Biff the unclean

I've just read Acts of the Apostles chapter 5 again.
I remember how horrified I was by it when I heard it in my pre-teens. It's no better now.
In it Saint Peter murders a couple, Ananias and his wife Sapphira, because they gave him some of their money but he wanted every last cent. It doesn't say how he "off-ed" them. The implication is that he did it by magic. But Peter, if we recall an earlier adventure, was the mug what "lived by the sword."
What follows is the section from "The God--father Part I" where Mr. & Mrs. Ananias are sent to sleep with the fishes by "The Big Fisherman" aka Simon, aka Peter "the Rock".
--------------
5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, (2) And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (3) 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? (4 ) Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. (5) And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. (6) And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. (7) And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. (8) And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. (9) Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, I shall make ye an offer thou cannot refuse, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. (10) Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. (11) And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
----------------------
Alright, I added a line. But only one, and maybe a little emphasis to the juicy parts. But the double homicide comes straight from the NT. That's some swell Saint you Christians have got there.

Javaman

So, was Peter starting a commune or what? Acts 4 seems to say that... and this couple didn't think it was such a great idea to give everything away. They, instead, kept a bit of cash for themselves and were killed for it (???).

Reminds me that <a href="http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/nbw11x17.pdf" target="_blank">National Bible Week </a>is coming soon (I think).

Echo

Nowadays, if members of a fledgling religion wound up dead after refusing to turn over all their money to the group leader, Christians would quickly label them a destructive cult!

wardy

Biff,

Know that i'm laughing out loud! Your candidness is great and very clever. I really like the part about the "I shall make ye an offer thou cannot refuse".

i do want to point out a few observations that bring some clarity to this tough to swallow passage. Namely the immediate preceeding context in Acts 4:32-37.

Acts 4:32-37 NASB
And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were living testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need. Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement), and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Great things happened this day:
1. Grace was upon them all.
2. They were united with one heart
3. No one was selfish.
4. The needy were not needy any more.
5. Ananias and Sapphira were a part of congregation of those who believed and were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.
6. Living testimony was being made to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

You made a great observation as well that you bolded in the text above. "Ananias hearing these words fell down" It does not say that Peter struck Him dead. Ananias just died, cause of death hearing the words of Peter. Words to not have the ability to kill unless there is something supernatural behind them.

another observation comes from the word 'privy' in verse 2. the greek definition means indicates that Ananias was fully aware of keeping back part of the price. Ananias lied.

We also do not see anyone ratting An.& Saph. out. This absolutly does not mean that someone didn't. The text doesn't mention, but there is a chance that their deeds were supernaturally revealed by the Lord. (just another observation)

O.K. thanks for your patients, no more observations, just discussion. First of all, I would not credit Peter for the death of A & S. I would say that the Lord dropped them dead right there. Peter just spoke. (Unless he had poison breath, which would have most likely killed all of the other people around, including the ones Peter spoke to in between the death of A & S., i have a hard time believing that the death came from Peter)

The utterly, unsettling questions that penetrates the heart is why?? So they lied, big deal it was their possesions to begin with?? How could a loving God do that??

I think what makes this passage hard to chew is that first of all we are convicted of doing much similar if not worse. A & S simply promised a gift, sold their land to give it, and kept back some of the price. It's was there stuff in the first place...the only thing that happened was that they welched on the promise. They still gave part of the gift, so why have them drop dead???? personally, i've done much worse. I slandared the name of God with words and with my actions. Now, the only thing that suprises me when i sin is that I didn't do it sooner.

What we see in this difficult passage is the Holiness of God, a set-apartness in His character that can have nothing to do with sin. We also see that A & S were believers or as John would say, children of God. Why would God kill His own children, those He loves for such a little sin???

1. God is Holy before He is love. He cannot tolerate sin.
2. to display the riches of kindness of His mercy on us who screw up far worse than A & S
3. to show believers that can sin but that they are still accountable to God for their actions. God is the only one that can totally cleanse and forgive all sin and still hold man accountable. However with believer's it's never ever going to be a matter of Heaven or Hell. It's going to be a matter of physical death and loss of reward. Nevertheless, if A & S could speak now and give you one message, i'm sure that it would be Psalms 16:11 which says In Your presence is fullness of joy; In Your right hand there are pleasures forever.

Biff the unclean

I've never been able to get Xians to even comment on Acts 5.
When they tell me that the bible depicts actual historic facts and the "Dr" Luke was an accurate historian I like to pull 5 out. But they never even try to refute it, (at least not so far) they simply don't reply.

You have to wonder though why the editors of the NT included this story. The message I get from it, as an outsider, is "keep away from Christians. They are dangerous thugs who will murder their own over a couple of bucks." What could it possibly mean to members of the religion other than a savage threat? "Your money or your life."

Vesica

What follows is a link to commentary on Acts 5 from BibleGateway. I am neither supporting nor refuting anything set forth here. I am simply providing an answer for those of you annoyed that you have never heard the X-ian expanation.

<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/webcommentary?language=english&version=niv&book=ac ts&chapter=5" target="_blank">Commentary</a>

Mageth

From the commentary:

For the non-Christian, this account is a warning: Think twice before joining this holy fellowship.

No shit.

lpetrich

Someone other than me, perhaps someone here at iidb, commented about this:

The early Xians not only invented Communism, they also invented Stalinism.

In effect,

Ananias and Sapphira were some pesky kulaks who refused to collectivize all their property.

For my part, I suspect that this story was invented to get people to turn over their property ("if you don't, you'll get zapped just as A and S had been.")

Biff the unclean

That's right, wardy, make a liar out of me. [ ] I'm glad a Christian finally spoke up about this.

…the immediate preceeding context in Acts 4:32-37.
I can't say that this brightens what happens next chapter in the least.
This is an awful scene with these cult leaders getting their followers to give them everything they own. If anything it puts Acts 5 in an even worse light.
Try to read these passages without the glamour of bible times on them. Read it as if it were this mornings newspaper. Wouldn't you call the police if you saw this happening in your home town?

Ananias and Sapphira were a part of congregation of those who believed and were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.
Obviously they sold their land and gave some money to Peter. It was their land, it was their money and they did give Peter their money. They just didn't give him every last shekel, and for that they were murdered.

Living testimony was being made to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
Fat lot of good that did Ananias and Sapphira. By the end of the day they were the ones who needed some resurrecting, not Jesus.

It does not say that Peter struck Him dead. Ananias just died, cause of death hearing the words of Peter. Words to not have the ability to kill unless there is something supernatural behind them.
Actually the NT doesn't say how he killed the two of them. We already know that Peter was a quick hand with a knife, hacking off people's ears and such. We also know that he was embodied with the "Holy Spirit" and through the power of this Spirit could work "wonders." So the implication in Acts is that Peter killed them by magic. He Holy Ghosted them to death.
My money is on the knife though.

greek definition means indicates that Ananias was fully aware of keeping back part of the price. Ananias lied.
Acts 5 has him admitting that he kept some of his own money for his own use.
You don't mean to imply that if a thief says to you "Your money or your life" that that gives him the right to kill you if you keep a twenty for yourself?

…there is a chance that their deeds were supernaturally revealed by the Lord. (just another observation)
So you are say that the Holy Ghost is the murder, or just the stool pigeon?

First of all, I would not credit Peter for the death of A & S. I would say that the Lord dropped them dead right there. Peter just spoke.
And this makes your case better just how….? Weren't Peter and the "Lord" partners?

What we see in this difficult passage is the Holiness of God, a set-apartness in His character that can have nothing to do with sin.
No, we see a nice couple murdered in cold blood in front of their friends for not giving up every last cent they had. We see their friends scared shitless and forced to dispose of the corpses. You can be damned sure that the friends didn't keep their lunch money but gave these cult thugs everything.

We also see that A & S were believers or as John would say, children of God. Why would God kill His own children, those He loves for such a little sin???
There isn't any God in this scene. There's Peter, the Ananias' family and a group of semi-innocent bystanders. Sort of like in one of the Thin Man movies. God has an airtight alibi, and he was well heeled for cash (he actually does "have as much money as God").
Peter "the Rock," a.k.a. Simon, on the other hand, has a history of violence and was the one who kept all the money that was supposed to be "given to God." Peter was the one with two dead bodies at his feet. Motive, opportunity and a bunch of eye witnesses who themselves have just given Peter everything they own. He should have gotten the chair.

1. God is Holy before He is love. He cannot tolerate sin.
Remember what web site you are on. Before you can declare that you know what God's personal preferences are you have to produce a God to have them.

2. to display the riches of kindness of His mercy on us who screw up far worse than A & S
And this makes a double homicide okay…just how?

3. to show believers that can sin but that they are still accountable to God for their actions.
You do realize what you are saying, don't you? You are saying TO THREATEN. You are saying YOUR MONEY OR YOUR LIFE.
What does God need money for?
This is a story of Peter getting money. Not the Father, not the Son and not the Holy Spirit…Peter got the dough. Peter murdered the couple.
He showed the rest of the congregation that they were "accountable for their actions." Any of youse other mugs wanna keep some o' the dough for yourself? I thought not, now fork it over.

Nevertheless, if A & S could speak now and give you one message, i'm sure that it would be…
Really? I would think it more likely they would say that they were extorted and then brutally slain while they were in the midst of giving charity.
I would think that the horror Sapphira felt after seeing her husband alive only three hours before; coming to the group she loved and trusted, who preached forgiveness and kindness; only to find her husband dead, his body thrown in a ditch, all her possessions gone and herself in the hands of her husbands killer while all her friends stood by not lifting a finger--I would think that this horror would have lived on through the ages, and she would warn you to have nothing to do with these terrible people.

Butters

Wardy, Just a few comments.

Great things happened this day:
1. Grace was upon them all.
2. They were united with one heart
3. No one was selfish.
4. The needy were not needy any more.
5. Ananias and Sapphira were a part of congregation of those who believed and were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.
6. Living testimony was being made to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

" This could apply to any sect, and I really won't comment on anything other than #4.

"The needy were not needy anymore." They were no longer needy because they had talked property owners into selling their land and handing over the money. What happened when the money ran out? Seeing that the entire group was not producing anything other than religion, and were not contributing to socity, the only thing they could do was suck more money out of new converts. Where would we be now if the church still demanded ALL our assets? Broke and hungery like any other communist experiment."

You made a great observation as well that you bolded in the text above. "Ananias hearing these words fell down" It does not say that Peter struck Him dead. Ananias just died, cause of death hearing the words of Peter. Words to not have the ability to kill unless there is something supernatural behind them.

"So if it was supernatural, what you are saying is God did it. So are you saying that that was a moraly defensable act of a kind loving God? And what about greater sins than theirs? Why does God not strike others down, Does God change or not? Why did all this supernatural stuff happen in a time when people believed in all manner of superstitions, but when people starting examining them, they quit happening?" Of course if their is a God, he will be more pissed at the Christians that portray him as a liar, bully, extortionist, and murderer, than at those that didn't believe in him at all."

another observation comes from the word 'privy' in verse 2. the greek definition means indicates that Ananias was fully aware of keeping back part of the price. Ananias lied.

Yes, but is the price of holding back a portion of your own hard earned money a justifiable offence to be murdered, by God or anyone else? If that is your God, I will have to spend eternity in hell with the rest of the 99% of the people that ever lived.

We also do not see anyone ratting An.& Saph. out. This absolutly does not mean that someone didn't. The text doesn't mention, but there is a chance that their deeds were supernaturally revealed by the Lord. (just another observation)

"Well, after reading the Judas thread, I see that it is acceptable to inject whatever we feel like into the text to support our ideas, so I contend that someone ratted them out. But If it was God, why didn't he appear to the couple and rebuke them? It would have made a more powerfull story, the pair running to Peter, throwing themselves at his feet, sobbing with remorse, and praising God. Then they all could have had a good meal and a few drinks (On the couples money of course) and everyone could have lived happily ever after."

O.K. thanks for your patients, no more observations, just discussion. First of all, I would not credit Peter for the death of A & S. I would say that the Lord dropped them dead right there. Peter just spoke. (Unless he had poison breath, which would have most likely killed all of the other people around, including the ones Peter spoke to in between the death of A & S., i have a hard time believing that the death came from Peter)

A hard time believing that the death came from Peter? What is more likely, the leader of a radical sect killing a couple of holdouts in front of the group as a lesson; or an all loving and all mercifull God commiting this offence? Change the name of the sect leader from Peter to David Koresh ans see is that affects your opinion"

The utterly, unsettling questions that penetrates the heart is why?? So they lied, big deal it was their possesions to begin with?? How could a loving God do that??

Hey, you tell me.
I think what makes this passage hard to chew is that first of all we are convicted of doing much similar if not worse. A & S simply promised a gift, sold their land to give it, and kept back some of the price. It's was there stuff in the first place...the only thing that happened was that they welched on the promise. They still gave part of the gift, so why have them drop dead???? personally, i've done much worse. I slandared the name of God with words and with my actions. Now, the only thing that suprises me when i sin is that I didn't do it sooner.

Then you better watch out,God will strike you down at any miniute. (But you will increase your odds of surviving if you avoid being lured into a room full of fanitical cult members)

What we see in this difficult passage is the Holiness of God, a set-apartness in His character that can have nothing to do with sin.

Nothing to do with sin? He created it! And this is the NT, what happened to all that stuff about forgivness, Jesus was God wasn't he? and yet he hung around with sinners, he preached forgivness, not murder. WWJ have D?"

We also see that A & S were believers or as John would say, children of God. Why would God kill His own children, those He loves for such a little sin???

1. God is Holy before He is love. He cannot tolerate sin.
"Then why these poor people that believed in him and worshiped him and not all the evil sinners around them?" From where I'm sitting, God tolerates sins aplenty."

2. to display the riches of kindness of His mercy on us who screw up far worse than A & S

Do you people even think about what your'e saying? I see no riches of kindness in this act, it was morally reprehensible, whether it was commited by God or Peter. And if it was true, all you could claim is that he wanted to scarce the crap out of people that screw up far worse. And if he wanted to make an example out of them (of good or evil) why did it occur like so many other things in the NT, behind closed doors, with only the faithfull as wittneses?

3. to show believers that can sin but that they are still accountable to God for their actions. God is the only one that can totally cleanse and forgive all sin and still hold man accountable.
However with believer's it's never ever going to be a matter of Heaven or Hell. It's going to be a matter of physical death and loss of reward.

What the hell do you even mean by this? If they were believers, then after their death, they went to heaven, not much loss there. If you are speaking of the nebulas concept of heavenly rewards comming in degrees (i.e. If Hitler confessed and was saved before he died, he would still enter heaven, just not reap ALL the rewards), lets hear some backup on your concept.

Nevertheless, if A & S could speak now and give you one message, i'm sure that it would be Psalms 16:11 which says In Your presence is fullness of joy; In Your right hand there are pleasures forever.

This is just nuts!!!!! I couple gets killed in cold blood, and buried out back by Gods followers and you think they would be singing Gods praises?
It's crap like this that makes me so angry. We are told all the time that God (Christian God) is the source of all morallity, the Bible is the most perfect book ever written, that it provides the only true moral compass there is. Live your life like the Saints and Apostels! And then they have the nerve to blame the worlds problems on non-believers. This book has done more to screw peoples minds than any other, if you can rationalize the evil deeds done in it, you can rationalize anything!