Day 21 - Ananias and Sapphira

Ananais’s name used to be synonymous with liars, and it’s for that reason he’s one of the first Biblical figures to be named in Doctor Who: “I would point out that much of the Railyard's so-called evidence was a farrago of distortion which would have had Ananias, Baron Munchausen and every other famous liar blushing down to their very toe nails”, so says the Sixth Doctor during his trial.

Ananias and Sapphira have one of the most puzzling and troubling passages in the New Testament.

In short, the early church, of which they membered, lived as a commune, a socialist, diggers/levellers/occupy arrangement with a common purse. That is, many members sold all they had and gave their money to the church, so all could fairly benefit from it.

As Acts 4 puts it, ‘All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had’. I like that system. It also seems to have been optional, so those who joined did the sharing part by choice, not obligation. That part’s important.

The start of Acts 5 tells the rest of the tale

Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet. Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.” When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened.

Ananias is struck dead for claiming he’s giving a lot to the church when in fact he’s just giving a little. And when Sapphira comes in later exactly the same happens, with her either dying miraculously from guilt, or from shock on learning her husband died.

So what happened here? So far as I can tell, Ananias is killed, immediately, divinely, for lying to God. This is unlike anything else that happens in the New Testament, with the exception of Sapphira of course - and feels, to be honest, a little harsh. Jesus forgave the people who crucified him - and died to forgive anyone who repented - that is, to forgive absolutely anyone of absolutely anything, and all they had to do was ask for forgiveness. Sapphira and Ananias didm’t even get the chance to repent.

Was what they did worse than anything else? They had given a little money to the church - technically good - and kept some of their own money - which almost anyone would do today. It’s like they paying their taxes but made false public claims about their tax returns.

Peter makes it clear the real sin wasn’t keeping some money and lying to people, but lying to God. Still seems a little harsh, though.

The church has lots theories on this. When I was younger, I used to think this was God showing he hadn’t retired. After the resurrection, he was doing one conspicuous murdering zap to show he still had an interest in the world, and the church was not now ‘anything goes’. I don’t think that’s right, though. It seems too vindictive to be an example.

Perhaps it was necessary. The church hadn’t yet bloomed. If the major players of the first Century church had been outed as frauds, lying mega-pastors, and the worst of the clergy of the modern age, it could have undermined Christianity and ruined it in its infancy. This was a surgical strike.

A third option came to mind more recently, but I think this might not be supported by the text. What if Peter made a mistake. He was right that they had sinned grievously, and lied to God and to their fellows. What if he was wrong that they should immediately die about it? He didn’t kill them, per se, but did he speak their death into being? It’s more overt with Sapphira’s death:

Jesus had handed Peter the keys, and maybe Peter, as an early decision, decided death was the way to protect the church, but never did this again. If this death seems rather Old Testament, remember this is before Peter is shown that Kosher is no longer to be kept, and before St Paul arrives and rightly rebukes Peter for keeping unnecessarily to Old Testament traditions and theology. This passage doesn’t back me up at all, but what comes to pass is so out of the ordinary, I wonder if the famously impetuous Peter used his authority to curse, but just this twice, in quick succession, before hanging up his gun.

I have no idea. This passage continues to puzzle. What do you think, dear listener?