(The Death of Sapphira - by Amanda Gibson)So, as you may have already noticed, tonight we are going to tackle what many consider the most difficult passage in Acts. In chapter 5 a decidedly inspiring narrative takes what seems like an inexplicably dark turn. Since we are only doing ~22 talks in Acts, we could have easily skipped it. Most do, because, frankly, on the face of it, this is, at best a difficult text and, at worst, an embarrassing text. On the other hand, skeptics love texts like this. Take for example, the guy who runs the ‘Brick Testament’ site a web page clearly dedicated to highlighting the sex, violence, and what he sees as potentially embarrassing texts in the Bible in an attempt to undermine its authority.
You can bet he won’t overlook this text. So Dan and I decided that (a) If we skipped it we’d be total ‘chicken bleep’ and (b) it is in the Bible for a reason and, like the rest of Holy Scripture and the dramatic story of the church, has theological and practical implications for our lives.
Before we deal with this passage, I want to increase the degree of difficulty, and introduce a very similar passage from the Hebrew Scriptures.
1David again brought together out of Israel chosen men, thirty thousand in all. 2 He and all his men set out from Baalah of Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the Name, the name of the LORD Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim that are on the ark. 3 They set the ark of God on a new cart and brought it from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the new cart 4 with the ark of God on it, and Ahio was walking in front of it. 5 David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the LORD, with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals.
6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.
8 Then David was angry because the LORD's wrath had broken out against Uzzah, and to this day that place is called Perez Uzzah.
9 David was afraid of the LORD that day and said, "How can the ark of the LORD ever come to me?" 10 He was not willing to take the ark of the LORD to be with him in the City of David. Instead, he took it aside to the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite.
2 Samuel 6
There are a couple of things that these passages (and a couple others like them) have in common. They bother us. They strike us as arbitrary and disproportionate. God’s action seems completely out of proportion to the offense. The Bible is full of people who have done horrible things and seem to get away with it. David nails Bathsheba and then murders her husband when she turns up pregnant but Uzzah gets obliterated for steadying the ark. In the first century people across the Roman Empire are watching slaves kill each other for fun but A&S get snuffed out for telling a white lie during an act of generosity.
We strain to understand what it was that was so bad that Uzzah, Anaias and Sapphira did that deserved this unusually severe punishment. I am going to argue that that is precisely the wrong question. But first, lets look at where we are going.
First I am going to make a few general observations about the text, that I feel are just begging to be made, but then, I am going to try to explain these strange texts by taking a step back and looking at 2 contexts:
You can bet he won’t overlook this text. So Dan and I decided that (a) If we skipped it we’d be total ‘chicken bleep’ and (b) it is in the Bible for a reason and, like the rest of Holy Scripture and the dramatic story of the church, has theological and practical implications for our lives.
Before we deal with this passage, I want to increase the degree of difficulty, and introduce a very similar passage from the Hebrew Scriptures.
1David again brought together out of Israel chosen men, thirty thousand in all. 2 He and all his men set out from Baalah of Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the Name, the name of the LORD Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim that are on the ark. 3 They set the ark of God on a new cart and brought it from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the new cart 4 with the ark of God on it, and Ahio was walking in front of it. 5 David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the LORD, with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals.
6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.
8 Then David was angry because the LORD's wrath had broken out against Uzzah, and to this day that place is called Perez Uzzah.
9 David was afraid of the LORD that day and said, "How can the ark of the LORD ever come to me?" 10 He was not willing to take the ark of the LORD to be with him in the City of David. Instead, he took it aside to the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite.
2 Samuel 6
There are a couple of things that these passages (and a couple others like them) have in common. They bother us. They strike us as arbitrary and disproportionate. God’s action seems completely out of proportion to the offense. The Bible is full of people who have done horrible things and seem to get away with it. David nails Bathsheba and then murders her husband when she turns up pregnant but Uzzah gets obliterated for steadying the ark. In the first century people across the Roman Empire are watching slaves kill each other for fun but A&S get snuffed out for telling a white lie during an act of generosity.
We strain to understand what it was that was so bad that Uzzah, Anaias and Sapphira did that deserved this unusually severe punishment. I am going to argue that that is precisely the wrong question. But first, lets look at where we are going.
First I am going to make a few general observations about the text, that I feel are just begging to be made, but then, I am going to try to explain these strange texts by taking a step back and looking at 2 contexts:
1. The Immediate Contexts: Good Times and Momentum for God’s People
2. The Larger Context: Human Brokenness and a Just God
First, let’s just make a few preliminary observations about these texts.
1. The Myth of Testament Specific Deities
People sometimes like to say, in an effort to undermine the plausibility of the Christian worldview, that the god of the OT and the NT are dramatically different deities. The OT god is a god of wrath and the NT god is a god of love. The most creative take I have heard on this is that: ‘The reason that 500 years elapse between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT is because god went to counseling to learn how to handle his anger issues.
This may sound wise or clever but it is really just evidence that the individual hasn’t spent much time with the text. The God of the Bible is one of dangerous holiness on one hand and ridiculously extravagant grace on the other. The story of A&S demonstrates that the wrath that proceeds from the purity of his justice arises in both testaments. Jesus himself talks about hell more than anyone else in the Bible. Conversely, the OT overflows with declarations of God’s care and love and grace and mercy:
Check out these verses.
16 On that day they will say to Jerusalem,
"Do not fear, O Zion;
do not let your hands hang limp.
17 The LORD your God is with you,
he is mighty to save.
He will take great delight in you,
he will quiet you with his love,
he will rejoice over you with singing."
18 "The sorrows for the appointed feasts
I will remove from you;
they are a burden and a reproach to you. Zeph 3:16-18
or
I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?' Ez 10:11
Or even one of the darkest books in the whole OT, Hoseah ends like this:
1 Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God.
1 Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God.
Your sins have been your downfall!
2 Take words with you and return to the LORD.
Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously,
that we may offer the fruit of our lips.
3 Assyria cannot save us; we will not mount war-horses.
We will never again say 'Our gods' to what our own hands have made,
for in you the fatherless find compassion."
4 "I will heal their waywardness and love them freely,
for my anger has turned away from them.
5 I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily.
Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots;
6 his young shoots will grow.
6 his young shoots will grow.
His splendor will be like an olive tree,
his fragrance like a cedar of Lebanon.
7 Men will dwell again in his shade.
He will flourish like the grain.
He will blossom like a vine, and his fame
will be like the wine from Lebanon. Hosea 14
2. Difficult passage argues for the veracity of the text
The portions of the text that we find potentially embarrassing are some of the best evidence for its historical reliability. It would have been pretty easy for Luke to leave this story out and, essentially say, the early church was such an evidence of the resurrection that everyone loved each other and no one lied as if it were the embodiment of a poorly written Nickleback song). But after he describes the compelling closeness of the early church in chapter 2, a miraculous healing in chapter 3, and the ridiculous generosity in chapter 4, he essentially says in chapter 5, ‘but not everything was great.’ Potentially embarrassing texts demonstrate the historicity of the text and establish Luke’s historical street cred.
3. Lying is a Reality Fail
Second, NT Wright says that this passage “puts down a very clear marker about lying…[2]Lying is, ultimately, a way of declaring that we don’t like the world the way it is and we will pretend that it is somehow more the way we want it to be.” Essentially, lying is a reality fail, and a demonstration that me, and what someone else thinks of me is more important than the fabric of reality.
The portions of the text that we find potentially embarrassing are some of the best evidence for its historical reliability. It would have been pretty easy for Luke to leave this story out and, essentially say, the early church was such an evidence of the resurrection that everyone loved each other and no one lied as if it were the embodiment of a poorly written Nickleback song). But after he describes the compelling closeness of the early church in chapter 2, a miraculous healing in chapter 3, and the ridiculous generosity in chapter 4, he essentially says in chapter 5, ‘but not everything was great.’ Potentially embarrassing texts demonstrate the historicity of the text and establish Luke’s historical street cred.
3. Lying is a Reality Fail
Second, NT Wright says that this passage “puts down a very clear marker about lying…[2]Lying is, ultimately, a way of declaring that we don’t like the world the way it is and we will pretend that it is somehow more the way we want it to be.” Essentially, lying is a reality fail, and a demonstration that me, and what someone else thinks of me is more important than the fabric of reality.
4. Neither of these acts are as Innocent as they Seem
Before I argue that these acts are not judged because they are particularly wicked, we also have to establish that neither of these events are as innocent as they seem. In the Acts passage, they were not under compulsion to give. So why did they lie. They were using God and his community. They were using God to build their reputation. Their actions made it obvious they didn’t know who they were dealing with.
And in the Samuel passage, the Ark is being carted around carelessly instead of the clear Levitical command that it should be carefully carried wherever it goes. There is a sense in which the same thing is going on. David is going to use the Ark to demonstrate to everyone how God is on his side. He is going to use God to build his reputation. And at the end of the passage David is pissed because he knows that Uzzah was collateral damage of his own triumphalism. Both these stories are acconts of someone wh belongs to God, using God for his or her own ends. This makes God angry. But, on the other hand, it is probobly something I do every day...and I'm still breathing.
Fundamentally, I think it is a mistake to look for something especially bad that the characters in these stories did to deserve a particularly hard treatment from God. It is a mistake to read these passages and say, well I want to avoid those particular actions or God will come down especially hard on me. These events need to be understood in the context of the stories being told and in the context of the greater story of Scripture to make sense.
First - The Immediate Contexts: Good Times and Momentum for God’s People
I think it is really helpful, in trying to understand these passages, to ask what similarities are their in their historical contexts. We find that both of these events happen at the inception of a new beginning for God’s people when things are going particularly well.
In 2 Samuel 5 David is made king after decades of an ineffective leader who, at the end of his life was certifiably insane. It is a time of optimism and hope. Everyone is psyched. David immediately wins two of the most important victories in Israel’s history. First he wins back Jerusalem from the Jebusites and then he wins back the Ark of the covenant from the Philistines. And that is the context of 2 Samuel 6. After years of humiliation and national disgrace, the Hebrews suddenly had a charismatic young leader, they were back in their home city and the most important symbol of their corporate worship had been recovered. It was a very good time. They probably felt indestructible and certainly believed that God was unreservedly on their side. So David ignored the Levitical law that the Ark should only be carried by people and never be touched. He carelessly threw the thing up in a cart and headed to Jerusalem, looking very much forward to the hero’s welcome awaited him.
Similarly, the first weeks of the fledgling church are going very well. You are going to see in the coming months that hard times and broken leaders are going to take their toll on the new community of Jesus’ people in the years that follow, but so far, there are thousands of new believers, they are all caring for each other, miracles seem to be everywhere, people are getting healed, new believers from diverse backgrounds are getting along and caring for each other’s physical needs…things are going very well.
Both of these events occur when things are going particularly well for the people of God.
Both of these events happen at the beginning[3] of a new chapter in the story of the people of God. It seems like you might expect this kind of extreme punitive action from God when things were going particularly poorly…when people were turning away from God and chasing idols (which is most of the time in the Bible and in our lives since each of our hearts is a compulsive little idol maker). But these events happen just as things are starting to go very well. These events happen at the beginning of the rare very good chapters of the story of God’s people.
So why do the authors include these stories?
The story of Ananias and Sapphira laces the triumphal story of the success and expansion of the early church with a dangerous sense of holiness[4]. It reminds them of who they are representing and that he will not be used. It appears that God feels that in the midst of these exciting times, his people need to be reminded, in the words of CS Lewis, that 'he is good, but he is not safe.' Particularly in good times, when God is doing remarkable things in his communities, he will act in extraordinary ways to establish a dangerous sense of his holiness which provides his people with perspective and humility.
So the imidiate context gives us clues to what this passage is trying to teach...but we are still not quite there yet. To really get a hold of it, we need to ask 'how does this story fit in with the bigger themes of Scripture?'
Second - The Larger Context: Human Brokenness and a Just God
On the whole, the picture of God we get in the scriptures is of unnatural and extravagant patience. He says again and again that he is not quick to anger. He pleads with those who are oppressing the poor and worshiping idols to turn from their wickedness.
It can cause us to forget what it means that he is the cosmic source of pure Justice. But from time to time in the Biblical text we are startled to encounter actual, pure, unmitigated, justice face to face and it is horrifying. Lots of people like to talk about justice. We talk about economic justice, environmental justice, justice for the poor, justice for the oppressed. We cry out to God and political leaders for justice…for all to be set right…for evil at last to be obliterated…not realizing that total pure justice would, ultimately obliterate us too.One of the most common questions skeptics and Christians alike will ask as they probe Christianity’s credibility: How could a just God allow evil?
Calvin and Hobbes: 'It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.'
In other words, why doesn't God just do something about bad people.
I do not mean to minimize this question. It is an important one with difficult complex answers. But what the questioners usually seem to miss, is that if God was to make a total end of evil in the world, he would not only make an end of the evils that offend our moral sensibilities but those we ourselves propagate. MY indifference to the poor. MY addictions. MY dark heart.
God does not put an end to bad people because I am bad people...and so are you.
And so here is my Thesis (which I have counterintuitively put at the end of my talk): The interesting thing about this passage is not that A&S were destroyed for their rebellion, it is that we aren't .
Mark Driscoll tells a story about an exchange he had in his early days pastoring. He said:
“one night the church phone rang at some godforsaken hour when I’m not even a Christian, like 3 am. I answered it in a stupor, and on the other line was some college guy who was crying. I asked him what was wrong, and he said it was an emergency and he really needed to talk to me. Trying to muster up my inner pastor, I sat down and tried to pretend I was concerned. I asked him what was wrong and he rambled for a while about nothing, which usually means that a guy has sinned and is wasting time with dumb chit chat because he’s ashamed to just get to the point and confess. So I interrupted him blurting out, “It’s 3 am, so stop jerking me around. What have you done?”
“I masturbated,” he said.
“That’s it?” I said.
“Yes,” he replied. “Tonight I watched a porno and masturbated.”
“Is the porno over? I asked.
“Yes,” he said.
“Was it a good porno?” I asked.
He did not reply.
“Well you’ve already watched the whole porno and tugged your tool, so what am I supposed to do?” I asked.
“I don’t know,” he said. “You are my pastor, so I thought that maybe you could pray for me.”
To be honest, I did not want to pray, so I just said the first thing that came to mind. “Jesus, thank you for not killing him for being a pervert. Amen.” I prayed.
“Alright, well you should sleep good now, so go to bed and don’t call me again tonight because I’m sleeping and you are making me angry,” I said.
“Well what am I supposed to do now?” he asked.
“You need to stop watching porno and crying like a baby afterward and grow up man…A naked lady is good to look at, so get a job, and get a wife, and ask her to get naked, and look at her instead. Alright?” I said.
“Alright. Thanks Pastor Mark,” he said as I hung up.
What reminded me of this story was Mark’s prayer, which, may have been pastorally crass but was theologically perfect. We grow so accustomed to God’s longsuffering that we began to presume upon it. And so at the beginning of these two movements, when things were going well and people were tempted to use God for their own purposes, he opened a small, temporary window to his holy justice to demonstrate what the unmitigated force of that pure justice will do to our sick hearts that are, at best, filled with mixed intentions. For the long term good of the community he let loose what he generally restrains.
I have one more illustration before I wrap up. This is from Razor, which is part of the recent Batlestar Galactica series on Syfy (which, incidentally, was way better than anyone could have predicted). Razor was a side project, a film made between seasons 2 and 3, mostly with auxiliary characters. It told the story of a young military woman who had been involved in shooting civilians and carried that guilt through the entire film. In the end she sacrifices herself for the fleet leading to these exchanges:
Battlestar Galactica clip –
Starbuck: 'Maybe she had it coming.'
Apolo: 'We've all got it coming.’
One of the great empirical realities of our world is that injustice is rampant out there. And whether or not you are a Christian, that should break your heart and we need to be mustering as much strength and as many resources as we can to fight injustice in as many forms as we encounter it. But what this passage, and others like it illustrate, is one of the primary things that the Bible teaches. Injustice isn’t just out there, it is also in here. The first thing you have to understand about the gospel is this. There is a dark shadow over each of our hearts. ‘We've all got it coming.’
In the end God WILL eradicate evil and bring justice and restore the world to full beauty and wholeness. He will do the very thing that we have always wanted him to do. The irony is that we were part of the problem all along. In order to set the world right he will have to come against each one of us and our dark hearts.
The gist of the gospel is that because of the life death and resurrection of Jesus, God has made a way that a way that he can come against the darkness in our hearts, while we ourselves are spared.
One of the great empirical realities of our world is that injustice is rampant out there. And whether or not you are a Christian, that should break your heart and we need to be mustering as much strength and as many resources as we can to fight injustice in as many forms as we encounter it. But what this passage, and others like it illustrate, is one of the primary things that the Bible teaches. Injustice isn’t just out there, it is also in here. The first thing you have to understand about the gospel is this. There is a dark shadow over each of our hearts. ‘We've all got it coming.’
In the end God WILL eradicate evil and bring justice and restore the world to full beauty and wholeness. He will do the very thing that we have always wanted him to do. The irony is that we were part of the problem all along. In order to set the world right he will have to come against each one of us and our dark hearts.
The gist of the gospel is that because of the life death and resurrection of Jesus, God has made a way that a way that he can come against the darkness in our hearts, while we ourselves are spared.
The gospel tells the story that because of the events of good Friday and Easter, God has transferred our penalty onto himself. We can be welcomed into his presence and his eternal realm, because through the life, death and resurrection of Christ he has made a way to obliterate the dark injustice that plagues our hearts as it plagues every other nook and crany of our world, without obliterating us. This is the gospel. ‘We all have it coming.’ But as Peter said just days before the events of this passage, we can escape our eventual confrontation with God’s unmitigated and consuming justice through faith in God’s solution…by accepting the work of Christ and submitting to him as our new leader. In the words of Acts: “With many other words he warned them and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation’…Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins.”
Over the course of this year we are going to get a lot of important things out of the book of acts. We are going to see that God cares about the city and that he cares about the poor and that he pushes his people to challenge ethnic and social barriers, and that the work of his Spirit gives us unexpected spiritual resources…but at the heart of his community then and now is a people who recognize we are no better than anyone else because God is against the persistent stain of injustice in our hearts but has accepted us through his grace.
__________________________
[1] A quote from NT Wright – for a while, the working title for this talk was: ‘we all have it coming’
[2] Wright also says that lying is ‘the opposite of the gift of tongues. Instead of allowing God’s spirit to have free reign through our faculties, so that we praise God’s spirit to have free reign through our faculties…we not only hold heaven and earth apart; we twist each itself, so that it serves our own interests.”
[3] Most commentators (Boyce, Stott, ) see this as the key interpretive context of the story, but I most quote Bruce.
[4] NT Wright Acts for Everyone Volume 1
Over the course of this year we are going to get a lot of important things out of the book of acts. We are going to see that God cares about the city and that he cares about the poor and that he pushes his people to challenge ethnic and social barriers, and that the work of his Spirit gives us unexpected spiritual resources…but at the heart of his community then and now is a people who recognize we are no better than anyone else because God is against the persistent stain of injustice in our hearts but has accepted us through his grace.
__________________________
[1] A quote from NT Wright – for a while, the working title for this talk was: ‘we all have it coming’
[2] Wright also says that lying is ‘the opposite of the gift of tongues. Instead of allowing God’s spirit to have free reign through our faculties, so that we praise God’s spirit to have free reign through our faculties…we not only hold heaven and earth apart; we twist each itself, so that it serves our own interests.”
[3] Most commentators (Boyce, Stott, ) see this as the key interpretive context of the story, but I most quote Bruce.
[4] NT Wright Acts for Everyone Volume 1
No comments:
Post a Comment