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."

You’d expect a fallen people, one whom the Lord has to collect and recall over and over again, to have botched the truth. Given that the best scholars of their day, the Pharisees and Sadducees, missed Jesus Christ whilst he was among them the appeal to their authority rings hollow.

I’d suggest you grab a copy of the Hebrew Study Bible and re-read Genesis. It’s eye opening. We’ve made God in our own image to preserve our beliefs.

Hence eisegesis runs rampant.

The Catholics and LDS repair that by priesthood authority and popes/prophets.

You and I have to use the Bible to discuss these things.

We must believe what it says.

True, you MUST believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that he died for your sins.

True and correct again, but the next part, well...Do you think if I were to sit at my place and ponder and think and surmise on a very difficult problem in math, medicine, business or science that the product of my mind - solution, remedy, product, invention - didn't come from work?

People make millions at this kind of work. So thinking, having faith, believing all these things are by definition work. The product of which is works.

The LDS believe in additional levels of heaven or Degrees of Glory. There is slight mention in the NT & OT, but little else. It is new information.

If they are right then there is more to salvation (the lowest heaven) than just believing Christ is our Savior.

That God judges actions as well as beliefs fits the OT & NT to a T.

Are you Catholic I surmise from your questions and defense of “works”? I am not saying works are bad, no doubt they are good. My main point is that so many out there think that doing a good (human) thing is getting them points with God toward salvation. If that were true, God would not have sent his Son to die for us. The Bible teaches us that ANY works that you do before you are saved by grace through faith, is as filthy rags. The only “works” that save anyone is the works of Christ when He shed His blood on that tree, which, by the way, had mine and your sins nailed to it. Sin is no longer in the equation.(Christ died for every sin that ever took place and that ever will take place, by a believer or a non believer.

So using logic it isn't the entire remaining amount, but some portion or share as the Greek which Young's shows as "certain part".

Does a 'certain part' = equal tithe / tithe settlement - not by either the context of the passage nor the greek itself.

Do you see it translated as portion? (not by me, but by Biblegateway)

10, 10, 10, you are completely unaware of the term 'translation' in this context. There is no greek word in the passage that directly equates to 'portion', but the two words I've already identified from the Greek. Portion in Greek is "Μερίδα " which isn't in the greek text of the passage. If you are going to use the lexicon tools - try to use them correctly.

e.g. I sell and gain $100, withholding $20 secretly for myself and report the total of $80 as my net gain. Now that $80 represents 100% of my reported gain on which I give some portion/share/certain part.

I certainly wouldn't want you as my accountant. The issue - if you bothered to read the context - is that Ananias claimed it was the whole amount of the sale - the gross amount. Further then by your assessment, you are now making the tithe 100% on the gross amount. Context is our friend 10. hey were not compelled to sell it, or when sold to give the money, or to give all. Their sin was not withholding a part, but lying about it.

Here you could be right. It isn't an offering of $8 or 10%, a tithe, but $40, $25, $52. We don't know and the story doesn't say.

10, if you bother to study the early church at all, you will find that much of the structure and concepts used were still largely based upon the mosaic covenant. A tithe was 10% by mosaic definition - so you are grossly incorrect on this matter - we do know. We also know that a money offering was something given out of love with not percentage standards placed upon it.

Restornu's and the Catholic author's contention that it is a tithe is also supported by a plain reading of the text in either English or the Greek.

Catholic author - that is clearly a dishonest representation of what this author wrote 10. He makes absolutely no statement equating this to tithing what so ever. And clearly the reading in the Greek does not support your interpretations as well as those in the english. The context is plain, their sin was claiming the offering was the TOTAL GROSS amount received, which was the lie.

Let's not dissemble in our pursuit of the truth. All three- Protestant/Reform, LDS, and Catholic positions are supported by a fair, honest and objective reading of the passage.

Lousy try 10, both the Catholic and the reformation/protestant disagree with you. Yours is an example of eisengesis - where one forces and twists the bible passage to try to make it meet pre-determined doctrinal statements. The plain, open and HONEST reading of the passage rejects the lsd claim of tithing. You claim not to know what the story says - but that is incorrect too, the story is clear - the lie was that it was the GROSS amount given - clear and simple.

You’d expect a fallen people, one whom the Lord has to collect and recall over and over again, to have botched the truth.

Sorry, my God is bigger than that - He has preserved His word to us.

Given that the best scholars of their day, the Pharisees and Sadducees, missed Jesus Christ whilst he was among them the appeal to their authority rings hollow.

Pot meet kettle then, since you are making the same appeal to authority. Sorry 10, those citations (among many others) provide the foundation to show that ex nihlo was in existance far before your claims.

I’d suggest you grab a copy of the Hebrew Study Bible and re-read Genesis.

10, you've already shown that you cannot even handle Greek study tools, let alone Hebrew. Thats about par for the course, since smith couldn't handle egyptian - resulting in the discredited book of abraham - as well as fake plates (kinderhook). I guess when you accept that reformed egyptian translates to 'adieu' anythings possible.

The Catholics and LDS repair that by priesthood authority and popes/prophets.

I'm sure narsis and other catholics will have very different viewpoints on the equivalence of your respective 'priesthoods' and popes/prophets - especially since lds have always considered Catholicism to be the Whore of Babylon.

You and I have to use the Bible to discuss these things. We must believe what it says.

If so - why is there any need for spurious works of mormonism.

I don't know what LDS reading comprehension is, but they do value education. Ask Restornu if you like.

OK, so they "placed them at the feet" this is figurative language meaning "into the use of" or "at the disposal of" or do you think they literally placed the money at the Apostle's feet forcing them to bend down and pick it up?

Are you aware of Middle-Eastern custom?

I never said it was Peter's alone, as if it was his property. Peter spoke and only Peter spoke. Why?

Who managed the money? The Holy Ghost? Clearly, the Bible presents an organized Church with a hierarchy.

Don't dodge it. You can, if you understand Greek, see that this situation isn't just a drop off of some random offering. It could fit Restornu's interpretation. It could fit that of the Catholic's as well. That it might, it just might.

If admitting that is too tough to swallow, fine. Any objective reader will come to the same conclusions I have.

Worth repeating!Ananias wasn't judged for having or keeping property/money; he was judged for lying about what he was giving: claiming to have given all when he had not.
That, my FRiend, was fine and sound Biblical Exegesis, in one Concise, Well-Constructed sentence.

It's similar to the sin of Simony -- trying to purchase something God hasn't given us. Trying to impress our neighbors with graces we don't really have. Something every one of us wrestles with at some point.

We crave recognition so much, yet as Jesus said, "How can you believe, who seek honor from one another, and not the honor only God can confer?"

I'm reminded of C S Lewis's wonderful essay on "the inner ring." It's when we quit trying to buy / bluff / bamboozle our way into the inner circle, and simply tend to our own calling, that we find ourselves in the only inner circle that really matters -- where we enjoy the sense of God's approval, and the respect of others who take craftsmanship seriously.

I take “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s” as saying we should tithe. I also read that to mean you tithe 10% AFTER taxes though I’ve never met a preacher who agrees with me. ha!

I’ll also say that my spiritual mentor pointed out to me that giving to God is the only place in the Bible where God says “Test me”.

My wife found salvation 6 years ago and has tithed like clockwork. And I see her “storage bins” constantly being filled. And boy does she give cheerfully! And she got me board! We both look forward to writing the check. But neither of us gets a good feeling when writing a check to the government.

(posted “to” myself as this is relevant to the entire thread, and not just one poster)

For my part, I used to attend a Methodist church, but have since been baptized into the Anglican Communion and practice the Catholic liturgy.

I used to argue vehemently against the Catholic Church and the Church teachings, I used to play all those word games and “Scripture Tag.” I even went through a period of being anti-Christian during which I did my best to pick apart Christianity as a whole, and to dissect bits of the Bible so I could say it was wrong and didn’t stand. Now I regularly attend Mass, keep the prayers, and have a stronger faith in Christ than I could have before. Even through all that, I pretty much disagree with what I know of the teachings of the LDS, as well as aspects of ALL denominations.

From all that I have realized that we, as mankind, are fallen. We are not perfect, and our understanding of God is imperfect. This being of man is simply incapable of fully comprehending the Glory of God. It is because of our human frailty that we have wandered so far and wide in our search for Divine Communion, and it is within our limitations that we seek Him. If the argument that the Bible doesn’t specifically name the Trinity is sufficient to convince you that the Triune God is false, so be it. That’s between you and God. Those of us who believe in the Trinity also have God to answer to. But really, this isn’t what gets my goat.

I love arguing religion, I love discussion of theology, and I thrill at studying beliefs, faith and Scripture.

What I hate is whiners.

My dad can beat up your dad!

My church is better than your church!

Every single one of us on here is capable of picking apart the beliefs, theology and doctrine of another denomination or religion by using our preferred reading of Scripture and application of verse. NONE of us are capable of convincing the opposition that we are correct and they are wrong.

Worse, it seems people cannot handle being challenged (big surprise there). If you missed the memo, not everyone agrees with you. You WILL be challenged if you enter into discussions like this. If you don’t want people to pick apart what you believe, avoid opening yourself up to it.

And let’s be brutally honest, shall we? If you get your hackles raised when someone challenges your belief, you need to examine what you believe.

Faith that cannot survive the challenge of scrutiny is no faith at all.

In other words, let’s have civil discourse and quit whining.

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.

quit whining.

On that we agree.