D
the addition of chapters & verses to the scripture is undoubtedly helpful in some respects, but it also makes us sometimes act as though scripture comes in these numbered 'packets' and is not related to the preceding of following texts.
[HR][/HR]
we see a thread about Ananias, for example, so we open up the book of Acts and we start reading at the place marked chapter 5 - without looking at chapter 4.
this story isn't isolated from the rest of the text in the way the chapter designation may make it seem however: ch. 5 v. 1 starts with the word "but" or "however" -- clearly tying it to the preceding paragraphs.
Immediately previous to this, in Acts 4:32-35, we're told how the believers were pooling all their resources and acting very socialist, indeed even communist ((oh the horrors)). Barnabas, a Levite, sold property and symbolically laid the money at Peter's feet. But Ananias also sold property and kept some of the price back.
it is very significant that Barnabas, a Levite, had property to sell in the first place. as a Levite, it was against the Law for him to own property. we ought to ask ourselves how it came about that he did, and what it meant for him to be doing this, and why it is written for us in obvious conjunction with Ananias & Sapphira?
is it likely that Ananias was also a Levite?
[HR][/HR]
what does it mean if he was?
if he was, then the property he owned, he should never have owned, and should never have been sold to him.
what Peter said to him and his wife indicates Peter understood that they had conspired together to do what they did - why? is it really so simple as wanting to hoard some of the money?
could the conspiracy have gone deeper than that?
where does this take place, and who is there watching? Acts 5:12 tells us they were at Solomon's Porch - at the temple. if the setting is the temple mount, then they were meeting in the religious public square - where the Pharisees would also be nearby - just as Jesus had often done. when Jesus was teaching here, we have story after story of the Pharisees and others conspiring together to tempt Him, to trick Him, to catch Him in something so they could turn the people against Him. is it possible this was continuing here?
supposing what Peter says is literally true:
Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test?
(Acts 5:9)
suppose they were not just conspiring to keep money, but they were in fact conspiring specifically to put the Spirit to the test. suppose this was a Levite, in league with the Pharisees, wishing to trap Peter. what's the trap?
Barnabas, a Levite, is not supposed to own property. he repents fully, sells it and effectively gives all the money over to God. do the Pharisees see an opportunity here, and plant Ananias, also a Levite owning property, to sell it but only give a portion, not all, of his illegally-gotten gain. he only half-repents? what can they say then, about the believers, if Ananias is among them, still wealthy with mammon, and neither Peter nor the Spirit of God takes any notice? how does that put the Spirit to the test, and how can they use this scenario to defame the church?
[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
this might be going nowhere, but i just wanted to put it out there and see what y'all think. it seems to me that there was more going on here than what's typically brought out in pre-fab sermons, and maybe some of you can help me piece it together -- or maybe not. thanks for reading & thinking about it
[HR][/HR]
we see a thread about Ananias, for example, so we open up the book of Acts and we start reading at the place marked chapter 5 - without looking at chapter 4.
this story isn't isolated from the rest of the text in the way the chapter designation may make it seem however: ch. 5 v. 1 starts with the word "but" or "however" -- clearly tying it to the preceding paragraphs.
Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement),and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet.
(Acts 4:36-37, 5:1-2)
But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet.
(Acts 4:36-37, 5:1-2)
Immediately previous to this, in Acts 4:32-35, we're told how the believers were pooling all their resources and acting very socialist, indeed even communist ((oh the horrors)). Barnabas, a Levite, sold property and symbolically laid the money at Peter's feet. But Ananias also sold property and kept some of the price back.
it is very significant that Barnabas, a Levite, had property to sell in the first place. as a Levite, it was against the Law for him to own property. we ought to ask ourselves how it came about that he did, and what it meant for him to be doing this, and why it is written for us in obvious conjunction with Ananias & Sapphira?
is it likely that Ananias was also a Levite?
[HR][/HR]
what does it mean if he was?
if he was, then the property he owned, he should never have owned, and should never have been sold to him.
what Peter said to him and his wife indicates Peter understood that they had conspired together to do what they did - why? is it really so simple as wanting to hoard some of the money?
could the conspiracy have gone deeper than that?
where does this take place, and who is there watching? Acts 5:12 tells us they were at Solomon's Porch - at the temple. if the setting is the temple mount, then they were meeting in the religious public square - where the Pharisees would also be nearby - just as Jesus had often done. when Jesus was teaching here, we have story after story of the Pharisees and others conspiring together to tempt Him, to trick Him, to catch Him in something so they could turn the people against Him. is it possible this was continuing here?
supposing what Peter says is literally true:
Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test?
(Acts 5:9)
suppose they were not just conspiring to keep money, but they were in fact conspiring specifically to put the Spirit to the test. suppose this was a Levite, in league with the Pharisees, wishing to trap Peter. what's the trap?
Barnabas, a Levite, is not supposed to own property. he repents fully, sells it and effectively gives all the money over to God. do the Pharisees see an opportunity here, and plant Ananias, also a Levite owning property, to sell it but only give a portion, not all, of his illegally-gotten gain. he only half-repents? what can they say then, about the believers, if Ananias is among them, still wealthy with mammon, and neither Peter nor the Spirit of God takes any notice? how does that put the Spirit to the test, and how can they use this scenario to defame the church?
[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
this might be going nowhere, but i just wanted to put it out there and see what y'all think. it seems to me that there was more going on here than what's typically brought out in pre-fab sermons, and maybe some of you can help me piece it together -- or maybe not. thanks for reading & thinking about it
First, and firmly I can give you
That's as much as I am absolutely positive about.
But, I am thinking women couldn't own land either, so what's with this Sapphira stuff? Why is she guilty, since, technically, she can't be a landowner either. Sort of like hubby selling his tools. They're his tools, so he can do whatever he wants with them. (I have my own, although he has no problem if I borrow one of his.) I wouldn't even expect him to share the money, if he did that. (Hope it. He has a LOT of tools. lol)
I'm wondering if maybe this isn't the Samaritan influence on Judea. You know those weirdo Samaritans. Sorta Jews/sorta Not-Jews. Maybe it's a by-marriage kind of deal. Barnabas comes from a mixed family, but Mom is Levite. And Saphhira, or Ananias, is Jewish, but the other one isn't. (My money is on Saphhira, considering everyone knows Jewish women can't own land. Then again, that IDK thing tells me this isn't a bet worth making.)
Good question!