Read Acts 5:1-5 & Wright’s thoughts on lying
1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet. 3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
The real, deep-level problem about lying is that it misuses, or abuses, the highest faculty we possess: the gift of expressing in clear speech the reality of who we are, what we think, and how we feel. It is, as it were, the opposite of the gift of tongues. Instead of allowing God’s Spirit to have free rein through our faculties, so that we praise God in words or sounds which enable us to stand (however briefly) at the intersection of heaven and earth, when we tell lies we not only hold heaven and earth apart; we twist earth itself, so that it serves our own interests. Lying is, ultimately, a way of declaring that we don’t like the world the way it is and we will pretend that it is somehow more the way we want it to be. At that level, it is a way of saying that we don’t trust God the creator to look after his world and sort it out in his own time and way.[1]
I was once visiting an anonymous potty-training toddler who was having a brilliant time jumping on a trampoline. The moment I came to say hi I was greeted with a very emphatic: “I do not need a poo!” I had made no suggestion of the opposite so was immediately suspicious and, as time later proved, rightly so.
The reason I mention this is partly because I found it so funny but partly because it illustrates a common trait across humanity, we are irrationally prone to lie! I see this in myself; from the innocuous “I’m fine” – when I’m not – through to more calculated half-truths (thus half-lies?!), it is often bafflingly hard to just be straightforward and upfront.
The problem with Ananias and Sapphira is not that they didn’t give enough; in actual fact there was no requirement on them to sell the property at all. Rather, the problem was that they deliberately tried to deceive people into thinking they were more generous than they were. Or as John Stott puts it:
They wanted the credit and 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.[2]
The consequences of their deceit were severe.
- Do you see in yourself an irrational bias towards dishonesty? Are there any particular situations in which this is accentuated (e.g. for Ananias and Sapphira their weakness was their ego)?
- Are there situations in which it is wise to not reveal the whole truth about something or restrain from being entirely honest?
- What about more out-and-out lies, as in this account? Are there ever times when it’s okay to deliberately deceive?
- What do you think about Tom Wright’s thoughts on lying? Does he overstate his point or is he right in his assertions?
If you have a bit longer :-)
Within the Bible, God striking down particular individuals, is actually quite rare. Aside from Ananias and Sapphira here, there’s Er and Onan in Gen. 38, Uzzah in 2 Sam. 6 and Herod in Acts 12 (and possibly some others?!).
- What do you think about these incidences? Are you surprised that there’s almost as many (if not the same number) in the New Testament as there are in the Old?
- Do you think God ever exercises his judgment in this way today?
[1] Tom Wright, “Acts,” pgs. 81-82.
[2] John Stott, “Acts,” pgs. 109-110.
For what it's worth it doesn't actually say that God killed them. I don't think it's unreasonable to see Ananias' death as related in some way to Peter's extreme anger. Let's face it he had a history of violence - John 18:10–11 - and the fear is recorded as rippling through the community.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the passage doesn't actually tell us that Ananias lied, just that Peter accused him of doing so. But Peter's response is hardly cool, calm and non-confrontational, so I'm not sure his words here are any more reliable than his claim in the gospel passion narratives that he didn't know Jesus.
Hi Matt, thanks for your comments.
ReplyDeleteI guess my initial reaction is to think that the NT writers seem pretty honest when it comes to the failings of their key players thus, for example (as you note) John 18:10-11 openly records Peter's rash anger. Further, Paul's violence is similarly recorded for all to see. I therefore think that if Peter had been somehow more actively involved in Ananias' death - i.e. through an act of violence - then it would have been recorded as such. Instead, the rather more mysterious, "he fell down and died" either carries the implication that God was somehow directly involved in this (as unpalatable as I appreciate that can sound), or that Luke is stretching the truth in a "but the vase just fell off the shelf of its own accord" (when actually I knocked it over) kind of way! I just don't find the latter of these options convincing as I see no reason why, if Peter had lashed out in violence, the story wouldn't have been recorded as such.
Further, while you're correct to note that it is not specified exactly to whom the fear was directed, predominantly in Acts, fear is associated with God (e.g. Acts 9:31 "Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace and was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers.") In contrast, as far as I'm aware, there's no additional evidence to suggest that people feared Peter.
Thirdly, while again you are right to note that Peter is recorded as being unreliable elsewhere in the NT, within these passion narratives, the fact that he is being unreliable is made explicit. In this instance, however, there is neither explicit or implicit indication that the wider community viewed Peter's judgment as inaccurate.
It doesn't specifically say that Ananias lied, but in verse 2 it certainly says that he did it and later on in verse 8 it says that Sapphira denied doing it, so either she was lying or the bible is. But I'd also like to say that I don't think life is all that important, we don't know what reasons God had for letting Ananias die (without the grace of God everyone should be dead) and it might just be that if God had let Ananias and Sapphira live they would have done more damage to there salvation (not getting into heaven but the coming into the promises after).
ReplyDeleteAlso Peter can't be that unreasonable, Paul has a massive go at him (Galatians 2:11) and I imagine Paul to be quite weedy!
Aargh computer just deleted my response!!!!
ReplyDeleteI don't think Peter murdered A&S, but I also don't think we can assume God did it. As Helen says, these occasions are very rare, and given the philosophical problems such a solution raises (why not strike down genocidal maniacs instead).
The least implausible answer to me seems to be a heart attack triggered by Peter's angry rant.
Would love to say more, but pushed for time.
Matt
Oh and Matt, I always reckon Paul was pretty hardcore (2 Cor 11:23-27). Plus, y'know, he was a long way away from Peter when he wrote that letter...
ReplyDelete