Aninias and Sapphira, Acts 5

[AndyF]

Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion) by the official definition is the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. (more at NewAdvent)

The Jews also had excommunication and it pre-dates the Christian one. The question arises, what is so severe about the sin of withholding funds that would cause Aninias and his wife Sapphira to be disqualified from this process?. We are reminded Pentecost had recently occured, thus qualifying these two candidates for this measure.

Some other curious facts:

1/Saphira would have held a lessor role in the financial decisions in the Jewish household of that time, even if she desired more.

2/In keeping with the spirit of Justice the Holy Spirit would have known, that justice should favor the least advantaged. (Rawls, Theory of Justice). Therefore if death was called for Aninias, his wife should have deserved a lessor sentence.

3/The emphasis was made on enlistement, with the spirit of Christian mercy conveyed
at all times. Now one could even say, sprinkled with a bit of vengeance.

4/Money has a desired item seems to crop up has an important theme. Even if it wasn’t, one would think they would have played down the emphasis for the sake of making the point to the new converts and winning them over. Winning them over through persuassion would have been the more noble method offering the greatest reward.

The conclusion is excommunication has a remedy was open to some Christians and Jews, but not all. A more severe sentence is reserved for other Christians.

All in all, I think the scene was different than portrayed. I think you could have heard a pin drop and everyone would have carefully measured their words. Relaxation would have been out. I would guess a nervous atmosphere permeated the assembly, and there must have had for months the dire warnings when someone went astray or slipped up. “Remember what happened to Aninias, so better cough up what you can”.

Thoughts?

Andy

 

[Nita]

Read the episode again. The issue isn’t about giving money to the Church (they didn’t have to give any of it to the Church), it’s about lying to God.
Acts 5:2-4… and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 5:3 But Peter said, … While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? … You have not lied to men but to God."
What’s really interesting is that trying to deceive Peter and the other apostles is equated to lying to the Holy Spirit/God.

 

[nickybr38]

What Nita said and a reiteration.

Everyone was encouraged to give what they had BUT it had to be their choice to do so. Ananias sold EVERYTHING and gave part to the apostles (and I do believe he claimed to be giving everything) but when confronted he LIED to Peter. It was after this that he was struck dead. Later Sapphira came before them and she too LIED and thus she too was struck dead. Her crime was the SAME as Ananias’ because she chose to lie instead of speak the truth to Peter. They gave her a chance, she chose not to take it.

I also highly doubt any of the apostles used this event to strong arm anyone into anything. However, it’s very likely the story spread like wildfire among the new Christians and everyone knew what happened and WHY. I can daresay people were far more truthful when they gave to the Christians after that.

I imagine the scene far differently then you. I imagine Peter being deeply grieved by all of this but also seeing it as God’s will. It’s that acceptance you get when your parents ask you to do something that’s for your own good but that you don’t necessarily enjoy. Kind of like when a splinter is removed from a finger or such a thing.

 

[AndyF]

Nita:

Some points.

Lieing to God comes in many forms. A sin in of itself is an intrinsic lie to God. We lie to God when we are deliberately obstinate and unrepentant, severing our friendship with God and the Holy Spirit, and in many other instances when we break our baptismal promise.

Try as I might to change my view, I think my main observation is sound. Peter’s wording places emphasizes more on the material elements of the case, and not the principle. He is definetely peaved at not receiving the funds. What hurt him more was the loss of this bounty, and as if the first sentence was a secondary point, he makes it primary and without doubt to us in the second sentence.

Peter could have steered the event by his action and I feel an opportunity was missed. Who’s to know what could have resulted if he took him aside and warned him of the consequence of his decision. Perhaps the Holy Spirit would have qued in on the conveyance of this mercy and been less severe. At Sodom God had changed his mind because of the will power of one man.

However, you skirt around the main point regardless, and here I stand my ground rock solid. Pentecost assures them the most severe punishment and that is excom. This makes it a matter of celestial jurisprudence since Peter never claimed to “bind this decision on earth” that this one person is exempt from this mercy.

It is good that we remind ourselves that Aninias and Saphira are even now one with us through Christian unity, and we have a vested interest in their case, and God wants us to be interested if we are to believe St. Paul. And as far as I see the court is still in session.

Andy

 

[AndyF]

Why would they suddenly care now in their future, or what one individual lacked in contribution to their cause? I’m not saying I agree with Aninias, but why the focus here and never in the past.? Why not the probable ungrateful man of thousands at the Mount who found the fish and loaves too dry, or, the fisherman who complained,cursed and swore because his net was ripped when it was overflowing,etc. What happened here is suddenly out of character with the lessons we just learned.

Trust in a positive outcome in the midst of uncertainty had been played out several times in Christ’s ministry. The apostles had already come to trust they would be fed even though it seems like they were in dire straits, and many more cases preceded this. How much more would a seedling Church have in value for the case of survival? All of a sudden we are drawn into incidentals of a fund raising event, for what reason?.

I can daresay people were far more truthful when they gave to the Christians after that.

Of course they were. And we will continue for the sake of survival. Actually, we will do anything that is asked and agree to any reason given to us won’t we, …heck, why use reason and seek answers at all.?

…It’s that acceptance you get when your parents ask you to do something that’s for your own good…

If your mother promised all your siblings that the maximum punishment you would ever receive is two licks on the fanny, and your sister was almost beaten to death, then all you siblings can thank moma for giving you one more lesson to behave, and you *will *behave has you say, smile on que, and do anything. Only this time you do it because threat is the motivator and you live to survive another day until you can leave.

Andy

 

[jbarbaretta]

However, you skirt around the main point regardless, and here I stand my ground rock solid. Pentecost assures them the most severe punishment and that is excom. This makes it a matter of celestial jurisprudence since Peter never claimed to “bind this decision on earth” that this one person is exempt from this mercy.

AndyF, I’m sorry, but Nita is absolutely correct. Lying to the Holy Spirit is the crime. Based on your viewpoint, this is an incidental and odd outburst to scare people. It is arbitrary and peculiar – especially coming from a man that received incredible mercy for his own transgression of denying Jesus 3 times. That seems like an untenable position.

Looking at it from Nita’s perspective it is a simple statement that provides proof that the Church is the authority of God on earth. It equates lying to the Church to lying to the Holy Spirit, thus providing a visible sign of that authority.

I also am not sure that excommunication is the “worst” punishment that can befall someone. Excommunication is a warning that if if a person continues down a particular path, they are separating themselves from God and putting their soul at risk. Excommunication is an act of love by the church ( see 2 Corinthians) that is intended to change behavior. It can, and should be, reversed when the person recognizes their sin and is sorry/requests forgiveness.
It is not a punishment in and of itself.

I’m pretty sure that Jesus, on many occasions, indicated that eternal damnation was the worst thing that could happen.