Non-LDS perspective on Acts 4:32-5:11


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

(Non-LDS only, please; I already know my own understanding, which seems to coincide with the understanding of most of the Latter-day Saints I've asked.)

I am curious how my non-LDS friends here understand the history related in Acts 4:32-5:11, the story of Ananias and Sapphira. How do you see their crime and the divine punishment they received? What do you think this story means, and what are we to learn from it in our day-to-day lives? For Latter-day Saints, the story is quite straightforward and doctrinally understandable, but I gather it is not so to many other Christians. It reads in the KJV as follows:

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I am curious how my non-LDS friends here understand the history related in Acts 4:32-5:11, the story of Ananias and Sapphira. How do you see their crime and the divine punishment they received? What do you think this story means, and what are we to learn from it in our day-to-day lives? For Latter-day Saints, the story is quite straightforward and doctrinally understandable, but I gather it is not so to many other Christians.

I've always seen it as straight forward. The couple attempted to use the church as a platform for promoting their own charitability. They lied about what their offering meant to them, and for disrespecting God and his congregation, they died.

The Apostle Paul offers a similar warning about Holy Communion, saying that some, who came in an unworthy manner, became sick. Some even slept (i.e. died).

As for meanings, we come to church to worship and honor God. We do not come to promote ourselves or for mere pleasure or social interaction. We do not mock God or his congregation.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vort,

Too be honest, I find it a very confronting story.

It is one part of restoring the NT church, that many would not be keen on.

Lessons for today...

1) Don't lie about your Christian actions

2) If you make a commitment to God make sure you follow through with it

3) Christian should seek to use our wealth and other blessing from God to help others in the church.

Clearly God no longer seems to strike people down on the spot today. I have often wonder on the couples eternal fate, hopefully they had not fallen fully out of a covenant relationship. In some ways the judgement may have been merciful. If left to go on in this manner, what little faith they may have retained would have ebbed away. For me better to die, then live a life giving up the faith and walking further and further from God.

I can't answer what someone who believed in "the perseverance of the saints" (ie once saved always saved) would make of the story. I would presume they would indicate that they were saved despite the judgement or were never saved in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I understand PC and AnthonyB correctly, in their view, the sin of Ananias and Sapphira was not in holding back some part of the proceeds, but in lying about their actions and pretending their donation was the whole amount instead of just a part. Is that correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I understand PC and AnthonyB correctly, in their view, the sin of Ananias and Sapphira was not in holding back some part of the proceeds, but in lying about their actions and pretending their donation was the whole amount instead of just a part. Is that correct?

In Roman Catholic teaching, the answer to this question is yes.

The verses:

"why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God."

Was the sin that Peter discerned on Ananias and his wife for which God meted out the punishment.

Basically, Ananias did not have to sell the land nor give the proceeds to the church. It was his land and remained under his control. But he ceded control of the land to the church when he declared the proceeds of the land as an offering (we assume he did it to compete with Barnabas). But Ananias, with his wife's consent, secretly held on to a piece of the proceeds for his and his wife's security. This is the sin - the deception.

In Roman Catholic teaching, this passage has quite a number of lessons ranging from tithes and offerings to faith versus works to indulgences to capital punishment...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anatess - you are a member of the Church and have broken Vort's rule. Tisk---Tisk

:P

I went and laid down on the couch with a watch on a chain getting dangled infront of my eyes bringing me back to my old Catholic self... from whence I gave the answer. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe you can add the LDS to Anatess, but you can't take the Catholic out of her. Fortunately, President Hinckley said that this was okay...bring the best you have with you...

Well, in Catholic doctrine, you really can't become un-Catholic... even if you get excommunicated. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a note from my personal perspective - this scripture does not make sense to me and I am not sure that the scripture is historically accurate. In essence, I would not go screaming off into the night or lose any sleep if someday it was discovered that somewhere the text was accidentally changed.

I do not believe it was apostasy or some evil conspiracy that brought about the change. I just think that men are capable of sometimes making a mistake - and since I belong to that set of men - it could just as well be me making the mistake. I would be more interested if anyone LDS or non-LDS thinks I should be cast off forever because this is, at least for them, in essence rejecting the word of G-d?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a note from my personal perspective - this scripture does not make sense to me and I am not sure that the scripture is historically accurate. In essence, I would not go screaming off into the night or lose any sleep if someday it was discovered that somewhere the text was accidentally changed.

I do not believe it was apostasy or some evil conspiracy that brought about the change. I just think that men are capable of sometimes making a mistake - and since I belong to that set of men - it could just as well be me making the mistake. I would be more interested if anyone LDS or non-LDS thinks I should be cast off forever because this is, at least for them, in essence rejecting the word of G-d?

The Traveler

Sure, the Bible can have mistakes. I just don't see what about this story makes it that it must have to be a mistake. What's the mistake? That Ananias and his wife died that instant? I don't see that as unbelievable/impossible in relation to everything else in the Bible. I mean - Lot's wife becomes a pillar of salt... that would be more unbelievable/impossible.

Nothing in the story says how they died - only that they did. My logical brain can theorize that both of them died of heart failure caused by extreme guilt. But, watching the Life of Pi reminds me that, that may be easier for my brain to grasp but it really doesn't matter much to the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traveler, I'm not in the casting off business. However, I know of no scholarship indicating that this passage is in question. The latter part of Mark 16, yes. A few other short passages, yes. Some wording of phrases here and then, yes. However, a major story out of the Book of Acts??? No. We know the author, have a good idea of the dating...we're just going to have to deal with the uncomfortableness of God striking church people dead. After all, he did the same with the soldiers who touched the Ark of the Covenant, to keep it from falling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vort, you seemed to have some issue or idea or interpretation in mind when you started this. Could you give us more details?

As I said, I have what I consider to be an "LDS interpretation" which seems utterly obvious to me, but I wanted to get a non-LDS perspective. Thanks.

My interpretation is: This is very clearly a matter of covenant violation. It seems very clear to me that these people lived what might (among Mormons) be termed a "united order" style of life, where all things are common. Such a lifestyle, like Christianity itself, is entered only by covenant. And covenants with God are great and terrible things -- great for those who keep them, terrible for those who do not. By holding back part of the price of the land sold, Ananias and Sapphira were secretly (they thought) defying that covenant.

When a person enters into such a covenant, he (or she) is very literally giving himself (herself) over to God. The blessings to be received from God are exponentially magnified if you keep the covenant; then again, if you break the covenant, you have already agreed to account to God for it. Perhaps this is why it is often said that, if you know you will break your covenant with God, you are better off never making it in the first place.

There are those who say, "God won't condemn me for my sins. I believe in a forgiving God, so he'll forgive me for whatever I do. I'm good to go." Such people utterly misunderstand (or close their eyes to) the natures of both God and forgiveness.

Having said the above, let me add that I am not sure that Ananias' and Sapphira's deaths were punishments. 1 Corinthians 5:5 speaks of delivering a fellow Saint to Satan "for the destruction of the flesh". Contrary to the opinions of some, who see this as some sort of "capital punishment", this verse speaks of something more like excommunication to allow the natural consequence of sin to take hold. And remember, the point was not the destruction of the man, but rather his salvation. In the same vein, I wonder if the deaths of these two Christians was not a way for the God of nature to exact the required penalty for their covenant-breaking, thus allowing the atonement of Christ to save their spirits. I rather dislike the mechanistic nature of this idea -- God "needs" to get his specific pound of flesh before the atonement can apply -- but there might be an underlying principle at play. The same idea seems to be suggested in D&C 132:26, which reads:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

Again, this clearly is not some sort of "capital punishment", but an exclusion of the covenant breaker from among the covenant people so that divine retribution can be exacted and the mercies of the atonement operative. I freely admit I don't understand this concept well; that's sort of my best guess at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My good friends anatess and prisonchaplain:

It is my understanding that “all” things in scripture should (one may even understand perhaps that as I have used “should” that it ought to be “must”) be applied directly to one’s (my) personal life and experience.

From my scientific background I find 1Thessalonians 5:21 quite straight forward and relevant:

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

In all my experience and in all the combined experience of all those I know personally and trust fully to be honest and truthful – I have never experienced nor heard of such experience concerning anyone trying to commit themselves to the Kingdom and church of G-d.

I have, however, had much experience with what I would call “faith promoting rumors” that have found their expression in many “important” circles. That in my experience with “well meaning” individuals willing to pass on “stories” that seem to have some value or point but are in essence more symbolic than preciously accurate in every detail.

Thus I am not willing to give “witness” that such things must be expected, believed and experienced in order to, as the scriptures testify and as I understand – encouraging us to “try” and “prove” the wonders, goodness and blessings of G-d and his Kingdom.

Sorry – I just do not “get” it. If you personally have experience – I will try to understand but perhaps I am too much like Thomas – until I have something with which I can relate and understand – I must be honest and admit – it is a problem for me.

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My good friends anatess and prisonchaplain:

It is my understanding that “all” things in scripture should (one may even understand perhaps that as I have used “should” that it ought to be “must”) be applied directly to one’s (my) personal life and experience.

From my scientific background I find 1Thessalonians 5:21 quite straight forward and relevant:

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

In all my experience and in all the combined experience of all those I know personally and trust fully to be honest and truthful – I have never experienced nor heard of such experience concerning anyone trying to commit themselves to the Kingdom and church of G-d.

I have, however, had much experience with what I would call “faith promoting rumors” that have found their expression in many “important” circles. That in my experience with “well meaning” individuals willing to pass on “stories” that seem to have some value or point but are in essence more symbolic than preciously accurate in every detail.

Thus I am not willing to give “witness” that such things must be expected, believed and experienced in order to, as the scriptures testify and as I understand – encouraging us to “try” and “prove” the wonders, goodness and blessings of G-d and his Kingdom.

Sorry – I just do not “get” it. If you personally have experience – I will try to understand but perhaps I am too much like Thomas – until I have something with which I can relate and understand – I must be honest and admit – it is a problem for me.

The Traveler

I guess I don't understand what about it poses a problem for you. Say, what's the difference between that and the story of Lot's wife? Or do you also have a problem with Lot's wife? It confuses me because a gigantic portion of the Bible and the Book of Mormon are stories such as these. Jonah eaten by a whale and spit back out... Daniel in the lion's den... and... Jesus Christ healed the lepers, the blind, the lame, resurrected Lazarus, and.... finally... rose from the dead. All very fantastical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, I have what I consider to be an "LDS interpretation" which seems utterly obvious to me, but I wanted to get a non-LDS perspective. Thanks.

My interpretation is: This is very clearly a matter of covenant violation. It seems very clear to me that these people lived what might (among Mormons) be termed a "united order" style of life, where all things are common. Such a lifestyle, like Christianity itself, is entered only by covenant. And covenants with God are great and terrible things -- great for those who keep them, terrible for those who do not. By holding back part of the price of the land sold, Ananias and Sapphira were secretly (they thought) defying that covenant.

When a person enters into such a covenant, he (or she) is very literally giving himself (herself) over to God. The blessings to be received from God are exponentially magnified if you keep the covenant; then again, if you break the covenant, you have already agreed to account to God for it. Perhaps this is why it is often said that, if you know you will break your covenant with God, you are better off never making it in the first place.

There are those who say, "God won't condemn me for my sins. I believe in a forgiving God, so he'll forgive me for whatever I do. I'm good to go." Such people utterly misunderstand (or close their eyes to) the natures of both God and forgiveness.

Having said the above, let me add that I am not sure that Ananias' and Sapphira's deaths were punishments. 1 Corinthians 5:5 speaks of delivering a fellow Saint to Satan "for the destruction of the flesh". Contrary to the opinions of some, who see this as some sort of "capital punishment", this verse speaks of something more like excommunication to allow the natural consequence of sin to take hold. And remember, the point was not the destruction of the man, but rather his salvation. In the same vein, I wonder if the deaths of these two Christians was not a way for the God of nature to exact the required penalty for their covenant-breaking, thus allowing the atonement of Christ to save their spirits. I rather dislike the mechanistic nature of this idea -- God "needs" to get his specific pound of flesh before the atonement can apply -- but there might be an underlying principle at play. The same idea seems to be suggested in D&C 132:26, which reads:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

Again, this clearly is not some sort of "capital punishment", but an exclusion of the covenant breaker from among the covenant people so that divine retribution can be exacted and the mercies of the atonement operative. I freely admit I don't understand this concept well; that's sort of my best guess at it.

You use different words, and there are some aspects of LDS teaching that are unique, but I find myself agreeing with the gist of what you say here. I suspect that the couple's eternal souls were spared, but that this infraction had to be dealt with in a way that made clear to the congregation that Almighty God and his congregation are holy and not to be trifled with or taken advantage of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share