Ask Me Help Desk - Why did ananias and sapphira have to die?

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.