Acts 5:1 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God." 5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it.

Contrast this with

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

I think this parallels closely the 'death by holiness' events with the Tabernacle and Ark of the Covenant. The implication is that the Holy Spirit directly dwells in the church, much like the presence in the Temple.

Why was this phenomena true for Ananias and not, say, the rulers who just rejected the Holy Spirit after witnessing a miracle? Or Simon the Magician who attempted to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit and Peter calls him to repentance?

Because God does not work on logic.

I think due to your Roman Catholic inheritance you view salvation within a legal framework.

I do X and Y happens. If I don't do A then B won't happen.

If you drop the notion of a legal framework then things get easier to understand.

Communion and spiritual connection with God.

Do you sometimes let people (children) get away with different things because you view them differently at different times? Perhaps view transgressions in different lights and hold them to different standards based on your relationship with them?

The direct or immediate presence of the Lord is the difference.

Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders...

Acts 8:17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. 18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money,

This is exactly the distinction St Luke is trying to convey - that just like the presence of the Lord was specially located in the Tabernacle, it is also especially present in the Church.

What did you mean by "The direct or immediate presence of the Lord is the difference"? In all three cases, he was immediately present.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Direct means "without intervening factors or intermediaries" and immediate means "nearest in time, relationship or rank".

The Spirit is everywhere - "Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there!" - "Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord."

The Spirit of God is not limited to place, but we also see in the scriptures that He chooses places and times for His presence to be in a more direct and immediate way than others - like in the Tabernacle. And I think St Luke is showing that the Church inherited that kind of indwelling of the Spirit in a particular way.

I took you to mean that Ananias was in the direct or immediate presence of the Lord. That is why repentance was not offered, but instead immediate death. While this was "different" for the high priest in Acts 4 and Simon the Magician in Acts 8. i.e. in some way, they were not in the direct or immediate presence of the Lord.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. While the Spirit of God is everywhere and fills all things, knows all things, He chooses to be present in a different way in certain times and places. I think St Luke is showing that the Church is similar to the Tabernacle with regard to the presence of the Lord.

What are some literary markers that we can determine the difference? Because from the verses I quoted, it's pretty clear that he chose to be present in that time and place.

Zobel said:

---

It's ok, you don't have to agree.

---

Thanks for that. I know I am guilty of that.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Why was this phenomena true for Ananias and not, say, the rulers who just rejected the Holy Spirit after witnessing a miracle? Or Simon the Magician who attempted to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit and Peter calls him to repentance?

---

I think a key difference here is the fact that Ananias was Christian and swore an oath. He wasn't an unbeliever who was skeptical of a miracle, or a believer who wanted to buy miraculous power. He was someone that made a completely optional promise to the church and then lied about it. He could have reneged on his vow and done penance, but instead he decided to be deceitful. Instant death for that seems a bit harsh to me, but it's hard to argue with direct divine intervention.

Baseless speculation to follow, but maybe Ananias was overtaken by the Holy Spirit along with all the others when he made his vow. If he accepted the Spirit and gave his vow while under the Spirit, then maybe it's like the Spirit itself making the vow? To then go and change your mind and lie about it makes not only you a liar, but the Spirit as well. Seems like someone turning God into a liar would be lucky to get away with just instant death.

It was designed to deter others from the like presumptions, now at the beginning of this dispensation. Simon Magus afterwards was not thus punished, nor Elymas; but Ananias was made an example now at first, that, with the sensible proofs given what a comfortable thing it is to receive the Spirit, there might be also sensible proofs given what a dangerous thing it is to resist the Spirit, and do despite to him. How severely was the worshipping of the golden calf punished, and the gathering of sticks on the sabbath-day, when the laws of the second and fourth commandments were now newly given! So was the offering of strange fire by Nadab and Abihu, and the mutiny of Korah and his company, when the fire from heaven was now newly given, and the authority of Moses and Aaron now newly established. The doing of this by the ministry of Peter, who himself with a lie denied his Master but a little while ago, intimates that it was not the resentment of a wrong done to himself; for then he, who had himself been faulty, would have had charity for those that offended; and he, who himself had repented and been forgiven, would have forgiven this affront, and endeavoured to bring this offender to repentance; but it was the act of the Spirit of God in Peter: to him the indignity was done, and by him the punishment was inflicted.

-Matthew Henry, Commentary on Acts 5:5

I have heard it taught that his immediate death could be explained as a measure by God (Holy Spirit) to protect the establishment of The Church in its earliest (infantile) days - when it would have been at its most vulnerable.

Maybe a way to explain for those of us who are parents:

Someone doing physical harm to your infant would be met with an extremely violent response - beaten badly or killed. A school bully that punches your kid in middle school would not be met with the same level of intensity from the parent.

Ananias is in heaven. God has every right to treat my sin the same way, without breaking any of his promises.

94chem said:

---

Ananias is in heaven. God has every right to treat my sin the same way, without breaking any of his promises.

---

That is how I feel also. When you realize the certainty of eternal life, this stuff makes a lot more sense.

I wrote about this story several years ago in my book, and basically pull 5:1 through 6:7 into a connected narrative. The story of Ananias and Sapphira most closely relates to the acts of Nadab and Abihu, who were put to death by God for offering "strange fire." The Jewish priests, yet unrepenant, would have recognized the same spirit at work in both events. Great fear seized the church, in the same way that great fear (and anger, and sadness) seized Aaron and Israel. 6:7 concludes with a curious statement, with no further exposition, "a great number of priests became obedient to the faith." The events of chapter 5 must have contributed to this, and you can assume that these men were serious about propriety in worship! In the midst of persecution, God brought discipline, growth, order, and integrity.

Go Rangers!

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

What are some literary markers that we can determine the difference? Because from the verses I quoted, it's pretty clear that he chose to be present in that time and place.

---

God appears in different forms to different people in the Bible.

Sometimes, divine creatures of the Bible in the OT are referred to as "The Angel of the Lord". It is possible, even plausible, that this angel is sometimes a manifestation of God in a safe and easier to understand form.

He put his hand over Moses while he was in the cleft of the rock, and showed Moses his back. Jacob "wrestled" with God. Because Jacob was injured, it is clear that this was a physical encounter, and wrestle was not symbolic of a mental struggle.

But, it is clear in the OT that the "sprit of God" is omnipresent. So, that is a different manifestation of God.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Because God does not work on logic.

I think due to your Roman Catholic inheritance you view salvation within a legal framework.

I do X and Y happens. If I don't do A then B won't happen.

If you drop the notion of a legal framework then things get easier to understand.

---

This is true. But, the reality is, God is not constrained by a legal framework. God is the perfect subjective. Only he knows what is in everyone's hearts, and all the circumstances of everyone's decisions. Therefore, he doesn't need a rubric. He can judge every situation perfectly.

The reality is, if Ananias was killed on the spot, God knew that was the best way forward for Ananias and mankind in general. It's not helpful to try and follow God's logic, because some of the things about God are completely illogical.

I think this realization, that God exists outside of our ability to comprehend, is why EO churches are seeing such a revival now. We are entering a post-enlightenment phase, where we are admitting more and more how little we know about everything. Embracing mystery and humility about our own capabilities to comprehend are becoming more main-stream.

We learn things about the universe that are mysterious often. We can't explain everything. That is OK. However, admitting that it is OK is uncomfortable.

BusterAg said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Because God does not work on logic.

I think due to your Roman Catholic inheritance you view salvation within a legal framework.

I do X and Y happens. If I don't do A then B won't happen.

If you drop the notion of a legal framework then things get easier to understand.

---

This is true. But, the reality is, God is not constrained by a legal framework. God is the perfect subjective. Only he knows what is in everyone's hearts, and all the circumstances of everyone's decisions. Therefore, he doesn't need a rubric. He can judge every situation perfectly.

The reality is, if Ananias was killed on the spot, God knew that was the best way forward for Ananias and mankind in general. It's not helpful to try and follow God's logic, because some of the things about God are completely illogical.

I think this realization, that God exists outside of our ability to comprehend, is why EO churches are seeing such a revival now. We are entering a post-enlightenment phase, where we are admitting more and more how little we know about everything. Embracing mystery and humility about our own capabilities to comprehend are becoming more main-stream.

We learn things about the universe that are mysterious often. We can't explain everything. That is OK. However, admitting that it is OK is uncomfortable.

---

Quote:

---

It's not helpful to try and follow God's logic, because some of the things about God are completely illogical.

---

Isn't it more appropriate to say that our inability to understand makes God's will/providence seem illogical to us but we know everything God does is 100% perfectly logical/loving/merciful/just, etc?