The meaning of (Acts 5 :1) Ananias, with Sapphira

Hello everyone, I wanted to know some of your views about (Acts 5). Acts 5 was written by Luke who was a physican as well. I am wondering here about this account as recently I read that a Christian walked away from their faith and this story was the final catalyst. I found it sad when people walk after some time, so to see if they had seen it right, I like to uncover the truth to stories when they have caused some dissent.

I want the right interpetation for this story and my minister will weigh in on it to in some days.

These are the persons views and not mine-

What de-converted me from Christianity ? Acts 5. The story of the couple struck down dead in front of the Apostles.
"Mark was first written. And the first part of Acts was maybe next, as I recall. So what I did was read Mark alone, with an empty head, and acts 5 made total sense then. The padding of matt and Luke change the story. As for John: pure Gnostic invention written approx 60 years minimum after Jesus.
Do you ever wonder why some parts are absolute literal fact, others are handwaved away ? As your pastor done with acts 5. How about Acts 4, Matt 6, John 1 ? Why can't we just hand wave them away here is the thing. I was not willing to hand wave acts 5 away."

The story recounts a couple who sold some land and kept back some of the money and delcared to the apostles it was the full amount. They was chatised for lying to the Holy Ghost and in front of God and they fell down dead the account reports. The wife was asked to confirm this also and she sided with her husband and then fell down dead. I thought that this could be a test case and it clearly would not happen today. The early church was being establised and it is wrong to lie to anybody and ministers should be respected as a vessel of Christ. The account doesn't mention they prayed to God before. They were arrested. Later Romans says we must follow the law of the land. God is the highest authority and I wonder how did they die some some may think they struck by natural cases and make it out yourself.

I noticed these things.

They was not given forgiveness

It was not in line with the Commandment to not murder this also involved loss of blood and life which Christ covers.

They were not before God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as such

They did not commit blasphemy unto the Holy Ghost

Jezebel and associates were given many chances to change by Christ in Revelations for their immorality which rated as immoral by God, lying doesn't appear to be as grave although it is a sin

When Aaron son's were consumed for defilement by God, they were before God at Yom Kippor I think and the mosaic law

Apostles can be sinful to they are human blessed with the Holy Spirit

God although it was prophecy recently watched his Son being lied about by false witness and they remained upright.
.
It was a difficult case. I have looked it again and the first line struck me..."A certain man named Ananias.."
The story doesn't somehow seem litreal to me and symbolic perhaps of how church ministers should be respected. I see no further illuminating light on the true morals of this story to confirm. The Gospels are Christ's words and the most important thing and Revelations in the faith.


Some think that this case may be not litreal. See below for such arguments. I want to know your views so I can help this person see this in its true light if it needs to be.

"In Acts 5,
Ananias and his wife Sapphira represent a, cautionary, non-literal interpretation symbolizing hypocrisy and the danger of pretending to be more spiritual than one is, notes this article on TruthUnity. They falsely claimed to give all proceeds from a property sale, lying to the Holy Spirit, which led to their immediate deaths, highlighting that such actions are seen as lying to God"
Metaphysical meaning of Ananias (mbd) | Fillmore Faith

Thank you both for your thoughts and time to respond. Your responses were helpful.


Jesus was sometimes not pleased with his disciples faith, so they did not get things right all the time as they are human beings. The individual themselves I don't know if they had the blessing of the Holy Spirit themselves, if they lied they are lying to themselves as well-their indwelling Holy Spirit. People should not lie generally to others and church ministers and should have respect for them in this role.


Thank you

bèlla said:

The issue with the pair is found in the term below. They weren't required to give nor was a specific amount requested.

Grandstanding: the action of behaving in a showy or ostentatious manner in an attempt to attract favorable attention from spectators or the media.

~bella

Click to expand...

Thank you bella. I was thinking about this as well. It seemed a bit of corruption like trying to buy favour through treatment through the ministers by putting money at their feet. Would you say that this was symbolic or litreal?
I found Joseph Smith take very interesting as I agree with his first part which seems inspired, and the protection idea sounds pausible. However, corruption to equal killing is outside usually of Christ's law and only Christ can overwrite this as a legitimate authority and make it pausible.
They were not Christians and I though the A certain man named was strange and caught my eye and Joseph Smith commented on this on their blog.

Carl Emerson said:

Literal - they publicly lied about personally taking part of the proceeds from the sale.

Publicly misrepresented the truth.

Such an event was hugely impacting on all who witnessed it - it is very unlikely to have been forgotten or made up.

There is a parallel from the defeat at AI after the great victory at Jericho. (Joshua 7) No one was to personally take the booty from the battle, the Spirit singled out the very family that hid stolen valuable items under the house. They experienced a similar fate.

The common theme is a purging of His people from the corrupt acts.

Click to expand...

Thank you, the story doesn't tell us whose items they were selling, was it their own and they were donating the money and witheld some back and may be made a promise somewhere. Or was it the church property they was selling and withheld some of the money back. Both of these give a different meaning to the scripture.

I looked at the Good News Version and it was written that the couple sold their own property and didn't give it all in the proceeds. Also, in Acts 4 it is stated as said earlier by a forum member that they used to sell all their property and then the apostles would divide out the money.


"

The Believers Share Their Possessions​

32 The group of believers was one in mind and heart. None of them said that any of their belongings were their own, but they all shared with one another everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and God poured rich blessings on them all. 34 There was no one in the group who was in need. Those who owned fields or houses would sell them, bring the money received from the sale, 35 and turn it over to the apostles; and the money was distributed according to the needs of the people.


36 And so it was that Joseph, a Levite born in Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “One who Encourages”), 37 sold a field he owned, brought the money, and turned it over to the apostles".

It is a message to protect the church.

Carl Emerson said:

The context was the selling of private land.

Click to expand...

Thank you Carl, you have been very helpful.