Acts 4:32–5:16

6/29/2012

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Money and Lies
First, a question:

4:32-37 - Do you think the early Christians practiced a form of socialism/communism? Or was it something different? Why or why not?

Second, the story of Ananias and Sapphira is definitely very different than most things we read in the New Testament - it's not often that people are struck dead. The NIVAC Acts commentary has some helpful thoughts:

"Five important truths emerge from Peter’s words to Ananias in 5:3.
(1) Satan had so filled and controlled Ananias’s heart that he was carried away in his actions.
(2) Satan’s activity does not remove culpability from Ananias. Verse 3 attributes the act to Satan’s infilling, but verse 4 places responsibility for his action squarely on Ananias.
(3) The most serious thing Ananias did was to lie to the Holy Spirit, not keep back part of the money. Later Peter said that he could have done whatever he wanted with his money (v. 4).
(4) When we lie to the church, we lie to the Holy Spirit. We see the developing theology of the church here. In 5:11 we find the first of twenty-three times that the word ekklesia appears in Acts. Saul/Paul finds out later that when he persecuted the church, he was persecuting Jesus (9:4). Later he expresses the treasured teaching that the church is the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 4:12; 5:23).
(5) Since giving everything was not mandatory (v. 4), the particular desire that Satan had filled Ananias and Sapphira with was the desire for recognition by the church. They lied to win the same sort of esteem that Barnabas had won in the church." [1]

It was never about the money. God doesn't need money. But what Ananias and Sapphira did was to try to make people impressed with their sacrifice, all the while trying to keep their comfort. Who are you trying to impress? God or others? I don't think God is going to strike you dead, but I do think that wrong motives such as these can lead to spiritual deadness. As we read recently, Church is not about being awesome or loved by people, but about Jesus. Do what you do for HIM, not for the esteem of others.

[1] Ajith Fernando, Acts, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 197.

Andrei

6/29/2012 08:26:05 pm

Regarding the question - I asked the same question in S&L, because we're currently reading Acts... I forget the total response that people gave, but it was something like: 'i don't think the Bible encourages communism/socialism outright.' I think some people pointed out the important factor that the church in Acts did these things of their own will and love, rather than how people are mandated to share things under socialism/communism. On a related note, one thing people often say when criticizing socialism is: 'It'll never work because people are evil.' From what we see in Acts, like in verses 32-34, I can't help but to think that a truly Christ-centered Christian society would look socialistic... is that too radical?

Another question I had was why Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for their sin right away and not given another chance? I'm not sure if this is a question that has a definite answer... I think about some of the sins that always cause me to stumble repeatedly and I guess I'm still alive by God's grace and mercy. I wonder why it was in God's plan for them to lose their lives at that point in time...

Kevin Kuo

6/30/2012 05:41:53 am

The Bible would never endorse communism as Marx envisioned it as religion was to be stamped out as it was a means for the ruling class to control the people. It is important to understand that we are blurring political ideologies and economic models. A democracy does not automatically mean free market and a authoritarian society does not automatically mean a socialist or communistic economy. I believe God does want us to share resources. For example should everyone have their own snow blower if they could afford it? Or should we all chip in on between four neighbors and share one snow blower. Certain things we need more ownership than others. Like clothes. But there are definitely things we can collectively share, like specialized tools etc. The problem is all forms of current communism and socialism are motivated by selfish politicians seeking to promote their agenda and not the welfare of the people they govern. The new heaven and the new earth is most likely to be socialist however keep in mind there is probably not going to be a shortage of resources. You are never going to run out of God's money so to speak. However in our world eventually you will run out of other peoples money as evidenced by what is happening to all those socialistic European economies. To answer your question Andrei sometime things happen just to show God's sovereign will. For example when the teachers of the law asked Jesus who's sin was it the man or his parents that he should be Born blind and Jesus replied neither but it was so to show God's glory. Too often we try to calculate God's response to actions probably in efforts to probe the outer most limits of his grace but we must remember God is sovereign he only gives us grace because he wants to. At no time is there a contract between God and his people that he wouldn't allow calamity to befall upon humanity. It's a hard concept to grasp in our post modern world because we have been indoctrinated by the western world to over value the present physical life.

Greg

7/3/2012 06:31:06 am

I basically agree - good thoughts. I would differ on heaven being socialist though. See my response to Andrei - it will be a divine monarchy where we can really "share" persay, because we will fully recognize that everything comes from and is provided by God, therefore we can't own it, therefore we can't "share" it. Just a thought. Thanks Kevin!

Greg

7/3/2012 06:25:13 am

To answer the first thought, I would basically agree that the difference is that this was a choice, not compulsion to share everything in common. There are still "Christian communes" today - there's a big one in Chicago, but other ones as well where people share everything in common by choice. I think that the reason that Christianity tends toward this is because we begin to realize that we don't actually own anything - God does. So to think about heaven, I'm not sure that it would be "socialistic" really - there will be constant provision from God Himself, and no one with have any illusion that we are the providers and owners of anything. In a sense, it will be much more like a monarchy that properly provides. It's hard to draw parallels because we have never experienced a Theocracy on earth as it will be in heaven.

To answer your second question, I think that the major reason they were struck dead instantly was to show that they Church still needs to fear God and that God is still powerful and holy. We don't see this happen much again, so there's a sense that A & S are basically a warning shot to the early Church to remain holy. NIVAC has this:

"The fear of God and of the consequences of sin is a major theme of this story (5:5, 11). Paul told Timothy that elders “who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning” (1 Tim. 5:20). Public rebuke gives people a sense of the seriousness of sin, and that in turn acts as a deterrent to sin. The New Testament often talks about living with a fear of the consequences of sin and of displeasing God: “Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our ‘God is a consuming fire’ ” (Heb. 12:28–29). A sobriety should mark our behavior as we heed the words of Paul: “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12)."

Ajith Fernando, Acts, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 201.

Gina

6/30/2012 01:39:40 am

I don't think it was a form of socialism or communism...it seems to me more of a mission / or fund raising they agreed upon to do to help the poor though the bible didn't describe in detail. But that's the impression I got from the reading.
As to what happen to Ananias &Sapphira, my take was that it got to be more than physical death that was referred here..it's the spiritual battle between God & Satan...as Greg mentioned, it was not about the money...it's the sin being committed. It brings me back to when God drove Adam & Eve out of the garden...it was not about the apple..but Sin (caused by Satan..and in God's kingdom...there's no place for it.there's always consequences for sins and really only by God's grace n mercy, we are spared. Greg, correct me if I misinterpretated the passage lol...( might be over analyzing it ) :(

Greg

7/3/2012 06:28:45 am

Gina,

I think you might be allegorizing a little too much. I definitely agree that the purpose of the passage is to show that there is no place for sin and deception in the church - you're right on with that. I would differ on the "spiritual death" issue. There doesn't seem to be any indication in the passage that A & S are going to hell for what they did - simply that they are struck dead, so I think that making the assumption of spiritual death might go a little too far. The physical death was a sign of the seriousness of sin, but that doesn't negate the forgiveness that is found in Jesus for those that repent, believe in Him, and declare Him as Lord.

Comments are closed.

Acts 4:32–5:16

Archives