Ananias and Sapphira – Assumptions and Intuitions (Loose At the Wild Goose Part 1)
Jul.23, 2012 in
Guest Appearances, Podcast Episodes
In this first Loose At the Wild Goose podcast from the Wild Goose Festival, Ray is joined by Steve Berry, Kevin Miller, Brad Jersak, and Lorri & Michael Hardin for a lively discussion about the story of Ananias and Sapphira found in Acts 5. Did God kill Ananias and Sapphira? What assumptions have we read into the text, and what would the Holy Spirit like to show us? Reminiscent of an Anabaptist Bible Study, here is a great example of what it might look like to read and study the Bible in community. Speaking of community, we welcome your interaction on the podcast website or the Facebook page!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:08:05 — 62.3MB) | Embed
July 24th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Hey all, I enjoyed the podcast! I am leaving a link to another round table discussion about Ananias and Sapphira. The conclusion is also non violent but from a differant perspective.
http://www.thegoodnessofgod.com/GOODAUDIO.html
This is a two part discussion and you will have to scroll down to session 5 and 6 to find Ananias and Sapphira
July 25th, 2012 at 9:00 am
Great post, as usual. I was wondering…I used to read this scene with Peter acting almost as a despot, but now, given what you all are saying (I am halfway through the podcast as I write this), that if Peter is the “new Abraham” – since he has been given the authority by Jesus (though Peter’s faith is flawed and Peter is a bit of a stubborn guy – a nucklehead too at times), he has been given some insight (moreso than James, who didn’t come to faith until after the resurrection despite his direct genetic link to Jesus through Mary)., Peter sees the train wreck coming in Ananias and Sapphira. He knows what their reaction will be perhaps. Just like Jesus could see people for who they were and despite that drew them in. His reaction is as compassionate as God’s questions to Adam and Eve and to Cain. They (both God and Peter) knew what they did and he was giving them (Adam, Eve, Cain, Anaias and Sapphira) the chance to come clean and move on BUT knew they…couldn’t…they held onto their fear (guilt) and their brokenness. Their fate was inevitable. It’s cause and effect. As is pointed out, there is nothing supernatural about it. God doesn’t intervene because he can’t. He is that which is, simply. He is the process of cause and effect itself.
July 25th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
A great podcast that captured the energy and spirit of the Goose. Looking forward to Part 2. I hope this podcast series will encourage your listeners to attend next year’s festival.
July 25th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Recently I’ve been looking through the spiritual gift list and have discovered that I have the gift of heresy. The awesome thing about this gift is that you can talk from your butt fissure. So operating in this gift, I also (as someone in your podcast quickly alluded to) wonder about the authenticity of this section. I don’t know a lot about dating of various NT fragments, but the earliest for Luke is p4 (Luke 1-6) and seems to be from around 200 CE. p45 (containing large parts of the Gospels and Acts) is from around 250 CE. This is almost two centuries removed from said event. Also the drop dead story does not seem to line up with Jesus’ (i.e. John 3:16-18) or even Paul’s theology (God reconciling the whole word to Himself). Would God (through Peter) actually setup a trap, really? My guess is that somewhere along the way, some church policeman conveniently inserted an idea “don’t double cross the church with all your coin” if you don’t want cardiovascular problems. The idea of two heart attacks in the same family within hours of each other doesn’t seem probable.
These are just my heresies but one thing I know for sure, if I was living back then I wouldn’t buy any good luck charms from Ananias or Sapphira.
July 27th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
Hey Matteo,
In the podcast Kevin Miller drew the parallel of Paul being the new Abraham, not Peter. Would this affect how you developed your thought in the previous comment? I was curious what you would make of that. Keep those great thoughts coming! 🙂
July 27th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Jim,
I’m not sure what New Testament criticism might add to this discussion. I really am very uneducated when it comes to it. So much to learn…
“one thing I know for sure, if I was living back then I wouldn’t buy any good luck charms from Ananias or Sapphira.”
Roger that!
July 28th, 2012 at 11:46 am
Rayborn, thanks for your comment. I also don’t know much about NT criticism either, so I’m just speculating. I suppose that if this story is not in the autograph (i.e. did not happen or didn’t quite happen this way), then the discussion shifts to what was the author trying to imply.
This story seems a bit along the lines of what is found in the apocryphal book Acts of Peter that was commonly read in a reasonable number of Christian communities in the first few centuries CE. It seems different than Christ like action for sure.
Although not part of this podcast theme, I sometimes wonder if some early scribes did us a disservice (not intentionally) by embellishments to try to clarify what they thought was orthodox rationale. Going with the heart (i.e. using the mushy feeling factor), this story doesn’t feel right to me. However, I guess you just had to be there to know what really happened. I’m safe for now because I’m not currently planning to sell any real estate.
July 28th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Rayborn, I don’t agree with Paul about the comparison to Abraham. The Roman Catholic tradition might given that Peter seems to be considered the first pope, despite the lack of evidence that he was ever Bishop of Rome. Maybe I should give the podcast another listen. It is interesting that Jim references the apocryphal book Acts of Peter. Also, we all discard noncanonical books but should understand that these texts were read by early Christians and meant something to them. I don’t want to digress too much though from this conversation. I do agree that the Book of Acts show the failure of the church. This only reinforces my opinion that the Bible is NOT the literal word of God. Those writing it (as well as those who edited them and reconstructed them to make it consistent with their, for lack of better term – propaganda_ may have been inspired, but I don’t believe that God was “personally” involved. I think that we have to look at the New Testament as a Jewish text. Even Paul wasn’t “Christian”. He was a Jew who eventually came to believe what the Jews who followed Jesus at the time (and who he persecuted). His letters and even the pseudographia are very Jewish. Even the eschatology that eventually evolved by the end of the 1st century remained in synch with that eschatology found in the Hebrew scripture. Ultimately, I think that the followers of the Way in Acts acted as Jews in line with Torah. They knew what it was and did the best the could to live up with that. That is how Jews today view Torah and some agree that it needs to be reinterpreted. The first Christians, then, can’t be seen to have been Jews at that time. These were the Gentiles. Paul preached to them but knew they could not be included in the Jewish “family” because, well, Paul was still a politician. He couldn’t write off the Jews who accepted Jesus (Paul, James, etc.) He couldn’t allow non Jesus following Jews to walk away either because he saw what was going on around him with respect to Rome. He also couldn’t piss off the Roman leaders because HE was a Roman citizen. But, again, that’s another digression. Paul came about in the ruins of the church started by James and Peter and knew that things had to change. The view of Jesus had to change too. So, I can still see comparisons of Peter to Abraham and Moses, but I also keep in mind that the same thing was done with Jesus, into the new Moses and Elijah in the Gospel of Matthew. Personally, I don’t accept John’s view of Jesus because of the unique claims he seems to make. He is the one who elevates Jesus, not Jesus himself, and John is in line with the rest of the Jewish interpretation of Jesus. Paul saw the end of the church coming which is why he had to start building what would become another religion. Perhaps he tried to “repair” the damage he saw done to Judaism, much like Martin Luther wanted to repair the deficiencies in the church at his time, but he failed too. I think Martin Luther would be appalled if he saw what happened to the church – meaning the whole or most of the results of the Protestant Reformation. Again, though, another digression. Alas, no one is perfect, which is why any of us can do is do the best we can with how God made us.
July 28th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Matteo, thanks for calling me out on my ambiguity. I wasn’t trying to say that the section in Acts 5 belongs in the “unorthodox bin” with the other non-canonical books. I was thinking more along the lines that the Acts of Peter covers a lot of miracles associated with Peter. Another origin may stem from the fact that the Western text of Acts is about 20% longer than the Alexandrian text of Acts, and some have noticed that it also heightens the role of Peter (political?).
I agree that a lot of NT contains Jewish orientation. But I also don’t think that even those bad-ass Pharisees would go as far as the story in Acts 5. This seems to have a political overtone not related to Jewish history. Oh yeah, how does this relate to the p-cast discussion? Well if this story didn’t even really happen ….
July 28th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Jim I wasn’t suggesting that the Pharisees would have acted one way or the other. One can compare the communal living to the Essenes, as well as the election of the deacon by the laying of hands and under the power of the Holy Spirit. There are parallels to this in Jewish communities at the time. Of course, the bad, bad Sadducees make an appearance and of course the Jews are blamed for the crucifixion. The whole book is a compilation written in order to make a theological point. Jews bad…Romans…well…Even Stephen seems to take n the role of Jesus. Not saying that the whole book is bad, either, as there is an effort that seems to be made to address prejudices at the time as the church was forming. Did it succeed? No.
I wasn’t calling you out either. Sorry if it seemed that way. There is much ambiguity throughout the entire NT, not to mention the Hebrew scriptures. It would be interesting to see the modern Jewish perspective on Acts and this story in particular. I’m sure there are some. I’m a bit hesitant to agree that Jesus did or didn’t say what was attributed to him anywhere in the gospels – especially the overall anti-Semitic tone to the New Testament. At least I hope not. I don’t think it matters whether any of the story actually happened or not. I think it’s the meaning that is important and the podcast made for an interesting discussion. I never read the story the way it was discussed and I’m glad the discussion went in the direction that it did. I think that the actions of the cast in Acts was overtly political, to both the Jews and the Romans. Thank God it was. It was a digression, I know, but I just had to let my thoughts known. If you talk about one story in the Gospels I think you end up talking about many others.
Who know how many people got their hands on the narrative, which made me respond the way I did. If Acts is a continuation of Luke’s narrative, then
July 28th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
I liked the podcast and I also liked your comments Matteo (a lot of thought behind them). Of course we have Jesus’ exact words because he always talked in red letters – lol.
One example is that the Lord’s prayer is slightly different in Matt and Luke. If they both refer to the same event, they both can’t be His exact words. Also Jewish Rabbis including Jesus used oratory devices like meter and rhyme. A lot of this is lost since He spoke in Aramaic but our NT manuscripts are in Greek. Some dude worked on reconstructing possible exact wordings for the prayer by retroverting the Greek back into Aramaic to try to get a better idea of what He actually said (Joseph A. Fitzmyer in “The Gospel According to Luke”) but I haven’t read this book, just caught a few lines on someone’s web site. But this is a whole other rabbit trail on sola scriptura.
In summary, I think we can get a gist of what Jesus was saying in a reasonable number of places in the NT, but His exact words – probably difficult.
July 29th, 2012 at 11:03 am
Hope this makes some sense. A lot has been said about the non violence of God, BUT there are alot of verses if you just read thru the Bible that are difficult—just one of many examples is Jeremiah 11:8 It seems obvious that God brought on curses of the covenant on the people.
Just trying to understand the “non violence” of God you keep talking about. Thanks and love the podcasts.
August 4th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
There are some profound nuggets in last weekends discussion. Ananias & Saphira, the story, happened in the wake of the Pentecost. What I find to be a valid conclusion from knowing History, The Bible, Plato, etc. is that CONSCIENCE WAS NONEXISTENT PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE PENTECOST. It’s inception is more dear and enabling to subsequent generations than any other development. It must have seemed like a juggernaut to those present, such as Ananias & Saphira, so much so that they passed out and died when hit with the first recorded instance of a guilty conscience–a sort of death which continues to happen regularly, IMHO.
August 7th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Could it be that Ananias and sapphira were killed by executors who came to their door at the beckon and call of Peter for their “sin” of not giving everything over? Just a thought from how I heard the text read. It seems clearer in the story of sapphires death when Peter says ‘ok, death is now at ur door’ and then she died.
August 7th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
And if that’s the case then this story is a story of human sinfulness entering the church and committing acts of horrific violence in the name of God and not an example for us today
August 8th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Luke wrote his Gospel prior to 62AD. Luke wrote his gospel before he wrote Acts. Acts is known to be written prior to 64AD.
Luke did not borrow from any other written gospel to compile his accounts but from what was told to Him by Jesus’ friends and family. Therefore, there is no need to date his gospel by any other gospel. In addition, the gospel were all written within the lifetime of Jesus’ disciples. The view sometimes expressed by some scholars of a later date is based on inability to accept predictive procecy as being capable of accuracy. Because the destruction of the Temple is prophecied by Jesus, this is discounted and said to be written after the destruction. Those who accept the possibility that prophecy can be fulfilled are therefore able to accept the Gospel at a much earlier date which fits in better with the other known facts about the Gospel writers.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_the_Gospel_of_Luke_written#ixzz22zK1LMMH
August 8th, 2012 at 11:59 pm
Hi L. Schultz, your post is interesting to me because I’m interested in the best dates for the gospels. Luke ranges from 65 – 85 CE depending on which group of scholars you go with. Do you have any references to new literature for the 62 AD date. Unfortunately the Wiki page is just an answer page with no references given. If you do have a very current reference, I’d be happy if you share it. Thanks in advance for your help.
August 13th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
William, thanks for your post. At first I thought the idea of lack of conscience/empathy prior to the crucifixion and subsequent Pentecost was, well … a bit weird. But now I’m starting to think about your idea a bit more. Do you have any literature references to studies on conscience in antiquity (say the last few centuries BCE)? I know they won’t mention Pentecost specifically in the reference :), but maybe there is a reference to a study on modelling human conscience profile in antiquity. If you know of one, could you share it. Thanks.
August 15th, 2012 at 3:14 am
Even if we conclude that all that was involved in the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira was the natural result of the process of sowing and reaping, all that does is push the question of the agency of God in their deaths from time of the actual events to some antecedent time when God Himself established the principle of sowing and reaping. When God established that principle, did He not know that it would kill Ananias and Sapphira? How could He not (unless one assumes an Open Theism position)? So, ultimately, in that case, God still took the lives of Ananias and Sapphira.
The only way one might try to wiggle out of that dilemma would be to seek to establish sowing and reaping as a principle that is somehow independent of God, and over which even He, in all his omnipotence and omniscience, is not sovereign. In other words: God did not make the principle of sowing and reaping inherent to creation when He created the universe; it was something that “just is,” irrespective of God’s own existence. This raises the question of whether there is something higher or more fundamental to existence than God Himself, an idea that I do not believe can be supported biblically.
October 24th, 2013 at 11:08 pm
Comment on Job – scapegoat of the scapegoats: cf Luke’s 10 lepers story. The one demonstrates faith is the Samaritan leper – scapegoat of the scapegoated lepers. The others simply return to reabsorb themselves into the religious system…
November 22nd, 2013 at 1:53 am
an answer to the above
November 22nd, 2013 at 1:55 am
In the following blogpost I’m trying to answer the above
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8866769061706870107#allposts/postNum=0
December 15th, 2013 at 2:31 pm
[…] Hosted by Beyond the Box […]
August 4th, 2014 at 5:16 pm
It was the Holy Spirit that led me on this search. I have been questioning all but the words of Jesus Jeshua because during His life He chastised the disciples for sometimes getting things wrong…I don’t believe they are or were supposed to be regarded as infallible no more than the Pope. My son stole some tithe money from me and hid the theft hoping he could repay and not get caught My daughter randomly asked about Ananias and Sapphira…as I recounted it by rote nd my son started to study it wondering if he would die…I wondered about its veracity and authenticity