Ananias and Sapphira, Original Sin in the Church:-TITHING

The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all.

There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. . .

A man named Ananias, however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. He retained for himself, with his wife's knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the Holy Spirit and retained part of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God." When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him.

After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened. Peter said to her, "Tell me, did you sell the land for this amount?" She said, "Yes, for that amount." Then Peter said to her, "Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen, the footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." At once, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men entered they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things. (Acts 4:32-35; 5:1-11) New American Bible

The aim of this study is to critique Daniel Marguerat's interpretation of the passage about Ananias and Sapphira in the account of the Acts of the Apostles. The importance of analyzing this contribution by Marguerat lies in the application of the narrative of the book of Acts, and especially in the story of Ananias and Sapphira. Of course, this narrative criticism does not invalidate the contributions of literary criti-cism, but enriches the interpretation of the text and allows for a better hermeneutic understanding. Marguerat ques-tions in what narrative strategy Acts 5:1-11 takes place… how has Luke planned the reading of Acts 5:1-11 in the organization of his text?

From the very beginning, the author presents the problematic question which the story of Ananias and Sapphira raises. He considers the story of the judgment of God on Ananias and Sapphira the most tragic episode of the Book of Acts.

He asks himself: what is the intention of the author of Acts with this "blow of narrative force in the idyllic fresco of the first Christian community, developed in chapters 3 to 5. How can the tragic disproportion between the offense and the sanction that hits Ananias and Sapphira be justified? How to explain the absence of the typical offer of conversion in Luke's writing?

The reader faces the theological difficulty that Luke not only consents to assume this recounting in his work, but besides, accents its dramatic effect.

In Mediterranean societies of the first century conventional family cells were common-that is to say, groups whose individuals were committed to a reciprocal solidarity analogous to the ties within a clan. These groups, built upon a philosophical and/or religious ideology, offered the individual protection against a social setting and unfailing emotional support.

Five characteristics marked their identity: loyalty and trust in the group, preservation of communal convictions over against those outside the group, the obligation to provide for the needs of each member, and consciousness of sharing the same destiny.

The author of Acts has desired to make known to readers that the original community, the Church of Jerusalem, carried out the ideal of sharing lived in the culture of the time.

Luke's eloquence focuses on the destiny of the community more than the psychology of the individuals. The author points out how the record of the life of the community is not contradicted by the narrative treatment of the role of the apostles. Peter, whose fulmi-nating word dominates the retelling, is not presented as a heroic individual: his prophetic discernment unmasks hidden desires, but the reader has learned from the beginning of the story that the powerful word of the apostle is the work of the Spirit (4:8). Peter works the theological reading of the deceit, situating it in the framework of the combat of God and Satan (v. 3,9a), but he does not pronounce any sentence (see v. 13:1): he predicts the imminent end of Sapphira, but does not decide her death. The role of Peter, the only Christian speaker until Acts 7 (Stephen), omniscent spokes-person for the apostles, never goes beyond the status of mediator in whom the Spirit lives (4:31).

The author notes that the retelling comes from a literary genre from which ancient literature, as much biblical as nonbiblical, offers innumerable testimonies: the judgment of God. Characteristic of this genre is stating the fault of the guilty one and attributing the punishment to divine con-demnation. When the Jewish tradition appeals to the judgment of God (Gn 19; Leviticus 10:1-5; Numbers 14; Ez 11, etc.) the transgressor is generally annihilated; before God, it is a question of life and death. Thus die Judas the traitor (Acts 1, 18) and Herod (Acts 12:20-23).

Marguerat concludes that Ananias' crime is a crime against the Spirit. Ananias has been made into Satan's instrument in his battle against the Church. Satan has led Ananias against the work of the Spirit, and this opposition has to result in death. Peter's discourse says nothing else: it is not man to whom Ananias has lied, but to God (v.4b).

The transgression is not ethical but theological; the lie is not denounced as hypocrisy but as dishonesty, a fraud against God. Opposing the Spirit in this way, Ananias and Sapphira have made a lie of the ideal of chapter 4, verse 32. This places the community in danger, and in turn, due to not responding to the ideal of one heart and one soul (4:32a) threatens in its missionary efficacy. The couple, who excluded themselves from the ecclesiastical unity, damage the community ideal. Far from resolving this crisis by founding an ecclesiastical jurisdiction of ex-communion, the text shows the work of the Spirit in its role of "infallible guarantor of the communion of inner-community."

For the author, the conflict presented in this writing also is meant to lead to an awareness of the terrible efficacy of the Word. The pragmatic effect of the story is to evoke the fear of God (v.5b, 11). Marguerat asks, "Why, on two occasions, does the author feel the need to specify the effect of the news on 'those who hear it'?" Everything happens as if in this account, Luke were writing about the effect he wants to lead to in the listener/reader. But what does Luke want the reader to fear? The terrible judgment of God? The power of the Spirit? For the author, more likely: fear of the power of the Word.

From beginning to end, the story is woven from words and sayings. Like Ananias' offense, Sapphira's is also one of dishonesty (v.3b, 8b); Ananias dies upon hearing the words of Peter (v.5a); "all who heard" were afraid (v.5b, 11). The three-time mention of fear must capture our attention: here the words of truth bring death (v.5a); there they lead to religious fear (v.5b, 11). The word that is heard has the power of life and death, which is what the story explains.

A theology of the Word works the text, allowing the vision to be heard, recognizing a very Lukan insistence that we have previously encountered. From Acts 2:37 on, faith is presented as the fruit of listening to the Word. This theme pervades chapters 2-5, in which the faith of the newly converted results in the formation of the Apostles (4:4; 5:5, 11, 20), and in which the gift of the Spirit becomes concrete in the boldness of the Christian proclamation (4:31). The conclusion of the sequence confirms this tie between pneuma and logos; the activity of the community animated by the Spirit is an activity of word: (5:42). The hostility of the Jewish authorities consists partially in wanting to silence the Apostles (4:17; 5:28,40).

Marguerat concludes that what matters to Luke is not instilling a "fear of the sacred," but relating the powerful elimination of an impediment to the spreading of the Word. Weakened in its missionary development by an act that damages its unity, the community is not left on its own. Much like God concerns Himself with the incarceration of the Apostles and liberates them, ordering them to speak (5:20), here God becomes terribly involved with an obstacle to the spreading of the Word.

Acts 5 does not simply stigmatize Sapphira because of her husband's evil act; the text is dedicated to showing her culpability (v.8); a man-woman duality develops here, which structures the text in two frames and makes it stand out.

For the author, a curious characteristic of the story orients the reading towards another plane: the emphasis on the complicity of the man and his wife (v.2); this shared knowledge is explicitly confirmed by the answer to Peter's interrogation (v.8). The Apostle returns to this theme to ask Sapphira: "Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord?" Ananias and Sapphira form one body, one with the other, and this tie of complicity has undermined the solidarity of the community. Accomplices in the lie, the couple has made clan against the ecclesiastical group; in place of the communion of believers, they have substituted their own complicity.

The author points out that the collusion of the original spouses (the first couple of the Acts) brings to mind another original couple. The analogy that comes in this spirit is the story of the fall (Gen 3). Examination of the narrative context demonstrates that the drama of Acts 5 constitutes the first crisis in the history of the origins of Christianity. The reference to Gen 3 is supported by a constellation of characteristics: 1) the destruction of the original harmony (v.4:32); 2) the figure of Satan, usually perceived by the Jewish tradition as a serpent; 3) the origin of the flaw in the sin of the couple; 4) the lying to God (Gen 3:1; Acts 5:4b); 5) the expulsion at the end of the account (cf. Gen 3:23).

For Marguerat, this parallel sheds new light on the typology with which the story plays: the transgression of Ananias and Sapphira is seen as the duplication of the original sin of Adam and Eve. Lying to the Spirit constitutes, in the narration of the Acts, the original sin of the Church. Conclusion of the story of Acts 5: the ekklesia is a community whose members are weakened, but whose project of communion is saved by the judgment of God.

Upon identifying the offense of Ananias and Sapphira as an assault on the work of the Spirit, the interpretation of Marguerat unites with an essential result of the salvation history reading indicated above. However, the author indicates that a dimension of the text that has not been taken into account remains to be evaluated: the nature of the transgression. The act of the damned couple is a monetary offense. Luke's sensitivity regarding the power of money is manifest throughout his Gospel, from the denunciation of the pride of the wealthy in the Magnificat (Luke 1:53) to the praising of the widow's offering at the start of the Passion (21:1-4). Acts takes over with this theme from the very first chapter, upon reporting the curse adjudicated to the "wage of injustice" that Judas had obtained through his betrayal (1:18).

For the author, it is not fortuitous that according to Luke, the two crises that span the "Golden Age" of Christianity both originate in an economic matter: the straying of Ananias and Sapphira, and the recrimination of the Hellenists in the face of the prejudice against their widows (6:1). Taking the traditional account of the death of Ananias and Sapphira and strategically placing it in this part of the narration, Luke wants to make known to his readers that the original sin of the Church is a sin of money. The relation of believers to their belongings takes on an eschatological dimension. Luke had already expressed this in the first two summaries in which the divine Spirit impels the sharing of possessions, simultaneously ful-filling the Deuteronomic demand for the removal of poverty from the bosom of the people of God (4:34 quote from Dt 15:4), and the ideal of friendship ( 2:44; 4:32).

Spirit and money go together in Luke, who would in no way subscribe to the antibiblical dichotomy between "material things" and "spiritual things." One of the moral realities of his account is, money can kill one who clings to it.

For the author, the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira demonstrates that this economic sharing does not reduce to a philosophical ideal, even if it were Greek or a romanticism of love. The altruistic management of possessions can be said to be an ontological dimension of the Church; wealth carries with it, in relation to the poor, a responsibility sanctioned by the God-Judge. In light of the judgment of Ananias and Sapphira, a foreshadowing of the eschatological judgement, the ethic of sharing possessions acquires extreme import. Mammon (Luke 16:13), destroyer of life, is also destroyer of the Church.

It is from this perspective that the added wording of verse 4 must be understood, that it alters the imperative character of 4:32-24 (the renunciation of one's belongings is not obligatory, but voluntary) and readapts the critique of Peter in 5:3 (the crime is having lied about the whole commitment). After the attribution of the sin to Satan in verse 3, verse 4 returns to an ethic of individual responsi-bility.

Marguerat asked why this wording correction was made and considers that it has a parenthetic effect: maintaining the free choice to give and profiling the responsibility of the individual, Luke adds to the eschatological threat an exhorta-tive dimension intended for the well-to-do readers to whom it is directed. If God's judgment of the damned couple pertains to the time of origin, and as a result is not repeatable as such, the call to share remains.

The story of Ananias and Sapphira takes place in the narrative sequence of Acts 2-5, which can be qualified as a story of origin, with the same title as Gen 1-11. The literary genre of the account explains both the marvelous dimension of the narration (irresistible develop-ment of the Church) and its tragic aspect (two thunderous deaths without the least bit of compassion from the narrator).

The author of Luke-Acts has situated this account in more of an ecclesiological perspective rather than focusing on redemption; instead of develo-ping the drama of individual salvation, he magnifies the power of the Spirit and its work of spreading the Word. However, if the theme of Acts 5:1-11 is the original wound to the community, the social fiber of Luke's writing has not been insensitive to the fact that this first sin of the Church was a monetary transgression.

Translated and excerpted from VOCES: Revista de Teología Misionera de la Universidad Intercontinental , No. 19, Jul-Dec 2001: "Acts of the Apostles- Narrative Approaches."

Very good: correct answer.

It was NOT given to us GENTILES.

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

The REST of the story...

Acts 15:10-32
10. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?
11. No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
12. The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.
13. When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me.
14. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself.
15. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16. "`After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,
17. that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things'
18. that have been known for ages.
19. "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.
20. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
21. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
22. Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers.
23. With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.
So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul-- men who have risked their lives

for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:

You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.

You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

30. The men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter.
31. The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message.

Now if anyone wants to ADD to these REQUIREMENTS, then they should have some pretty good BIBLICAL proofs at hand.

“This is a perfect example of how the LDS ‘play’ at being Christians. “

The game is over; “Jesus Christ is the Lord.” I put that in quotes because it is I, a Mormon, who says that - Jesus Christ is the Lord.

“Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost”

1 Corinthians 12:3

Regarding tithing - it’s in the Bible - it’s a good thing - it’s nothing to be ashamed of - we do it because we want to, not because we have to. Same with all Christians.

It’s the only area where God says we can test Him.

Why is this a problem for you?

"Regarding tithing - it’s in the Bible - it’s a good thing - it’s nothing to be ashamed of - we do it because we want to, not because we have to. Same with all Christians."

Let's break this down a bit...

First, as has been pointed out by many on this thread, it's in the OT part of the Bible, it is not a "current" requirement in the NT. It is no longer required as under the OT.

Second, LdS "do it" if they want to be found worthy of a temple recommend. If you don't get a temple recommend, you can't take out your endowments. If you can't take out your endowments, you don't get the promise of the celestial kingdom.

If you don't get to the celestial kingdom, there's no dwelling with god or your eternal family, there's no dwelling with your eternal god, there's no birthing of spirit babies to populate your eternal huusband's (god) planet.

Now tell us again, do you "do it" because you "want to" or because you need to if you want to receive "all the blessings" (celestial kingdom)?

And has been pointed out, not "all Christians" "obey" the OT requirement by making it a requirement for exaltation as the LdS do.

I don’t care what you do, but I do care about ensuring that the reasons why many mormons do tithe is not misrepresented by you or any other mormon here on FR.

As I mentioned, if you don’t tithe, your temple access is zero. No temple access, no exaltation. No exaltation, no celestial kingdom.

That is an important, if not one of the most important aspects regarding mormons and their paying tithing.

I note you did not address any other remarks in my post or any other posts regarding the significance of tithing and the OT law vs. the NT.

The strawman you tried to build about me “caring what you do” just went up in smoke. Was that another way of attempting to accuse me of judging you?

“the reasons why many mormons do tithe is not misrepresented by you or any other mormon here on FR.”

So . . . if one belongs to one of YOUR churches that teaches that tithing is a requirement then all those people are going to hell, too, right?

The REASON I tithe is because the Bible is clear on the subject. You say that’s the Old Testament so it doesn’t count, that the New Testament did away with that issue.

I do not agree. And please stop telling people what you THINK I believe. I do not believe what you THINK I believe.
You are not God and you are not my judge.

In order to hold a Temple Recommend, yes, one should be a full tithe payer.

Why does that make you so mad?

"And please stop telling people what you THINK I believe. I do not believe what you THINK I believe. You are not God and you are not my judge."

Oh stop it. You're "judging and going to hell" schtick is tiresome, childish and worn out already.

And for your information, I haven't chosen a "church" Saundra, I'm so screwed up from the LdS teachings that I'm still trying to figure out up from down and the true meaning of the trinity, and salvation by GRACE, not works and secret rituals and mystical tokens and signs.

I told you what I said, and you're feeble and childish attempt to spin it into something else is amateurish at best.

"In order to hold a Temple Recommend, yes, one should be a full tithe payer."

WHAT!!!??? One MUST be a FULL tithe payer to get a temple recommend, it's one of the questions on the recommend. Like I said, no tithing, no temple; no temple no endowments; no endowments, no exaltation; no exaltation, no celestial kingdom. THAT IS WHAT THE LDS TEACH and for you to attempt to deny and spin it is pure comedy.

"Why does that make you so mad?"

Why do you attempt to attribute motives to my posts and make me sound like a child throwing a tantrum? You expose yourself quite nicely as a typical mormon who has swallowed the SLC talking points about every ex-mo having an axe to grind and ergo, should be ignored, dismissed, denigrated or shunned.

“You expose yourself quite nicely as a typical mormon who has swallowed the SLC talking points about every ex-mo having an axe to grind and ergo, should be ignored, dismissed, denigrated or shunned. “

Actually, I have been taught just the opposite.

The Church is perfect; the people are not. I have been hurt by LDS folk but that’s because we are all screwed up and fall short of the glory of God. All of us. We all need grace, love and mercy just to survive every day.

I am looking forward to the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who can straighten all of us out in the twinkling of an eye.

I refer you to St. Paul who addressed the subject of levels of Heaven. He also had something to say about baptisms for the dead.

- - - - - -

Incorrect. Paul mentions the ‘third heaven’ in passing just as he mentions baptism for the dead.

Re: baptism for the dead, he in no wise claims that Christians practiced it. His use of the term ‘they’ istead of ‘we’ which he uses throughout the book when speaking about Christians points to it being a pagan practice. The point of 1 Cor is about the RESURRECTION, not baptism or salvation of the dead. It is commonly known that pagans (and some gnostic groups) practiced a washing (or baptism similar to a mikveh) for the dead, however there is no evidence that it was practiced by Christians.

Along these same lines, Pauls reference to a ‘third heaven’ is a reference to the common (and pagan view) that there were three different heavens. NOT three KINGDOMS of Heaven.

Anyone even REMOTELY familiar with Greek philosophy or religion knows that the ‘third heaven’ is the abode of God, while the ‘first heaven’ is the visible sky (domain of birds), and the ‘second heaven’ is the night sky (stars), while the ‘third heaven’ is the abode of God.

To claim that Paul is refering to the 3 kingdoms that the LDS claim is not only nonsensical, it shows very clearly that the LDS have NO IDEA what the Bible says and only parrot what their leaders teach rather than actually research and do proper exegesis.

“The Church is perfect; the people are not.”

OK, let’s give the imperfect mormon people a pass.

The Church, however...

In what way is it perfect?

You’ve said your “prophets” haven’t been infallible and their words are flat out wrong, according to mormons (like
the statement that people live on the sun).

Your mormonic verses have had at least 4000 changes since
Joseph Smithe “translated” them by seeing what God said and
relaying it to his secretary. They obviously weren’t
perfect - or even translated correctly.

The masonic rituals that occur in the temples are not
recorded in any of the sacred writings of mormonism.
Masons may consider them perfect, but with all the
nakedness and older people touching the private parts
of younger people, they don’t seem perfect.

That leaves the gaudy buildings. I don’t imagine you are
claiming they are perfect?

So I am left wondering, in what way is the LDS church
perfect?

a) THIS IS NOT A GAME. Your eternal salvation is at stake and that is something I take seriously.

b) Not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus is either LORD OF ALL, or He is not LORD AT ALL. Just because you say Jesus is Lord, doesn’t mean He is to you. Where is He in relation to the Church? Who do you choose? Smith or Christ? Jesus or Joseph? The Messiah or Monson? If you put the Church ANYWHERE in the equation, then Jesus is not your Lord at all. And saying the words won’t make it true.

Are you willing to give up ‘the Church’ for Jesus? Seriously? Because that is what He WILL ask of you, of all of us.

c)Tithing is an OLD TESTAMENT law, not a NEW TESTAMENT ONE. GIVE ME ONE (ONE!) VERSE in the NT where tithing is required. It isn’t.

d) I have never heard, seen, or been to any Christian churches that where you have to go to an annual ‘tithing settlement’, and declare you pay a full tithe. NONE!!!!!! It is between you and God, not you, God and your bishop. God doesn’t care the PERCENTAGE of what we give, He cares about our hearts and motivations in giving.

Yet, the LDS make it a requirement, you may CLAIM you give because you want to, but if you didn’t then you would lose your precious TR, it would be all around the ward, and you would not be ‘worthy’. That is coercion, not giving cheerfully. And that ‘requirement’ is what bugs me about LDS tithing.

e)I quit ‘tithing’ when I left Mormonism, because I am under the NEW COVENANT, not the OT law. I don’t stop at 10%, I give as I am led and where I am led and that is far more than the LDS required.

AFA, ‘testing God’. Wow. YOU ADMIT TO ‘testing God’???!?! THAT takes guts. I love my God too much to ‘seek after a sign’ or to ‘test Him’.

I don’t TEST God, I TRUST Him. Apparently you don’t since you rely on Mormonism to save you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.