Understanding the SHOCKING Story of Ananias and Sapphira
I've been working out my view on Old Testament violence. In short, it involves understanding how God's virtues work within various covenant contexts. We see a progression from justice involving physical violence in the Old Testament to justice involving spiritual battle in the New Testament. But, what about divine physical violence in the New Testament? Doesn't this create a problem for my view? The other day on Facebook I came across an excellent question from Caleb Jackson that puts this worry in sharp focus. Caleb writes:
"Much has been said about the Old Testament accounts of alleged genocide at the hands of the Israelites. But I don't often see similar outcry given to the accounts of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. Here, we see Peter seemingly perform an "imprecatory prayer" by having the Holy Spirit recently kill Ananias and Sapphira on command as punishment for their theft and deceit.
Unlike the war passages in the Old Testament, This account is in the New Testament and is post-Christ, meaning that it can't as easily be dismissed with the same sorts of apologetics typically used for the Old Testament passages where Yahweh's revelation was arguably a bit more ambiguous.
Although Ananias and Sapphira are indicated to be guilty of a grave sin and thus deserving of death, I think this passage is problematic because it implies that the Holy Spirit may on occasion strike people dead for sin. Or perhaps that apostles such as Peter had the miraculous ability to use God's power in a way that directly harmed others rather than help them. Why was this particular sin so grave as to be worthy of death whereas one can think of far worse sins in the present day and in the New Testament that do not get the same form of punishment? And how does one view this act of justice with the overarching redemptive nature of the cross that had already taken place? Why not give Ananias and Sapphira opportunity to repent, especially since Jesus had already taken on the punishment for their sins well on the cross?
Overall the story just comes off as a weird outlier where the Holy Spirit seemingly kills early Christians for a strangely arbitrary sin that isn't repeated elsewhere in Acts or in the modern church." (Reason & Religion Group, 3/22/2025)
This is one of those biblical passages that seems bizzare and out of place in the New Testament. It really challenges a simplistic view of the Old Testament as focused on God's judgment and wrath and the New Testament as focused on God's forgiveness and mercy. Let's run this through my framework for handling divine violence. First, though, we've got to clarify the story.
What Actually Happened?
The story in Acts 5 is pretty straightforward. A married couple, Ananias and Sapphira, sell some property. They bring part of the proceeds to the apostles but claim they're donating the full amount. Peter confronts Ananias about lying to the Holy Spirit, and immediately Ananias falls down dead. A few hours later, his wife Sapphira arrives, repeats the same lie, and meets the same fate.
The narrative concludes with "Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events" (Acts 5:11).
It's important to point out that the text doesn't say Peter prayed for their deaths or commanded it to happen. He exposed their deception, and then they died.
Three Lenses That Help Us Understand
To make sense of this story, I find three interconnected ideas helpful:
1. God Knows Without Determining
When we think about God's knowledge of what will happen, we often assume it works like this: God knows something will happen because He causes it to happen. But what if it works the other way around? What if God knows what will happen because it will happen?1
This distinction is subtle but important. In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, God knew they would freely choose to deceive the community. He knew how their actions would affect the early church. And He knew what would happen when their deception was exposed.
This doesn't mean God actively struck them down like a divine lightning bolt. Rather, He allowed the consequences to unfold, knowing the impact this would have on establishing the integrity of the early church.
2. Scripture's Purpose Matters More Than Its Details
The Bible isn't mainly a detailed historical chronicle. It's a collection of texts with specific teaching purposes.2 Luke included this story not to establish a pattern of divine execution for sin but to show something important about the early church community.
What was Luke's purpose? To show the seriousness of deception within the covenant community, the importance of integrity in the early church, and the reality of the Holy Spirit's presence as more than just an abstract concept.
The exact medical cause of death isn't the point. Whether they died from supernatural judgment or extreme shock and shame isn't what Luke wants us to focus on.
3. Context Really Matters
The early church was at a pivotal moment. This is similar to when Israel was first establishing itself as a nation. Throughout biblical history, these founding moments often feature more dramatic demonstrations of God's presence and clearer boundary-setting.3
Think about Nadab and Abihu being consumed by fire for improper worship (Leviticus 10) or Achan's family being executed for keeping plunder from Jericho (Joshua 7). These events happen at key moments when God is establishing a new community.
The Ananias and Sapphira incident isn't about a petty financial discrepancy. It's about maintaining the integrity of the Spirit-filled community at its foundation. Their deception struck at the heart of what made the early church unique, which was its unity, honesty, and genuine fellowship.
Addressing the Hard Questions
This 3-fold way of looking at things helps answer some tough questions about this passage that Caleb suggested in his original post.
"Does the Holy Spirit randomly strike people dead for sin?"
No. This was a unique moment in covenant history, not a normative pattern. The Spirit was establishing the importance of honesty and integrity at a foundational moment in the church's life.
"Why was this particular sin so grave?"
Context matters tremendously. This occurred during the formative stage of the church. Their sin wasn't just about money but about deliberately deceiving both the Holy Spirit and the community. It represented a direct threat to the integrity of the new covenant community, which is similar to how Achan's sin threatened Israel during its foundational phase.
"Why weren't they given a chance to repent?"
The text suggests they had opportunities before their deception but freely chose their path. Peter's confrontation with Ananias could have been a moment for repentance, but it wasn't taken. The focus of the narrative isn't on their individual redemption but on the formation of the community.
"Why doesn't this happen today?"
As covenant communities mature, the emphasis shifts from external boundaries to internal transformation. The early dramatic demonstrations give way to deeper spiritual development. We see this pattern throughout Scripture, namely what begins with physical demonstrations often develops toward spiritual realities.
What It Means For Us
The story of Ananias and Sapphira isn't an embarrassing biblical problem but a powerful reminder that God takes the integrity of His community seriously. While we shouldn't fear sudden divine execution for our failings, we should recognize that our honesty before God and His people matters.
The early church wasn't just another human organization. It was the Spirit-empowered community of God. This shocking moment helped establish that identity in ways that would shape the church for generations to come.
Instead of seeing this as an arbitrary act of divine violence, we can understand it as part of God's consistent pattern of forming communities that reflect His character. They're communities built on truth, integrity, and genuine fellowship.
---
Notes
1. This is my embrace of the dependence solution to the problem of foreknowledge and free will. For the details, click here to go the the right place in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/#MoliSolu
2. This point is undergirded by my view of Biblical inerrancy. For a work in progress on that view, see here: https://www.christianphilosophyacademy.com/blog/biblical-inerrancy-logical-defense
3. My view of the ethics of Biblical violence is called Covenant Virtue Ethics. It underlies the points I'm making here. For more on this view, see the second half of this post: https://www.christianphilosophyacademy.com/blog/rauser's-moral-intuition-mirage
