Scripture states church members laid their money at the apostles feet and the disciples did not need to work for a living. Acts 4: 35; 6:2-4; 1 Corinthians 9:5-6. “Great fear seized the whole church” after God killed Ananias and Sapphira when they failed to lay all their money at Peter’s feet. Acts 5:1-11. In the eighteenth century, H.S. Reimarus theorized the disciples were a bunch of greedy charlatans who stole Jesus’ body so they could continue to get money from his followers. Robert M. Price briefly mentions Ananias and Sapphira. The Case Against The Case for Christ 78-79 (American Atheist Press 2010). Other than Reimarus and Price, I can find no scholar who considers the possibility that the disciples might have had some selfish motives.
Many people are quick to assume selfish motives for Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard. Why do the apostles seem to get a pass? Can anyone tell me why early Christians would put their money at the apostles’ feet?
Interesting – I’ve never thought about this. (And having been raised Catholic – not a Bible reader! – I hadn’t even known about the passages you quote.)
I suppose the Apostles’ motives could only be established, with certainty, based on things we can’t know for sure: how much money they were really asking for, and whether their travels prevented their staying long enough in one place to work and earn their keep. I do think they were sincere in the beliefs they were preaching – unlike modern swindlers, they probably would have had more comfortable lives if they’d never gotten involved.
Even today, priests, and ministers in some denominations, consider their ministry their sole profession, and they’re ultimately being supported by churchgoers’ contributions. Most of those churchgoers presumably believe they’re getting something that’s worth the cost.
I will summarize an argument that I believe incorporates valid criticism from both Spiker and gmatthews.
In modern times, leaders of new religious movements (NRM) have sometimes used religion to gain money, power, and sex. We should not impose modern values on ancient cultures, but money, power and sex have always motivated people. Likewise, people of always been complex – a mixture of saint and charlatan.
Money is an issue in the New Testament. 1 Peter 5:2 warns church elders that they should not tend to the flock of God “for sordid gain.” Lucian of Samosata in The Passing of Peregrinus, chapter 13, ridicules Christians for falling prey to such Elmer Gantry opportunists. I cite these sources only to show that money motivated people in the first century, just like it does today. This should not be controversial.
The apostles did not have to work. Acts 6:2-4; 1 Corinthians 9:3-6. Believers sold their property and laid the money at the apostle’s feet. I don’t think there is anything necessarily suspicious about communal living. Likewise, there is nothing inherently evil about feet. Students might sit at a teacher’s feet. Luke 10:39. The people who stoned Stephen laid their coats at Paul’s feet. Acts 7:58. Nonetheless, a physically lower position normally symbolizes subservience. People of lower status may either grovel or worship at their master’s feet, such as when Cornelius worshiped at Peter’s feet. Acts 10:25. Laying money at the apostles’ feet smacks of a dominant/subservient relationship.
Which brings us to Ananias and Sapphira. God struck them dead after they failed to lay ALL their money at Peter’s feet. “And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things.” Acts 5:11. Christians try to put a positive spin on this death penalty by claiming that God struck them dead for a lying, not holding back money. This seems a bit hypocritical coming from Peter who denied Christ three times, and most people would be suspicious if Scientology followers died under similar circumstances.
Seems to me we should consider the possibility that the some of the apostles might have been in part motivated by money. Greed and sincere belief are not an either/or proposition. From what I’ve read, L. Ron Hubbard probably believed his pronouncements about Scientology, but he also raked in the money. Is it so strange to think that the some of the apostles might also have profited from religious leadership? Of course, this is speculative, but so are many ideas about the early Christians. Prof. Ehrman has on many occasions advanced the theory that some of the apostles experienced hallucinations of Jesus, and the hallucinations gave rise to stories of the resurrection. That is possible, but I’m pretty sure that greed and sloth are a lot more common that hallucinations. Is it not possible that – either instead of or in addition to hallucinations – some apostles told stories that helped maintain their work-free lifestyle?
“Which brings us to Ananias and Sapphira. God struck them dead after they failed to lay ALL their money at Peter’s feet. “And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things.” Acts 5:11. Christians try to put a positive spin on this death penalty by claiming that God struck them dead for a lying, not holding back money. “
That’s a strange take on the story in question. The problem is “the positive spin” is part of the story.
According to Gerd Ludemann:
Acts 5: l-ll is clearly tied together with 4:32-37, for after 4:34, 36-37, Luke is here depicting a third case in which the gain of property sold is laid at the apostles’ feet (verse 2). The example of Ananias and Sapphira is a display of what would conceivably happen to those who defy the Holy Spirit…. [I]t shows that Luke’s paramount concern is …genuine dedication to God….Ananias and Sapphira receive punishment not for failing to renounce their possessions or for making only a portion of them available to the community, but for the deceitful nature of their actions and the venal disposition thus displayed. By presenting a specimen of conduct that is detrimental to the community,Luke puts the exemplary behavior of Barnabas and the community into the right perspective. [The Acts of the Apostles: What Really Happened in the Earliest Days of the Church, pg 79
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As to a historical core, Craig Keener writes,
Scholars differ in their estimates of the historical content of the account. Some doubt whether the narrative even has a historical core.Others accept an original core in which a couple attempted to deceive the church, were found out, and were excommunicated or died shortly after the deception. At least one piece of historical evidence supports a historical core. “Sapphira” is a rare name without likely symbolic value, … Her name fits almost exclusively the right location and social class and hence suggests reliable tradition.” [https://goo.gl/pZTctn]
“Is it so strange to think that the some of the apostles might also have profited from religious leadership?”
No, not at all. It’s instructive that your own sources don’t confirm your suspicion. That “some of the apostles might also have profited from religious leadership” is entirely possible and might be suggested by the existence of stories like Ananias and Sapphira. Consequently, the only thing that is “so strange” is the compunction to tamper with the evidence
“In modern times, leaders of new religious movements (NRM) have sometimes used religion to gain money, power, and sex. We should not impose modern values on ancient cultures,”
This is incredibly silly! I’m almost willing to think it’s made up.Of course we should evaluate ancient cultures with “modern values” if anyone wants to make the case that using religion for personal gain was ever thought to be moral, I’d love to hear it. I could use a good laugh.
Spiker,
Thank you for your comments. I do not understand your comment about “compunction to tamper with the evidence.”
I gave the wrong impression with my comment about “imposing modern values.” I meant that we should not assume that the ancient people have the same attitudes and motivations. Gmatthews correctly pointed out that what looks like a cult by modern standards might have some explanation unknown to us.
Greg’s point is solid as far as it goes, but your argument isn’t really about whether the early Christian community might have been some sort of cult. The question is whether some of the Apostles, say, Peter, for the sake of argument,are trying, in the words of Robert Price, “to scare [members] into cowed submission before church authorities,” for the purpose of living large, as it were.
Even a cursory understanding of ancient Jewish law (the 10 commandments, for example), belies the idea that there might have been some first century sensibility that this sort of behavior would be thought of as moral.{http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/websermons/blind.htm].
However, in terms of the OP, the question is whether this sort of thing was actually
happening.
Take a look at verse 11
11 And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.
Also look at verse 4 and explain why one verse is any more legitimate than the other?
4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.”
Spiker. To answer your question, I don’t see that there is a conflict between verse 11 and verse 4. To me, verse 4 smacks of blaming the victim. Nonetheless, I completely knowledge and endorse your point that Acts is not a reliable source of information.
To anyone, do you think this is an intelligent question to ask Prof. Ehrman for the reader’s mailbag?
What is your take on the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts? I find it highly suspicious that (1) Christians placed money at the disciples’ feet, (2) two people are struck dead when they fail to place ALL their money at Peter’s feet, and then (3) “great fear seized the whole church.”
Yet you seem to be ignoring the why. If acts is unreliable why is verse 11 more reliable than verse 4? That is why are you giving it more credibilty? Its clear from the story, as opposed to some later apologetic, that the punishment was about a wilful deception; a deception not out of fear, but out of venality.
You are awful eager to leave that detail out(as if it is some sort of spin). Indeed, Ludeman says that the “at the apostles feet” suggests Luke’s editorial hand.
I still don’t see how you can see every bit of the story as credible except the part that undermines your argument. Seems arbitrary to me.
BTW Ehrman, I believe, has said he doesnt think Acts is reliable, but it doesn’t hurt to ask. The only question would be catching him when he isn’t real busy. He’s more likely to give a more detailed reply if he doesn’t have a lot on his plate.
spiker said
I still don’t see how you can see every bit of the story as credible except the part that undermines your argument. Seems arbitrary to me.
It’s not arbitrary, it’s human. It’s called confirmation bias. I have undervalued parts that disagree with my hypothesis, but it is only a hypothesis that I can never hope to prove. Just for the sake of a good argument, I will stick to my guns as if I knew what I was talking about all along.
One of the characteristics of a cult is that those who do not toe the line are shunned and/or expelled. ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (#12). Acts 4:33-34 says that the whole group were of one heart and soul and no one claimed private ownership. If no one claimed private ownership, then the proceeds of Ananias and Sapphira’s land would only remain at their disposal if they were no longer in the group. They faced a choice of surrendering all their money or exclusion from the group. Typical cult behavior.
At least you admit your biases!
Lawyerskeptic said
It’s not arbitrary, it’s human. It’s called confirmation bias. I have undervalued parts that disagree with my hypothesis, but it is only a hypothesis that I can never hope to prove. Just for the sake of a good argument, I will stick to my guns as if I knew what I was talking about all along.
Lawyerskeptic said
It’s not arbitrary, it’s human. It’s called confirmation bias. I have undervalued parts that disagree with my hypothesis, but it is only a hypothesis that I can never hope to prove. Just for the sake of a good argument, I will stick to my guns as if I knew what I was talking about all along.
Hold on thar, Baba Looey! I’ll do the thin’in’ around here, and dooon’t you for-git it!
Not demonstrable in its current form, but with a bit of sharpening, you’re not wide of the mark.
One of the characteristics of a cult is that those who do not toe the line are shunned and/or expelled.
Yes, but the problem is this is, in varying degrees, characteristic of organizations of all kinds
** you do not have permission to see this link ** (#12). Acts 4:33-34 says that the whole group were of one heart and soul and no one claimed private ownership. If no one claimed private ownership, then the proceeds of Ananias and Sapphira’s land would only remain at their disposal if they were no longer in the group. They faced a choice of surrendering all their money or exclusion from the group. Typical cult behavior.
I get the impression the couple were in the process of joining the group. I can’t get through to the link. Something about an unsupported protocol.
It’s a bit difficult to define a cult, but it almost seems that the accepted meaning is usually a reference to an unhealthy group relationship where abuse happens easily. Unfortunately, that is not exclusive to the small groups we normally think of as cults. Certainly the pedophilia scandals in the Catholic Church suggest as much. To be sure, the level of familiarity that make these groups what they are is similar to that of a family and thus susceptible to abuse. But you would think with all the scandals we are familiar with, and potentially numerous instances throughout nearly two millennia of Christianity and one has to wonder how it is that churches never successfully developed mechanisms to prevent such abuses. Of course, they wouldn’t need to if their doctrines were true, but we’ll set that aside for the moment 😉
LS:
Speaking of cults and what characterizes them, it’s instructive that Christians are being drawn to the persecution complex. As you probably know, that is a key attribute of cults: outsiders are out to get you. I don’t mean to say, therefore Christianity is a cult, but there seem to be a number of factors driving this.
There seems to be an underlying sense of dread in society driven by things like school shootings, 9/11 and such. On the surface, people try to return to a sense of safety and security by being drawn to the predominant form of it church. At the same time, the human need to feel important is well fed by the identity politics Christians are now engaging in with the godawful (A pun?) God is not dead series. Could Condorcet have been wrong, is it that Historical events first occur as farce, then as tragedy?
spiker said
LS:Speaking of cults and what characterizes them, it’s instructive that Christians are being drawn to the persecution complex. As you probably know, that is a key attribute of cults: outsiders are out to get you. I don’t mean to say, therefore Christianity is a cult, but there seem to be a number of factors driving this.
I find it difficult to say what I think about this subject without straying into politics, which I think should be off-limits on this blog. Instead, I’ll merely recommend an interesting book on persecution. Candida Moss, The Myth of Persecution 58 (HarperCollins 2013).
Lawyerskeptic said I find it difficult to say what I think about this subject without straying into politics, which I think should be off-limits on this blog. Instead, I’ll merely recommend an interesting book on persecution. Candida Moss, The Myth of Persecution 58 (HarperCollins 2013).
Unfortunately, you may very well have a point. But I’m afraid that volume would languish a long time on my ever growing reading list.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)