July 25, 2006
At Your Disposal...
Ananias and Sapphira took credit for being more generous than they actually were and the NIV study Bible notes that this is the first recorded sin in the life of the church. Confronting Ananias about the land he sold, Peter said, “Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?...” (Acts 5:4) I suppose all of our income is at our disposal, whether or not we think of it as ‘disposable income’.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Gail;
----Ananias and Saphira were toasted for lying to the Holy Spirit, claiming to give all the proceeds while holding back some.
This scripture has always fascinated me. There was certainly a cultural mentallity happening among the people, "...no one said any of the things which he possessed was his own..." (Acts 4:32) From this "one heart and soul" (vs 32) idea, evidently, came the peer pressure to apparently hold to the common thought, while actually not. I believe Peter corrected the misgiven notion that nothing belonged to anyone in vs. 4 by pointing out that the property actually did belong to them before it was sold, as well as did the proceeds after it was sold.
----This calls forth a couple of interesting, unanswerable questions: Peter did not correct the misgiven idea concerning common ownership until these two lied. Would there have been an issue at all if these two had told the truth about the proceeds, and the fact that it really was theirs, and that they were giving only part of it? How much respect does God give to institutions of mere men?
----I believe the answer to the former depends upon the answer to the latter, and the answer to the latter depends upon the depth of the knowledge of the Lord amongst everyone involved. If those involved were not knowledgable of the Lord and His Word enough to know that this "in common" thing was not God's law, then I think that God would require Ananias and Saphira to walk mindfully of the consciences of all of the others, and worry about teaching the truth when consciences were stronger. Then it would have been an issue. But if the most of them understood that this "in common" thing was just a mutual thought of consideration towards those others in need, then it would have been much less an issue. But these are just my ponderings, they are definitely not answers to those questions.
----Peter, however, obviously understood the benefit of allowing the misgiven idea to continue. Within this event, it worked to the benefit of assisting many more than it may have otherwise. It is sad that if a similar misgiving was at work in our churches today, the additional funds held in common would most likely go to bigger, plusher church buildings, more, higher paid ministers, and booming, stimulating audio/visual systems rather than the poor, the suffering, and the missionaries. So much for dropping dead when lying to the Holy Spirit!
Post a Comment