I have an interesting question for christians and I would love to know your thoughts on the topic. Not only your thoughts but how you back up what you believe with scripture.

We all as Christians still sin but we don't die when we do. I believe the Bible teaches the grace of God is how we get saved this side of the cross. In other words, it is about the finished work of our savior the Lord Jesus Christ by grace through faith. So how does the story of Ananias and Sapphira fits in with grace and the church. How could this have happened?

Tess – I’m sure there are many others who have wrestled with this same event…myself included. I’d like to offer my thoughts on this and I mean to continue our other discussion.

Ok, let’s summarize Acts 1-5 (up until the event with Ananias and Sapphira (A&N)). Luke has been recording the events immediately following Christ’s ascension. Miracles are performed; the power of the Spirit of God is displayed through the Apostles and the church is growing and thriving…so much so that the collective generosity of the church was documented by Luke; he made a point to illustrate how united they were in one spirit and how the supernatural activity of God was working wonderful things in the midst of all to see.

People were experiencing the grace and the mercy of God in such a profound and powerful way so as you are reading this account, suddenly we come to the events of A&N, which seems to disrupt all of the wonderful things that were being done. The reader is left to puzzle over why Luke decides to record this event after all the great things God had done. Why? Why this event? Why does Luke record this? I think we find this event sandwiched in the middle of all these wonderful things to remind the church and the reader of something very important: God is a God of mercy first; but God is also just and righteous and he hates sin.

Ok, but couldn’t any of us have been A&N? All of us are guilty of the same kinds of sin; and at times even worse. Why aren’t we struck down dead for our sins like they were? Well, maybe it is fitting to first understand what it was they were guilty of and go from there. Were A&N guilty of just lying? No. Peter says that they “lied to the Holy Spirit.” That’s certain. But what else? Barnabas had earlier been recorded as having given his land up for sale and giving all of the proceeds to the church and the church no doubt were encouraged by his sacrifice. So much so that A&N decided to get in on the act. Presumably, they saw the attention that Barnabas’ act of generosity received and desired to follow Barnabas in his act…only it is later revealed that their act of generosity was motivated for the wrong reasons. A&N had sold their land but they withheld all of the money; they wanted the glory of their sacrificial act without the reality of it…they wanted their cake and to eat it, too. What was their evil? They were hypocrites. They acted as if being charitable to the saints was what was motivating their hearts but their real desire was for glory and not to bless the saints. “They wanted the credit and the prestige for sacrificial generosity, without the inconvenience of it. So, in order to gain a reputation to which they had no right, they told a brazen lie. Their motive in giving was not to relieve the poor, but to fatten their own ego” (John Stott). They failed to realize that the Spirit of God knew their hearts and so they were put to death for their evil.

But again, why weren’t they just ridiculed in the same manner that Peter was by Paul? Wasn’t Peter’s evil just as bad as this offence? Why wasn’t Peter struck down? Why wasn’t Peter struck down when he denied Jesus? Here are a couple of thoughts to consider. First, when it comes right down to it, if mercy is mercy, we don’t deserve mercy; mercy is given to us from God. God reserves the right to grant mercy to whomever he wants to, whenever he wants to. And if he chooses not to be merciful, then he has the right to destroy someone. That’s God’s prerogative. We cannot presume on God’s mercy…it is not a given.

Is God unjust for killing A&N? No. Killing them served his purpose at that moment. What was that purpose? I think it was to remind the church of the fact that he is both merciful and longsuffering but that he is also just…he will not always respond to sin with mercy. I think that he also demonstrated his desire for the church to be filled with authentic believers. Jesus often rebuked the Pharisees for being hypocrites. They claimed to be one way but inwardly they were not committed to God at all. Jesus gave the sternest rebukes of all to them because ultimately their hypocrisy was damnable…God wasn’t just saying to them “hey, guys, cut it out…be real and stuff.” He was saying to them, “unless you repent and bear fruits worthy of repentance, you will be destroyed.” You cannot fake a commitment to God to both men and God…we can fool men, but God searches our hearts.

So were A&N not authentic believers? Were they unbelievers masquerading as believers? Ultimately, we don’t know…the text doesn’t say. There’s no reason to believe that they were but it’s also equally possible that they were believers and God just chose to take their lives at that moment. But if they are believers, then for God to judge them in that way is not a problem; they will not be found guilty for their sins on the Day of Judgment…God will overlook their sins and be merciful to them. But if they are not believers, then this event served as a visible reminder of God’s attitude towards hypocrites. Ultimately, I believe that God’s mercy triumphs over his judgment but lest we forget…he is just.

This event is a sobering reality. It was awe-inspiring…” Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.” Not fear in the sense that God is a ruthless tyrant, waiting to drop the hammer on us; but godly fear. A healthy respect for who God is and for his rightful place of importance in this world. It is a fondness for his love and his mercy and a right understanding that God is different from us…he is awesome and morally perfect; we are not. And godly fear is good because with it we see our need for mercy and God’s willingness to give it. And I also see in this event an invitation for others to see their evil and come to God for mercy.

I think the key is the "great fear" that came upon the church. A lot of these people were used to the little games that their Jewish leaders played with the law and the rules; this event illustrates that we've got something new here. This is no game, folks. You're in or you're out, there are no fringes here where you can be a part-time believer. Peter pointed out that the money was theirs to do with as they pleased, and if they didn't want to give it, they didn't have to. If they only wanted to give part of it, they could do that, too. But you're giving to God, not to men, so be straight about whatever you're going to do. You notice it only took one example and nobody tried that again. I suspect that's the reason. Harsh, but effective.

I see it as perhaps a reminder to the church, that Yes, there is grace, and yes there is forgiveness, but that God also can and does punish us for our actions. They may well be forgiven and saved, but it also does not mean that we can not be punished for our misdeeds. A Christian does not have freedom to sin and sin without paying a price also

Fr-Chuck,

but your thoughts are in contrast to what the bible teaches. Now that isn't to say we can sin and sin and there is no consequence as a believer. The Lord will chastise us. But he doesn't KILL us. The bible says where sin abounds Grace much MORE abounds. You can't out sin grace. And Jesus was already PUNISHED completely for our sins. I'm just saying...

Dave,

Think your thoughts don't line up with grace. There are no exceptions. Sin is sin, grace is grace. Jesus was PUNISHED for our sins already. The Lord chastises us this side of the cross.. he doesn't take our lives or we would all be dead. Any sin I commit is always against the LORD. So I am struggling to buy that explanation. All scriptures must fit together. It doesn't go with what Paul preaches.

Jake,

as usual you really dove into this question and put a lot of thought into it.

The thing is the bible doesn't SAY they were believers. However, Peter certainly thought they were and remember if you were a Jew and you believed in the Lord Jesus you were an outcast to your family and all other Jews. It wouldn't be easy back then to follow the Lord Jesus and be part of that group. So we are NOT sure they were believers but I really think they were but if they weren't that would be the answer. I think.

I still stand by the word of the God that Grace more abounds over sin in the church period today. God does NOT deal with his church this way. I mean, I have wanted my cake and I have eaten it too! Too many times and even at my lowest point all I ever received from the Lord Jesus was grace,grace and MORE grace. I stand in awe at how much grace was poured out on me when I was in a sin cycle. It is understanding this grace that made me want to die to the sin. It wasn't judgement that made me stop. It was love, grace and mercy. I think the NT is full of that truth. We'd all be dead in my estimation if the Lord dealt with us in this way.

My father always said this is how the Lord first dealt with the church and because sin came in it is in ruin. That is why we have all these denominations and the body doesn't agree. Can't buy that one either. No one can satisfy me because we have to compare scripture with scripture and put it all in context. This story doesn't fit into what we call the church period today.

OK... how about this explanation. See if I am off the wall here.

I am really big into putting the bible into context. Understanding what is going on at that point in history, who is speaking, why and all that. If you have read any of my posts, you know that.

Even when Peter preached at Pentacost and 3000 were saved, he didn't know anything about Christianity, the body of Christ, Grace, the church period. We see Peter and the others still going to temple.. still following the law. They are waiting for the Lord to set up his Kingdom here on earth. They have no clue that gentiles would be included. This is another reason people get so confused and think you have to be baptised in order to be saved! Because Peter said to repent and be baptised! It needs to be put in context.

Now I understand if A&S were saved they were part of the church.. but none of them had any knowledge of the church period. It wasn't until several chapters later that Paul was introduced and saved. Paul was the one that was given the gospel as we know it today and the revelation of the church, the bride or the body of Christ.

So, I'm just asking you all, Could this be a picture ( A&S) of how it will be when the Lord Jesus sets up his kingdom on earth for 1000 years. If people sin openly in that day, they die. There will be no trial, no jury. The Lord Jesus willl judge every morning. In fact after 1000 years of him having totally authority, satan is let loose and the people who obeyed the Lord because they HAD to will revolt. They don't like his power OK.t I am digressing... sorry.

Any thoughts? Enlighten me.

Jake,

I read your post again. I get it. I know exactly what you are saying and I think you are right and yet it SILL doesn't fit with grace. Does it? It fits under law and the OT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Dave,

Think your thoughts don't line up with grace. There are no exceptions. sin is sin, grace is grace. Jesus was PUNISHED for our sins already. the Lord chastises us this side of the cross..he doesn't take our lives or we would all be dead. Any sin I commit is always against the LORD. So I am struggling to buy that explanation. All scriptures must fit together. it doesn't go with what Paul preaches.

---

I get what you're saying, and I'm inclined to agree. At the same time, we have passages like this one.

For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Cor 5:3-5)

(The NIV reads "sinful nature" instead of "flesh" which is one of my biggest gripes, and why I went with the KJV here, just so' you know.)

And this:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (1 Cor 11:29-30)

So even Paul seems to allow for the Lord to practice a little corporal punishment when He deems it necessary. I really don't know a definitive answer to your question, that's just my take on it, and I sure won't go to the stake for it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Jake,

I read your post again. I get it. I know exactly what you are saying and I think you are right and yet it SILL doesn't fit with grace. does it? It fits under law and the OT.

---

I want to answer this question and I will when I get the first opportunity to today.

TTYL

Ohhhh great verses Dave.

Ok here on my thoughts. If you read what Paul was writing to the church in cornith and put it in context it is easy to see that communion is a big deal. It wasn't their sin that made them unworthy. It was their not decerning the bread and the wine. I believe taking holy communion can heal the body but when you go to the Lord's table to eat drink and be merry... you miss the whole point. It is no longer holy communion, it is no longer representing the Lord's broken body for us or his shed blood. They weren't sick and weak and dying because of sin. It was because they didn't come to the table understanding it wasn't a meal. These elements represent the Lord and has healing qualities if we take them with understanding.

AND... love that you brought up the guy living with his step momma ( ewwwwwww I have a step son... it is a disgusting thing to think abou fyi)
OK the way I read it, in context is simple... the congregation in general were glorying in the relationship. Paul was appalled rightly so. He told them to put him out of their fellowship so he would change his behavior. The Lord always disciplines the ones he loves... letting Satan get a hold if this guy IS discipline. ( This brother gave satan access to his life by living this way. When we get to 2 corinthians, it looks as though the man repented. But he never lost his salvation... not ever. Don't you just love eternal security.

and I don't have the answers either.. I'm just thinking outloud and love to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter. It is a great way to grow. Enjoyed your comments, scripture and thoughts. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakester

I want to answer this question and I will when I get the first opportunity to today.

TTYL

---

Great. Just when you can. Love hearing your thoughts.

Hi Tess,

I think you have hit upon is yet another example of what is known as as the 'Euthyphro Dilemma'. Seems to happen sometimes when people compare the Old and New Testaments.

The story goes something like this. In Ancient Greece there was a priest named Euthyphro. He was only his way to court to prosecute his uncle for the death of a slave. Socrates stops Euthyphro on his way to court and asks him why he is going to prosecute his favorite uncle. To which Euthyphro replies, "Because the Gods require I do this". Socrates in his usual annoying fashion asks. " Is what you are doing morally right simply because the Gods command it, or is it the case that the Gods would only ever command something morally right?". Euthyphro goes away totally confused.

The same problem still exists today and there doesn't seem to be a satisfactory answer. Today it is know as the problem of immoral commands. In other words, either God prohibits something because it is wrong, or God commanding something automatically makes it wrong. This is regardless of whether we see certain acts such as the killing of A and S to be wrong.

Clearly, there is a problem here. People tend to say, "clearly there must be something wrong here with God's commands if he demands the death of people who haven't done much wrong at all. Anyway, compared to other people in history.

Like yourself. Most people want an objective account of morality. In other words, there is a necessary connection between religion, morality and objectivity. God, sometimes doing things 'out of the blue' doesn't fit in well with this account.

Some people would counter by saying that God has certain attitudes towards what is right and wrong and his attitude towards these things is all that matters. If God decides that A and S should die, then this is all that matters. Clearly this is an objective account of some type, but it is not an objective account of morality.

On the other hand, if we want an objective account of morality then we need to come up with something other than a version of the divine command theory. In other words, we would rather claim that God prohibits things which are morally wrong. On this basis we need to provide a satisfactory explanation of some of the O.T stories while at the same time providing an objective account of morality. I have no idea how this would be done.

Regards
Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Clearly, there is a problem here. People tend to say, "clearly there must be something wrong here with God's commands if he demands the death of people who haven't done much wrong at all. Anyway, compared to other people in history.

---

Good points, Tut. This episode compounds the question, because God didn't just command their deaths, he struck them down directly. If someone in the room, even Peter, had said "God commands that you be put to death," there might be room to question whether he actually heard from God or misunderstood something, but what is recorded here leaves little room for doubt!

HI Tess,
I personally see them as still under the law and not under grace. So, under the law their crime was punishable by death. And death is what they got.

Tut,

The Lord will never do something randomly or outside of his word. He places his word ABOVE his name.

There IS an answer to A&S. A definite reason why this story is recorded. I'm not comparing this story with the OT. I'm comparing it to the Church period. It doesn't appear to fit in with grace and what Paul wrote that where sin abounds grace much MORE abounds. Since the gospel of grace and the church period was something that Peter and the 12 were completely in the dark about during the time A&S were struck dead by GOD, perhaps we need to take a second look at it. I don't think the Lord was dealing with them like he does the church today. He delt with them like he will when he rules and reigns when he sets up his Kingdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 450donn

HI Tess,
I personally see them as still under the law and not under grace. So, under the law their crime was punishable by death. And death is what they got.

---

Hey! How are you?

Yes, it doesn't fit at all with grace. But the Lord has died and rose.. so it doesn't fit under the law either. I think it is a picture of the Kingdom and how it will run when the Lord Jesus is on the throne.

Also it really is important to notice the bible never records these two were saved. I have a tendency to think they were, like I stated before, you were an outcast to own the name of Christ back then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Tut,

The Lord will never do something randomly or outside of his word. He places his word ABOVE his name.

---

Hi again Tess,

Isn't this the thing you are questioning in your original post?


Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Yes, it doesn't fit at all with grace. But the Lord has died and rose ..so it doesn't fit under the law either. I think it is a picture of the Kingdom and how it will run when the Lord Jesus is on the throne.

---

An interesting idea... if one is premillennial :p But seriously, I do have a problem with it, because it only seems to have happened this one time, and if it's such a picture, it's a mighty obscure one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi again Tess,

Isn't this the thing you are questioning in your original post?


Tut

---

Tut,

Well, sort of. But I know that I know God doesn't do something random or without a reason. It does fit... but I want to know where. Either these two were NEVER saved... or the Lord is showing us something else. It just has nothing in the world to do with Grace. It can't. That is my point... ( I think?):confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

An interesting idea...if one is premillennial :p But seriously, I do have a problem with it, because it only seems to have happened this one time, and if it's such a picture, it's a mighty obscure one.

---

Well OK again thinking outloud. When Peter preached and 3000 were saved... what did he preach? Wasn't it repent and be baptized. He had no knowledge of Ephesians... where we are placed, the gift of righteousness... living not under the law but by faith. Am I right or am I right? Where do you think this story belongs. Is it under grace. Am I off on some strange tangent. ( so unlike me :D)

Thinking again... If at the stoning of stephen the people hadn't rejected his message don't you think the Lord would have come back to set up his Kingdom. I mean stephen ( before he died) said he saw the LORD standing at the right hand of the Father... why was he standing? Could it be he was ready to come back he wanted the nation of Israel to accept stephen's message? Later we see in Hebrews ( I think it is hebrews) he is sitting at the right hand. Don't you think it means something that he was standing and now sitting. I do. What say you? Actually I need to read the passages again. I'm going to take a second look at Stephen's stoning and make sure I have the standing and sitting correctly. But I think that is what I remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Well ok again thinking outloud. when Peter preached and 3000 were saved...what did he preach? wasn't it repent and be baptized. He had no knowledge of Ephesians...where we are placed, the gift of righteousness....living not under the law but by faith. Am i right or am I right? Where do you think this story belongs. Is it under grace. Am i off on some strange tangent. ( so unlike me :D)

thinking again....If at the stoning of stephen the people hadn't rejected his message don't you think the Lord would have come back to set up his Kingdom. I mean stephen ( before he died) said he saw the LORD standing at the right hand of the Father...why was he standing? Could it be he was ready to come back he wanted the nation of Israel to accept stephen's message? Later we see in Hebrews ( i think it is hebrews) he is sitting at the right hand. Don't you think it means something that he was standing and now sitting. I do. What say you? Actually I need to read the passages again. I'm going to take a second look at Stephen's stoning and make sure I have the standing and sitting correctly. But I think that is what I remember.

---

You're right about the standing/sitting thing, don't worry. The way I've always heard it, he was standing to welcome Stephen as the first Christian martyr. That works for me, but other ideas are probably equally valid.

Getting back to the original question, I gave my thoughts on it - a fairly harsh illustration to the blossoming church that this isn't a game where you can play around hedging the rules, seeing what you can get away with and lying about it, the way their previous religious system had been monkeying with the Law. Give or don't give, just be straight about it. We're told that as a result, "great fear" came upon the rest of the church, and it would appear that nobody else ever tried such a stunt. Point made.

That's my take on it, but again, I won't go to the lions' den for it. From your theological starting point I think your idea makes sense in a way, so your view has as much chance of being right as mine does. That's about as much as I can add that isn't just basic fluff and chit-chat. Not that I don't enjoy doing those things with you, too ;)

Dave,

Well your view is exactly what I was brought up on. Just doesn't fit into grace... I don't care how you slice it. But I understand.

Ok.. here is some chit chat. Oh please on the welcoming Stephen the martyr... like he needs our blood. His is the only blood needed. But I too have heard that... I like my thoughts better... it fits better into my ideaRRRS about grace and the Lord setting up his kingdom. According to the bible the death of the saints are all precious to the Lord Jesus. And yeah.. I'm picking a fight withja. Even if you aren't ready to head to the Lions den for it. I'm bored Dave... what can I say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Dave,

well your view is exactly what I was brought up on. Just doesn't fit into grace...i don't care how you slice it. But I understand.

Ok..here is some chit chat. Oh please on the welcoming Stephen the martyr...like he needs our blood. His is the only blood needed. but I too have heard that...i like my thoughts better...it fits better into my ideaRRRS about grace and the Lord setting up his kingdom. According to the bible the death of the saints are all precious to the Lord Jesus. and yeah..i'm picking a fight withja. Even if you aren't ready to head to the Lions den for it. I'm bored Dave...what can i say?

---

I'm equally bored, so let's have some fun!

I don't mean that Jesus "needed" Stephen's blood in any way, or anything like that. What I've heard, and what I tentatively can accept, is that Stephen was the first one to lose his life for the gospel. Jesus standing to meet him as he crossed the threshold was an act of respect, not something Jesus needed. Who knows? Maybe he honors all martyrs this way.

I think we're at an impasse with the A&N question, so I'm fine if you want to run with this a bit :)

no where in scripture does it say that these two are burning in hell. Know this ,there is a sin which is unto death 1 john 4:16-17 Simply put,when a born again Christian lives in a manner that is utterly sinful,God has the wisdom and grace to end the fleshly life of those who seriously injure the cause of Christ and the gospel. These two,attempting to lie to God,and shame the church at such an early age in church history may well have posed such a threat. God is not mocked. So then, realize the holiness of a righteous God. He is so perfect and Holy,even his anger and hatred is more perfect, righteous and holy than our filthy ragged righteousness. Therefor,be wary,our sin will find us out,for God's word is not broken. Let us not be pretentious.

Belovedgift,

I have been taught that all my life but I've been studying grace and now I'm not so sure about that. I don't think that God comes in and takes our lives if we aren't doing right.

The writer of Hebrews is writing concerning discipline and how the Father disciplines those he loves. Check out what he says in Hebrews:

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected [us], and we gave [them] reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and LIVE?


It sounds more to me that discipline is so that we may LIVE. I don't know? I could be wrong. But Grace is unmerited and undeserved favor. If God can then take someone who didn't deserve his forgiveness in the first place, who did nothing to earn it, then where is the grace? That sounds more like law to me.

The bible never says that A&S were saved. Maybe that really is the answer. I have a hard time believing it just because of how much a Jew was persecuted for owning the name of Jesus. But... maybe.

It is written that:

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

This is referring to the Second Coming of Christ. Why then was ananias and sapphira condemned without GRACE or Mercy?

BECAUSE:

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (Matthew 12:31-32)


As Peter puts it:

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? (Acts 5:3)

And these happened:

Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. (1 Corinthians 10:11)

Praise the Lord!

I have been taught that all my life but I've been studying grace and now I'm not so sure about that. I don't think that God comes in and takes our lives if we aren't doing right.
Do not be deceived,God is not mocked . Whatsoever a man sows,that shall he also reap. Galatians 6:7

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belovedgift

I have been taught that all my life but I've been studying grace and now i'm not so sure about that. I don't think that God comes in and takes our lives if we aren't doing right.
do not be deceived,God is not mocked . whatsoever a man sows,that shall he also reap. Galatians 6:7

---

Simply throwing Bible verses around doesn't answer the question or further the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belovedgift

I have been taught that all my life but I've been studying grace and now i'm not so sure about that. I don't think that God comes in and takes our lives if we aren't doing right.
do not be deceived,God is not mocked . whatsoever a man sows,that shall he also reap. Galatians 6:7

---

I'm not sure that verse you quoted is in context. If we are living under do good get good... do bad get bad... then where is the grace? Where is the unmerited, underserved favor? How can I be punished for sin when God already punished the Lord Jesus and I accepted him?

Wow, I just started looking up the meanings of their names. I don't know if I am on the right track... but it appears that ananias means God is GRACious... and Sapphira... comes from the jewel saphire. Did you know that the jews believe the tablets of stone that the 10 commandments were made of were blue like sapphire.

Is this a stretch? When you mix Grace and Law together ends in death. Am I reading too much here! I'm sort of excited... don't you think that is interesting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Did you know that the jews believe the tablets of stone that the 10 commandments were made of were blue like sapphire. Is this a stretch? When you mix Grace and Law together ends in death. Am I reading too much here!? I'm sort of excited...don't you think that is interesting?

---

You might be on to something. I found this (Were the 10 Commandment Tablets Blue? The Happy Surprise) --

According to traditional teachings of Judaism in the Talmud, they [the tablets] were made of blue sapphire stone as a symbolic reminder of the sky, the heavens, and ultimately of God’s throne; many Torah scholars, however, have opined that the Biblical “sapir” was, in fact, the lapis lazuli. (Wikipedia)

and later on the page --

God directed Israelite men to wear blue tassels on their garment. Why?
The blue thread was to remind them of God’s Law, the blue commandments.

WG,

Thanks for the link.. this can't be a coincidence. There is something more to this story of A&S, it must fit in with grace and I have never ( even as a little girl) thought it did. It has bugged me. It is still bugging me.

That shows to go you that the Bible is still full of mysteries and parallels of which we know naught.

A Bible group could do a whole study on this, methinks.

Well here's what I get out of this account.

A & S were members of the Christian congregation of Jerusalem and we know this because after Pentecost 33 CE, other Christians in Jerusalem were selling off goods/land and voluntarily giving the profits toward a fund set up for visitors that had travelled from distant lands to Jerusalem for the Festival, in order to provide for their physical needs and among them were A & S, who sold off one of their fields. (Acts 5:1)

In Acts 5:3 their sin was to "play false to the holy spirit" by trying to deceive their fellow Christians into thinking that they were being generous when in fact they kept part of the profit for themselves. (Acts 5:2)

The lesson from this is that God strongly dislikes liars and deceivers, especially toward the holy spirit.

Although he doesn't strike us dead if we do lie today, he will hold us accountable for our actions. (Rom 14:12; Heb 4:13)

Regarding the 1000 year reign of Christ, at the end of his rulership Satan is to be let loose for a short while to mislead people one last time and surprisingly, the number of those who follow Satan will be "as the sand of the sea." (Rev 20:7) So I don't see any real connection of A & S account to the 1000 years. Just my thoughts. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moparbyfar

Well here's what I get out of this account.

A & S were members of the Christian congregation of Jerusalem and we know this because after Pentecost 33 CE, other Christians in Jerusalem were selling off goods/land and voluntarily giving the profits toward a fund set up for visitors that had travelled from distant lands to Jerusalem for the Festival, in order to provide for their physical needs and among them were A & S, who sold off one of their fields. (Acts 5:1)

In Acts 5:3 their sin was to "play false to the holy spirit" by trying to deceive their fellow Christians into thinking that they were being generous when in fact they kept part of the profit for themselves. (Acts 5:2)

The lesson from this is that God strongly dislikes liars and deceivers, especially toward the holy spirit.

Although he doesn't strike us dead if we do lie today, he will hold us accountable for our actions. (Rom 14:12; Heb 4:13)

Regarding the 1000 year reign of Christ, at the end of his rulership Satan is to be let loose for a short while to mislead people one last time and suprisingly, the number of those who follow Satan will be "as the sand of the sea." (Rev 20:7) So I don't see any real connection of A & S account to the 1000 years. Just my thoughts. :)

---

I tend to agree on all points *shudder* :p While I understand what ClassyT is saying about grace, it's only one of God's many attributes. It's way too easy to get overbalanced in the direction of one attribute or another and lose sight of the fact that, while he's definitely a gracious God, he's also just and righteous, as well as all-powerful and has the right to do whatever advances his plan for his creation. In this case, despite being a God of grace, I think he chose to give the budding church a rather severe object lesson, and I don't really see it being incompatible with his grace.

I also don't see any connection between this episode and any millennial reign, though I do see how she came up with that.

Dave,

Me? Not in balance? Surely you jest. Grace isn't just an attribute... it is the NEW COVENANT! We are a new creation in Christ. The problem with Christianity is we are out of balance with that little fact. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mista :)

Check it out... after God gave the law to Moses and he came down from the mountain 3000 men died. After Jesus rose from the dead and Peter preached 3000 men were saved. There is a difference. A big difference! And there is more to the A&S story. It doesn't fit in with grace. Either they were not saved or it is a picture of how things will run during the 1,000 year reign. I don't know but I'm doing my best to study and find out. There is not ONE other incident like it AFTER the Lord rose from the dead. It means something...

Mo-

I'm not talking about the rebellion that Satan will head up, I'm talking about how things will be run during those 1000 years. Men will not be able to sin openly and live. That is to say, they won't be stealing, dealing drugs, killing and straight out lying the Lord Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Dave,

Me? not in balance? surely you jest. Grace isn't just an attribute...it is the NEW COVENANT! We are a new creation in Christ. The problem with Christianity is we are out of balance with that little fact. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mista :)

Check it out...after God gave the law to Moses and he came down from the mountain 3000 men died. After Jesus rose from the dead and Peter preached 3000 men were saved. There is a difference. A big difference! And there is more to the A&S story. It doesn't fit in with grace.

---

Hi Tess,

I agree with you. Well, at least as far as I have selectively edited your quote. Yes, there is a 'balance' problem. We can look at it in terms deontological ethics versus consequential ethics. Sounds confusing but it isn't. Sorry, but I see most things in terms of ethics.

Deontological ethics is based on the intrinsic nature of acts, usually expressed in terms of moral rules. The Old Testament or 'Law' is a good example of this. The moral character of a person is determined by how well he/she conforms to 'the rules'. The important point is that it is irrelevant as to the outcome of conforming to commands, rules and laws. So long as you a conform or obey then you are a virtuous person.

Opposed to this view is what as know as consequentialist ethics. Consequentialism says that what is important when it comes to morality is the consequences of our actions. An action can be deemed good if it produces good outcomes for people and bad if it produces the opposite. Having said this there are naturally problems with consequentialist ethics. This is not unusual as every ethical theory, including Divine Command Theory (Law) has it problems. You obviously realize this otherwise you wouldn't have posed the question in the first place.

If we accept that one of Jesus' attributes was that he was fully human then we come to realize that he was between a rock and a hard place when it comes to ethics and The New Covenant.I am not suggesting that Jesus was promoting consequentialist ethics, but I think it is hard to deny that Grace doesn't have a element of consequentialism attached to it. If this is true then we have a real problem of trying to dovetail Law and Grace. I am not suggesting that it is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, but it did present challenges back then and it still presents challenges today. Jesus being fully human and fully God did the best he could.

Just my thoughts

Regards
Tut

Tut,

I have read this and re read this. I can't respond because you are WAAY over my head. Sad but true.