.

[Prodigal_Son]

Perhaps... though Joseph didn't correct it as he worked on translation...

[ryanmercer]

Perhaps this is an example of Bart Erdman's thought that things get misinterpreted or altered over time. The scripture given by Prodigal certainly does not jive with the teachings of Jesus.

I agree here... the problem with the Bible is that the books in it were all written a few to MANY generations after the events took place. Even the New Testament books date to 100+ years after the events took place. That means these texts were passed on orally, and as we've seen in archaeology that they were also passed on in the form of writing once they did make it to 'paper' however even then there are often considerable differences in various copies of the books due to copying errors, and/or intentional changes.

Then of course those texts have been translated at LEAST once before you read them... and concepts and words don't always directly translate from one language to another. A good historical example of this is the Qur'an... translations of it are NOT accepted by Muslims as being the Qur'an, they are seen as a commentary because many of the concepts don't translate out of Classical/Qur'anic Arabic... there are simply no good ways to translate some of the concepts to other languages... the same is true for the books of the bible. The same can be said for things in the same LANGUAGE. If you take English from around say 1066 around the time of the Norman Invasion and give a piece in it to someone to read now... they will not understand the bulk of it, and even when translated by an expert on early-Old English some meaning will likely be lost and/or concepts slightly changed.

However, in this case I imagine it's the fact that the book was passed down orally for how ever many generations before making it's way to a written text, and confusion would likely have resulted... just play the game 'telephone' with 10 people... now try that over 100+ years.

[Vort]

Perhaps this is an example of Bart Erdman's thought that things get misinterpreted or altered over time. The scripture given by Prodigal certainly does not jive with the teachings of Jesus.

Of course it does. Those who say otherwise simply demonstrate they don't understand the teachings of Jesus that they reference.

[prisonchaplain]

Good grief. Sorry, but the couple lie to God, lie to the Holy Spirit, and so God strikes them dead. Elsewhere we read that Christians who partook of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner became sick, and some died. I take these literally, and believe either that God did take their lives to send a message, and that their souls were then ushered into their eternal reward (death does not equal annhilation, after all). If they simply made a horrific mistake, they will still receive their blessed reward. If in fact they blasphemed the Holy Spirit by their actions, then . . .

God is our friend, the lover of our souls. But He's still God, and certainly has authority to judge his children.

[Vort]

I was studying in Acts the other day, and I came to the part where Peter and the others have converted thousands and they begin to live their rendition of the United Order.

Annanias and Sapphira sell some land, pocket some of the proceeds, and then lie to Peter's face about it - as they make partial payment into the Order.

Then, as punishment, both (seperately, but on the same day) die in front of Peter.

Here's my question:

What's up with the Law of Moses deaths? The Apostles are striving to teach the New Testament of Jesus Christ, but then these two casualties SCREAM direct-and-immediate Old Testament punishments.

Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? I'd love to feel this thing out and draw some additional conclusions beyond those which I currently have.

Thanks, all!

The problem here is not in the account, but in your expectations. You have falsely divided the dealings of God with man into "the New Testament of Jesus Christ" vs. "Old Testament punishments". You did not invent this wrong idea, of course. This artificial division has been promulgated by ignorant Christians, pseudoChristians, and non-Christians to suggest that Jesus somehow taught and altered the Law, changing the fundamental relationship between God and man. This is obviously false to any true Christian, of course, and not just Latter-day Saints -- although a surprising number of Saints also fall prey to this absurd teaching.

The "New Testament Jesus Christ" is the same Being who meted out those "Old Testament punishments". When you make a covenant with God, you place yourself entirely in his hands. God showed great mercy to ancient Israel when they broke their covenant with him; instead of wiping them out, as they had earned, he simply gave them a law of outward ordinances, hoping over many generations to bring them back to himself. God acted in that way toward them for his own reasons, and he acts in mercy toward us for his own reasons. His justice may be eternal, but it does not look the same to us, nor should it.

Ananias and Saphira had explicitly covenanted to live a (for lack of a better term) "united order"-type life. They were not forced into this; they entered it of their own free will and choice. As Peter pointed out, in "stealing" from everyone else in the covenant, they were in fact stealing from God. Having disobeyed a much higher law, they were subject to a much graver consequence. The deaths of these two demonstrate (at least) two scriptural truths:

• Where much is given, much is required. (See Luke 12:48)
• God will not be mocked. (See Galatians 6:7, D&C 63:58, among many other scriptures)

[BenRaines]

PC, I agree. Too many put such extra value on this life than the being born and gaining a body. Taken early or living to an old age should not matter but how that life is lived. Perhaps they made an error based on greed. God took their lives. Scripture does not say that he took their reward. They will be resurrected and judged according to their faith. We are human and are not the judge.

Ben Raines

[Prodigal_Son]

Thanks for the responses. I'll ponder them for a while.

My initial reaction to your comments brings 2 thoughts:

#1.

I am extremely hesitant to chalk anything up to "misinterpreted/mistranslated" scripture. Your argument is a valid one, and it MIGHT even be right... but I don't at all feel comfortable serving as arbiter to truth in scripture. Call it extreme, but if allowed to write THIS story off, what's to keep us writing other strange doctrines off?

To each their own, but unless a GA professes a passage false, I don't feel like we can use that claim.

#2.

While I accept that the only solution to the quandary I'm about to present is the classic "God's thoughts are not our thoughts", I am dissatisfied with the thought that God struck them down, just like that. If he did it to these two, why not others? Why not Sidney Rigdon? Why not so many others who witnessed the Pentecost in Kirtland - only to LIE ABOUT THE PROPHET AND TO HIM - just like this NT story?

I just feel like there's more to it than "they got what they deserved"... but I could be wrong...

[Just_A_Guy]

Reading the NT story, consider--how did the early church (and even non-members) react to the sudden and mysterious death of two apostates?

Now consider how the current church--and especially nonmembers--would react to the sudden and mysterious death of apostates.

The ancients were more willing to chalk this kind of thing up to divine power. We're much more skeptical today--"divine retribution" isn't much of an alibi.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Dr T]

They lied to God, like it says and they were not "two apostates" as you claim. Where did you get that idea sir?

[Just_A_Guy]

Mea culpa.

But the point is the same: it wouldn't look very good for us, in this day and age, if every Church member who lied to their ecclesiastical leader died on the spot.

[prisonchaplain]

Mea culpa.

But the point is the same: it wouldn't look very good for us, in this day and age, if every Church member who lied to their ecclesiastical leader died on the spot.

The couple may well have been sincere in their faith, and at the same time, so eager for popularity, acceptance and reputation in the church, that they schemed to lie to the Apostle, and to God, by publically claiming to give all, when they had not. Despite their security in their faith, their sin was grievous. The lie was intentional, blatant, very very public, and an insult to the Church and its leaders. I don't wish instant death on anyone...but I don't have the gumption to question God--not on this one.

[Prodigal_Son]

I don't wish instant death on anyone...but I don't have the gumption to question God--not on this one.

I hope I haven't conveyed that I'm questioning God. NOT AT ALL. Rather, I can tell that I'm missing something - and I'm trying to find just what that is.

[volgadon]

The death penalty was applied very rarely, even in the OT.

I don't see any reason not to take this story at face value. They transgressed a law of God, robbed him, and lied about it.

[Prodigal_Son]

The death penalty was applied very rarely, even in the OT.

I don't see any reason not to take this story at face value. They transgressed a law of God, robbed him, and lied about it.

I still feel there's something I'm not getting. You point out how rare the death penalty was. So why them? You think they were unique? I highly doubt it. There's a piece of this puzzle missing...

[prisonchaplain]

I still feel there's something I'm not getting. You point out how rare the death penalty was. So why them? You think they were unique? I highly doubt it. There's a piece of this puzzle missing...

Curiosity is a wonderful trait. However, when we ask questions of a story that simply are not answered, we only frustrate ourselves, and risk losing the lessons and experience that Luke was inspired by God to share. It's obvious we do not know the full context of this story. Others have lied to God, misrepresented their gifts, used faith and religion for personal gain, etc. Acts does not spell out why God's judgment of this couple seems so swift and harsh. There is no doctrine of execution to be found here.

So, instead of becoming consternated over what we cannot know, the productive questions to ask are: What can we learn? Why might God become so angered that He would bring sickness or death? What did the couple do wrong, and how did the church respond? How might we do better? What does God want us to get from this story.

Most of the "God's not fair" type questions that could be asked of this story fall under the line of apologetics. The purpose would be to defend God's action. But for us, we know God and his character. He needs no defending. So, my goal would be to learn what the Spirit is saying to the churches through the story--honest, integrity, humility in giving, and understanding that God, our friend, lover of our souls, remains Sovereign Lord.

[Moksha]

Of course it does. Those who say otherwise simply demonstrate they don't understand the teachings of Jesus that they reference.

Or visa versa. The messages of loving others, forgiving, turning the other cheek, and being blessed for meekness and peacemaking should be considered.

:)

Edited July 13, 2009 by Moksha

[sixpacktr]

PC and Vort hit the nail on the head. They had covenanted to live the law of consecration, then decided that they would only live part of it and then LIED to the chosen servant of the Lord about it.

If they had told Peter the truth, or if they had decided to 'opt out' and let everyone know that, personal opinion is they would have lost blessings but not had the death sentence laid upon them. In truth, they had apostatized, after a fashion, in that they had been taught a principle, said they'd live up to it, and when challenged lied about it.

There may be more missing from the story, but we need to look at this as an object lesson and not get caught up in the 'why so harsh' aspect. We too make covenants with our Heavenly Father, and while death is not always the result of our breaking them, the punishments can be just as great, only delayed. In the end, which is worse? Having the Lord take our life here or being cast out from living with God forever because we chose not to honor our covenants? Either one is not acceptable to me...

[Seanette]

I suspect there are parts of this story that Luke wasn't aware of, but that God was.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Doctrine and Covenants 85

Oh yeah, take that!

When enforcing the Law of Consecration in this dispensation, the Lord prescribes a punishment far worse than death to those who keep not the law: They and their ENTIRE FAMILIES (ancestors and descendants) are blotted out from the Book of Remembrance. If all God did was kill them, Annannias and Sapphira got off easy.

Compare to the Ark of the Covenant. It was law punishable by death that only the tribe of Levi ordained in the priesthood could touch the ark. 2 Samuel 6 Uzzah touched the ark (well-intentioned as he was) and broke the law and was struck dead instantly for it. It's the same for the Law of Consecration: the higher the law you are asked to live, the greater and more immediate the consequences for breaking (or living!) that law.

[ryanmercer]

The death penalty was applied very rarely, even in the OT.

I don't see any reason not to take this story at face value. They transgressed a law of God, robbed him, and lied about it.

Correction. The 'death penalty' was written about rarely, even in the OT... just because it isn't in one of the sources listed as a book in the bible... doesn't mean it didn't happen... another problem with the Bible... the books are various sources, selected by groups of men saying "yes, these ones are from God, but oh those other ones... that read identical, just by a different person... well we don't consider them Bible material".

[volgadon]

Actually, I see no evidence that it was applied all that often. Those rare occasions are noteworthy.

[Prodigal_Son]

...Uzzah touched the ark (well-intentioned as he was) and broke the law and was struck dead instantly for it. It's the same for the Law of Consecration: the higher the law you are asked to live, the greater and more immediate the consequences for breaking (or living!) that law.

This is exactly what my mind conjured up as I reviewed the story. Thus, the OT vs. NT question.

But, again, I'll ask (though there may be no answer): why them? why death? How many failed Temple Marriages have been punished by death? How many apostates-gone-public have dropped on the spot at their first book signing?

...another problem with the Bible... the books are various sources, selected by groups of men saying "yes, these ones are from God, but oh those other ones... that read identical, just by a different person... well we don't consider them Bible material".

That sounds like a good argument, but you take God's Hand out of the equation with that one.

==============================

I have no issues with the severity of the punishment. I have no issues with them being punished. I have no problem accepting this story at face value. I'll repeat (yet again) that I'm merely curious, because it doesn't fit the mold. And I'm okay with that. I was just hoping that maybe somebody out there knew more about the issue - had a good G.A. quote about it or something. But, alas, we're all in the dark.

DON'T BREAK YOUR COVENANTS, PEOPLE!!

DON'T LIE TO A PROPHET OF GOD!!

Lesson learned.

[pam]

I posted about this last night on another thread:

http://www.lds.net/forums/40-day-reading-challenge-new-testament/25128-day-19-august-28-acts-5-9-a.html

Post #4

Edited September 3, 2009 by pam