07-27-2010, 05:35 PM
I'm a great believer in frank speech when its called for, with tact of course when necessary, which is going to be most of the time. Often its hard to talk frankly about certain issues of faith though, particularity the negative ones. Even in the church setting, certain issues are rarely if ever brought up for honest discussion.
It was a revelation to me when I discovered that Jesus referred to Jehovah as Dada, like a child does, and encouraged others to do likewise. It started me to think that perhaps God is not some permanently angry patriarchal figure in heaven who is remote and disinterested in us until or unless he is going to strike someone down for some apparently trivial reason. Leaning more about the personality of Jesus away from the WTs `works only might get one into life` mentality was also a welcome change to the stereotypical view of God. It was good to get away from the old testament story's of a God who seemed vengeful, petty and jealous. I was getting away from the type of fear that if I had tried to stop the ark of the covenant from falling over, I might get stuck down for it, with no possibility of grace, repentance, or a second chance to be good, as the old testament testifies happened.
The disparity between the personality of God in Jesus in the new testament and the many old testament story's of Gods personality became one of those topics people rarely discuss in an open and frank way. Certain questions hardly if ever get asked along these lines, and if they do, the answer almost always falls short of being convincing. For example, why is God calling in the old testament an abomination clothing made up of two different types of thread, when in the new testament Jesus says to not judge by the outward appearance? Such questions are hard to answer in any kind of simple way and many don`t even want to talk about it, which is of course understandable.
Of course one of the implications of what Jesus said in the new testament is that we need to pray honestly even about our doubts and most secret fears and issues. Apparently according to Jesus, God our Dada in heaven is even more concerned about our intellectual integrity that we are ourselves. This being the case important question needs to be confronted about such issues. Many cannot bring themselves to accept any kind of Christian God who does the kind of things seen in the old testament. The same goes for the Muslim or Jewish God. Christianity as a faith, is in fact unique of all the other faiths in one specific aspect. That of grace! Grace being a huge and wonderful concept encapsulating many things, least of all things like mercy and undeserved kindness. Certainly it doesn't include the death penalty for miner offenses. Even in the old testament, amid the other more disturbing story's, are in fact examples of reasonableness and proportional justice, along with examples of grace as well. Whats going on?
Of course if the new testament is focused on grace and mercy such questions can seem to become less relevant until they are almost forgotten. Even the book of Revelation can be safely dealt with and softened by assigning to it symbolic status. Then though we come to the story in the book of Acts of Ananias and Sapphira, and we feel as though we have just been transported back into old testament times.
From a surface reading of this passage found in Acts 5:1-11 it seems as though Gods spirit has executed a husband and wife for merely not giving all their own money to the early church
fund. Money that apparently they didn't have to give anyway and that they sold their house for. They gave some money away, apparently out of the generously of their hearts but kept some of their own money back. For this they die?
Then when one looks at the text closer, it seems that perhaps their sin was not the keeping of what was theirs anyway, and what they had worked hard for, but for telling a lie. Can we relax now with this bible passage as that as the explanation? I don`t think so because all of us including me have told lies. What was their lie anyway? The lie wasn't apparently even an outright one, but more of a case of not telling the whole truth. Ananias had sold his property and given this, his own money, to Peter, but not told Peter that it wasn't all of the money he had got for selling his own property. That doesn't seem like much of a sin. Would that not be like me deciding to give some money to some disaster fund, and so i go out and sell my watch because I haven't got enough money in my back account, but then decide to keep half of the money I got for the watch while giving the other half to the fund? I don`t know about anybody else, but if I did that, I would be really pleased with myself for being so generous.
Then after an even deeper reading of the text, it seems as though the sin was not just a deception, but perhaps some kind of attempt to get favor with the congregation on false pretenses. However the text says the deception was apparently to God and the holy spirit first and foremost. Unfortunately the text doest give much in the way of details, and we are left feeling like all those who heard what happened to both he and also his wife who were both struck down by God:
Act 5:11 And great fear seized the whole church and everyone else who heard about this.
It all harks back to the old testament God, who one can not easily feel at peace with, because we might catch him on bad day and get whacked for seemingly small sins we all commit from time to time. The text in Acts doesn't tell us the motive for their crime, or why it deserved the death penalty. It seems as though the holy spirit, rather than Peter executed the sentence. Perhaps the first time Peter is surprised when Ananias falls down dead. The second time he seems to anticipate the same fate for the wife when she walks in. Peter seems to give her a chance, by asking her if the property was sold for the amount given to the church? Peter perhaps is unsure of her guilt, but she confirms her husbands version of events, thus proving she was in on the deception. He predicts her death perhaps based on what had just happened to her husband three hours before, and she drops down dead.
I have always been troubled by this scripture. Some have chastised me for such a feeling, thinking that I am trying to turn God into some wuvy soft teddy bear God, quoting old testament examples of Gods ruthlessness as proof. To me though that doesn't seem quite right. Surly there must be some consistency with Gods personality?
A few night ago I had a bit of a realization, as I was drifting off to sleep, as to the motive and reason for the seriousness of the crime that Ananias and Sapphira apparently committed. Here are my thoughts:
Unlike today most first century women could not support themselves financially unless they had a man in their lives. It would be either a husband or father. Also orphans would not have been housed by social security. So if Christianity as a disapproved minority sect was ever to gain any kind of foothold, it would need a way of supporting all those who might need help. It seems reasonable that given the Jewish propensity to expel wives for any kind of ground, a wife found to have turned to Christianity would likely find her self out on the street, with no options other than to beg, or become a prostitute to survive. So a communal fund within the early Christian community would have been an essentiality. All the first Christians were Jewish, so this makes sense, and James says:
Jas 1:27 A religion that is pure and stainless in the sight of God the Father is this: to take care of orphans and widows in their suffering, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
We know that such a charitable fund did exist as Acts chapter 4 and 2 testifies as well as other places in the new testament:
Act 4:34 For none of them needed anything, because all who had land or houses would sell them and bring the money received for the things sold
Act 4:35 and lay it at the apostles' feet. Then it was distributed to anyone who needed it.
Act 4:36 Now Joseph, a Levite and a native of Cyprus, who was named Barnabas by the apostles (the name means "a son of encouragement"),
Act 4:37 sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.
Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Act 2:45 and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need.
So there is excellent evidence that the early Christians shared much into a community pot, so that all who were in need, such as orphans and widows, or women without a man for financial support could survive. It also helped spread Christianity, because who would want to join a faith that didn't care for its own.
With this background, it provides a few clues as to the possible real sin of Ananias and Sapphira and why it was so serious. I think they were con-artists. I believe that what they wanted to do was sell some of their property, and give a small enough amount from the proceeds that they felt they could get away with for no questions to be asked, to Peter, while keeping the rest, so that they could get charitable help from the communal pot themselves. So with the kudos they would have achieved for their generosity, they would have later claimed that they needed help while actually having loads in the bank as it were, and probably more besides.
If this was the case, they were literally robbing those most in need for their own greed, just like those pastors we hear about on the news, who swindle old lady's out of their life savings, but even worse than that because of the cultural norms of the time concerning women and orphans.
There is a little clue in the text that this might be the case:
Act 5:1 But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold some property.
Act 5:2 With his wife's full knowledge he kept back some of the money for himself and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet.
Act 5:3 Peter asked, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you should lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back some of the money you got for the land?
In verse 1 the word property is used which is ktēma in Greek and strongs says this:
ktēma
ktay'-mah
From G2932; an acquirement, that is, estate: - possession.
In verse 3 the word land is used which is chōrion in Greek:
chōrion
kho-ree'-on
Diminutive of G5561; a spot or plot of ground: - field, land, parcel of ground, place, possession.
This is interesting because it could be that Peter is calling what they sold a spot. So perhaps this indicates that a much smaller amount was sold of their total property or estate than perhaps they had let on. If so it would be as if I were trying to con a communal religious group by joining them, and then selling one of a hundred houses that I owned of which they knew nothing about, and then only giving a small amount as possible for the one house they did know about so that no one suspects in order to make out I gave almost everything, and then asking for their charity for myself from the communal religious group, and living off that, while I secretly build my estate empire on their money, to support my day to day living expenses, while at the same time getting praised by them for my generosity allowing me to fleece them even more. A typical con artists scam.
This is partly speculation on my part, along with a night time insight, which seems to have some circumstantial support from the scriptures. The account in Acts chapter 5 doesn't itself seem to give a complete explanation on their motives anyway, so perhaps my speculation is correct. It is logical! It certainly helps to restore Gods mercy and reasonableness to me to the new testament at least, because if they were guilty to that degree, they would have in fact been guilty of killing the weak and vulnerable had they been able to get away with it. Not to mention slowing down the expansion of Christ message of mercy and grace to other people.
I wonder if some of the old testament stories that often seem so unreasonable and unloving have similar details left out or missed that would explain them better. Perhaps the disparity between the God of the old and new testaments can be dealt with and spoken about frankly with full understanding someday?
By the way I spent my evening writing this, so I hope I get some comments! :D
It was a revelation to me when I discovered that Jesus referred to Jehovah as Dada, like a child does, and encouraged others to do likewise. It started me to think that perhaps God is not some permanently angry patriarchal figure in heaven who is remote and disinterested in us until or unless he is going to strike someone down for some apparently trivial reason. Leaning more about the personality of Jesus away from the WTs `works only might get one into life` mentality was also a welcome change to the stereotypical view of God. It was good to get away from the old testament story's of a God who seemed vengeful, petty and jealous. I was getting away from the type of fear that if I had tried to stop the ark of the covenant from falling over, I might get stuck down for it, with no possibility of grace, repentance, or a second chance to be good, as the old testament testifies happened.
The disparity between the personality of God in Jesus in the new testament and the many old testament story's of Gods personality became one of those topics people rarely discuss in an open and frank way. Certain questions hardly if ever get asked along these lines, and if they do, the answer almost always falls short of being convincing. For example, why is God calling in the old testament an abomination clothing made up of two different types of thread, when in the new testament Jesus says to not judge by the outward appearance? Such questions are hard to answer in any kind of simple way and many don`t even want to talk about it, which is of course understandable.
Of course one of the implications of what Jesus said in the new testament is that we need to pray honestly even about our doubts and most secret fears and issues. Apparently according to Jesus, God our Dada in heaven is even more concerned about our intellectual integrity that we are ourselves. This being the case important question needs to be confronted about such issues. Many cannot bring themselves to accept any kind of Christian God who does the kind of things seen in the old testament. The same goes for the Muslim or Jewish God. Christianity as a faith, is in fact unique of all the other faiths in one specific aspect. That of grace! Grace being a huge and wonderful concept encapsulating many things, least of all things like mercy and undeserved kindness. Certainly it doesn't include the death penalty for miner offenses. Even in the old testament, amid the other more disturbing story's, are in fact examples of reasonableness and proportional justice, along with examples of grace as well. Whats going on?
Of course if the new testament is focused on grace and mercy such questions can seem to become less relevant until they are almost forgotten. Even the book of Revelation can be safely dealt with and softened by assigning to it symbolic status. Then though we come to the story in the book of Acts of Ananias and Sapphira, and we feel as though we have just been transported back into old testament times.
From a surface reading of this passage found in Acts 5:1-11 it seems as though Gods spirit has executed a husband and wife for merely not giving all their own money to the early church
fund. Money that apparently they didn't have to give anyway and that they sold their house for. They gave some money away, apparently out of the generously of their hearts but kept some of their own money back. For this they die?
Then when one looks at the text closer, it seems that perhaps their sin was not the keeping of what was theirs anyway, and what they had worked hard for, but for telling a lie. Can we relax now with this bible passage as that as the explanation? I don`t think so because all of us including me have told lies. What was their lie anyway? The lie wasn't apparently even an outright one, but more of a case of not telling the whole truth. Ananias had sold his property and given this, his own money, to Peter, but not told Peter that it wasn't all of the money he had got for selling his own property. That doesn't seem like much of a sin. Would that not be like me deciding to give some money to some disaster fund, and so i go out and sell my watch because I haven't got enough money in my back account, but then decide to keep half of the money I got for the watch while giving the other half to the fund? I don`t know about anybody else, but if I did that, I would be really pleased with myself for being so generous.
Then after an even deeper reading of the text, it seems as though the sin was not just a deception, but perhaps some kind of attempt to get favor with the congregation on false pretenses. However the text says the deception was apparently to God and the holy spirit first and foremost. Unfortunately the text doest give much in the way of details, and we are left feeling like all those who heard what happened to both he and also his wife who were both struck down by God:
Act 5:11 And great fear seized the whole church and everyone else who heard about this.
It all harks back to the old testament God, who one can not easily feel at peace with, because we might catch him on bad day and get whacked for seemingly small sins we all commit from time to time. The text in Acts doesn't tell us the motive for their crime, or why it deserved the death penalty. It seems as though the holy spirit, rather than Peter executed the sentence. Perhaps the first time Peter is surprised when Ananias falls down dead. The second time he seems to anticipate the same fate for the wife when she walks in. Peter seems to give her a chance, by asking her if the property was sold for the amount given to the church? Peter perhaps is unsure of her guilt, but she confirms her husbands version of events, thus proving she was in on the deception. He predicts her death perhaps based on what had just happened to her husband three hours before, and she drops down dead.
I have always been troubled by this scripture. Some have chastised me for such a feeling, thinking that I am trying to turn God into some wuvy soft teddy bear God, quoting old testament examples of Gods ruthlessness as proof. To me though that doesn't seem quite right. Surly there must be some consistency with Gods personality?
A few night ago I had a bit of a realization, as I was drifting off to sleep, as to the motive and reason for the seriousness of the crime that Ananias and Sapphira apparently committed. Here are my thoughts:
Unlike today most first century women could not support themselves financially unless they had a man in their lives. It would be either a husband or father. Also orphans would not have been housed by social security. So if Christianity as a disapproved minority sect was ever to gain any kind of foothold, it would need a way of supporting all those who might need help. It seems reasonable that given the Jewish propensity to expel wives for any kind of ground, a wife found to have turned to Christianity would likely find her self out on the street, with no options other than to beg, or become a prostitute to survive. So a communal fund within the early Christian community would have been an essentiality. All the first Christians were Jewish, so this makes sense, and James says:
Jas 1:27 A religion that is pure and stainless in the sight of God the Father is this: to take care of orphans and widows in their suffering, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
We know that such a charitable fund did exist as Acts chapter 4 and 2 testifies as well as other places in the new testament:
Act 4:34 For none of them needed anything, because all who had land or houses would sell them and bring the money received for the things sold
Act 4:35 and lay it at the apostles' feet. Then it was distributed to anyone who needed it.
Act 4:36 Now Joseph, a Levite and a native of Cyprus, who was named Barnabas by the apostles (the name means "a son of encouragement"),
Act 4:37 sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.
Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Act 2:45 and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need.
So there is excellent evidence that the early Christians shared much into a community pot, so that all who were in need, such as orphans and widows, or women without a man for financial support could survive. It also helped spread Christianity, because who would want to join a faith that didn't care for its own.
With this background, it provides a few clues as to the possible real sin of Ananias and Sapphira and why it was so serious. I think they were con-artists. I believe that what they wanted to do was sell some of their property, and give a small enough amount from the proceeds that they felt they could get away with for no questions to be asked, to Peter, while keeping the rest, so that they could get charitable help from the communal pot themselves. So with the kudos they would have achieved for their generosity, they would have later claimed that they needed help while actually having loads in the bank as it were, and probably more besides.
If this was the case, they were literally robbing those most in need for their own greed, just like those pastors we hear about on the news, who swindle old lady's out of their life savings, but even worse than that because of the cultural norms of the time concerning women and orphans.
There is a little clue in the text that this might be the case:
Act 5:1 But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold some property.
Act 5:2 With his wife's full knowledge he kept back some of the money for himself and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet.
Act 5:3 Peter asked, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you should lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back some of the money you got for the land?
In verse 1 the word property is used which is ktēma in Greek and strongs says this:
ktēma
ktay'-mah
From G2932; an acquirement, that is, estate: - possession.
In verse 3 the word land is used which is chōrion in Greek:
chōrion
kho-ree'-on
Diminutive of G5561; a spot or plot of ground: - field, land, parcel of ground, place, possession.
This is interesting because it could be that Peter is calling what they sold a spot. So perhaps this indicates that a much smaller amount was sold of their total property or estate than perhaps they had let on. If so it would be as if I were trying to con a communal religious group by joining them, and then selling one of a hundred houses that I owned of which they knew nothing about, and then only giving a small amount as possible for the one house they did know about so that no one suspects in order to make out I gave almost everything, and then asking for their charity for myself from the communal religious group, and living off that, while I secretly build my estate empire on their money, to support my day to day living expenses, while at the same time getting praised by them for my generosity allowing me to fleece them even more. A typical con artists scam.
This is partly speculation on my part, along with a night time insight, which seems to have some circumstantial support from the scriptures. The account in Acts chapter 5 doesn't itself seem to give a complete explanation on their motives anyway, so perhaps my speculation is correct. It is logical! It certainly helps to restore Gods mercy and reasonableness to me to the new testament at least, because if they were guilty to that degree, they would have in fact been guilty of killing the weak and vulnerable had they been able to get away with it. Not to mention slowing down the expansion of Christ message of mercy and grace to other people.
I wonder if some of the old testament stories that often seem so unreasonable and unloving have similar details left out or missed that would explain them better. Perhaps the disparity between the God of the old and new testaments can be dealt with and spoken about frankly with full understanding someday?
By the way I spent my evening writing this, so I hope I get some comments! :D