Questioning the Old Testament: Ananias and Sapphia, Life after Death, and Judgment on the Sins of Christians

I wrote a previous post that followed up on a Deeper event at Life Bible Fellowship Church. The event was about the connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament. You can listen to it in its entirety through our podcast, either through iTunes or on our website. The event ended with a Question/Answer time, and I am blogging about some of the questions that we didn't get to. I hit the biggest (and most common) question in the previous post. In this post, I will hit three others.

Assuming that Ananias and Sapphira were believers, did they lost their salvation when they were judged?
In order to demonstrate the continuity between the OT and NT, I mentioned that judgments by God show up in the NT also. Ananias and Sapphira (in Acts 5) are a prime example of this. In the story, Ananias and Sapphira sell their property and give a portion of the price to the church. There was nothing wrong with them only giving a portion of what they received. The problem was that they deceptively said that they were giving the whole price. They were bringing deceit into Jesus' church, and pumping themselves up falsely.
The Holy Spirit allows Peter to discern their deceit, and both Ananias and Sapphira are struck dead instantly.
So, the question is whether or not they "lost their salvation." This begs the bigger question about whether or not a person can lose their salvation.
We all know people who at one time appeared to be Christians. Then, later on in life they live in such a way that makes us wonder if they are truly Christians. Others live in open defiance of God and don't even claim to be Christians any more. What do you conclude about these people? There are three basic options:
1. They were Christians at one point, and now they are not Christians. They "lost" their salvation.
2. They were Christians and they are still Christians. Once you believe in Jesus, nothing can undo that, even if you openly deny believing in Jesus.
3. They appeared to be Christians, but now they have revealed that they are not Christians.
Without making this too long, I believe that the third option is the most biblical. Speaking of "losing" your salvation is a strange concept. We come to God only by his grace. We receive salvation as a gift. It seems odd that, since we did nothing in order to gain our salvation, we could do something that would allow us to lose it. At the same time, it is thoroughly unbiblical to call someone a Christian when they themselves are not even claiming to be a Christian.
So, that said, back to Ananias and Sapphira. In this case, we have to plead ignorance to some extent. The story is not about the nature of salvation. It is about the purity of the church and the seriousness of sin within the church. Ananias and Sapphira may have been true believers who sinned and ended their lives badly. They would not be the first. One of the best kings in the OT (Uzziah) was judged by God and struck with leprosy late in life. Other believers throughout history have made bad decisions that lead to their death. This does not mean that they were sent to hell.
When we talk about Ananias and Sapphira, we might be tempted to say, "Their sin at the end of their life did not undercut their godly lives before then." This is the wrong way to think about the issue. The better statement would be, "Jesus died for the sins of his people. That covers the sins in the past, the sins in the present, and the sins in the future. If you die as a result of a sin that you commit, that sin is not somehow outside of the covering sacrifice of Jesus."

Why does the Old Testament say so little about the afterlife?

The New Testament gives us a good amount of information about what we can anticipate after death. Believers anticipate being "with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8) in a place that is "much better by far" (Philippians 1:23). In Revelation we see scenes of believers in the presence of God, worshiping and enjoying rest and comfort. And the final Christian hope is that our bodies will be raised, just as Jesus' body was raised. We will be given new, redeemed bodies and we will live on a new, redeemed earth in the presence of God forever.
The Old Testament is a bit more fuzzy on its own. In fact, in Jesus' day the Jews were divided. The conservatives, the Pharisees, believed that there would be a final resurrection. The liberals, the Sadducees, believed that there was no afterlife. This debate comes to the forefront in at least two passages (Matthew 22: 23-33 and Acts 23:6-10).
Jesus clearly affirms that there is life after death. There is a resurrection to come. While it doesn't seem quite fair to say that the OT is clear on this, there are hints about it. Job 19:27, Isaiah 26:19, and Daniel 12:2 are some of the most prominent.
So, why was it not more clearly laid out? Again, we have to plead a bit of ignorance. There have been many things that were not revealed to the patriarchs. Then there were many things that were not revealed to the Israelites. Then there were many things that were not revealed to the prophets. Then there were many things that were not revealed to the apostles. There are many things that are not revealed to us. God has always revealed himself, but he has done so gradually. He knows what we need to know in order to trust him.
As a quick note, Jesus seemed to think that the Jews should have known that there was a resurrection. He says that the Sadducees know neither the Scripture nor the power of God when they deny the resurrection. We may think that the OT is fuzzy on this, but Jesus thought it was clear enough for people to understand.

As Christians we still sin. What judgment is there for the sins of Christians?
As part of the Deeper event, I talked about the fact that people in the Old Testament were not saved from their sins by obeying the law. They were not forgiven through the sacrifices. They were saved, ultimately, through faith in God. And each believer (OT or NT) only receives forgiveness from sins through the sacrifice of Jesus. So, all the sins of OT believers were judged when Jesus died for them.
But what about us? For those of us living on the other side of the cross, the case is the same. Our sins, past and present and future, are all forgiven because Jesus died for them on the cross. This does not simply mean that Jesus was judged for the sins that we committed as non-Christians. He also died for the sins that we would (and will) commit as Christians.
This is the glory of the cross. It revealed God's grace and his justice. When Jesus returns there will be a final judgment. Every person's sin demands judgment. We will either be judged for our own sins, or our sins will be judged at the cross. All believers, before Christ or after Christ, are free from the penalty of our sins because Jesus was judged for all of them!

I thought I would include one more somewhat-mystifying question:
Do you mean that we should not put criminals in prison or have our soldiers fight against evil?
This question is odd to me. I am not sure where it came from. My best guess is that this comes as a result of the teaching that God is the ultimate judge. He promises to avenge, so that we don't have to. The context of this point was to show that it is not bad news that God judges sin. It is good news. We don't have to take revenge because God is the judge.
This does not mean that we don't still have laws, punishments, and order in our society. This is an important distinction between the OT and the NT. In the OT, God's people were a nation. They had their own laws, borders, army, and legislative system. In the NT, God's people are the church. In some sense we have our own sphere and domain, but in another sense we live as citizens of our individual cities and states and countries. So then, the question is how we should conduct ourselves as citizens of God's kingdom, but also as citizens of the United States (or any other earthly nation).
Just a quick plug. We did a series called "American Christian or Christian American" at Life Bible Fellowship Church, and we covered this subject through the 10-week series. You can check it out in our sermon archives. The series took place in September-November of 2012.
In short, does God's promise to be the final judge mean that Christians should oppose prisons, war, the death penalty, etc.? The answer is "not necessarily." Christians should not always be in favor of war, nor should we always be in favor of the death penalty or other criminal punishments. God is a God of order. He is not opposed to people looking to set up order. A necessary component of order in a fallen world is punishments and even the instigation of death (through war or other means).
This is messy and we must take each case on its own. In the bigger picture, though, we should differentiate between a desire for order and justice and a desire for revenge and retaliation. As a Christian, I want criminals to be caught and punished. But I am free from agony if this doesn't happen. Why? Because God will judge. As a Christian, I want those who have wronged me to be held accountable and experience appropriate consequences. But I have been given the freedom to proceed in life if they never admit their wrongs and never suffer consequences. Why? Because God is just and he will take care of it.
Christians have a valuable role in society as lawmakers, police officers, soldiers, and judges. But we all proceed in our lives, seeking a semblance of order and justice, knowing that God is the ultimate judge and that this is a sobering and hope-giving reality.

Abortion and the Death Penalty

A couple of weeks ago I was having a conversation with my friend Phil about abortion and the death penalty. One of the interesting facts that came up is that attitudes about the two issues tend to have a converse relationship. Typically, people on the right oppose abortion and support the death penalty. People on the left typically oppose the death penalty and support abortion.

Many people point out an inconsistency with the right. It is asked, "How can you be in favor of life when it comes to abortion, but not when it comes to the death penalty?" Now, I personally believe that there is no real conflict between these two. To say that you must oppose the death penalty if you oppose abortion is like saying that you have to oppose prison if you oppose wrongful convictions.

But I want to bring the inconsistency question to the left. Is it consistent to oppose the death penalty and yet support abortion?

This year there is a measure on the California ballot. Measure 34 proposes that the state of California repeal the death penalty and replace it with life in prison. While there are many reasons to oppose the death penalty, I was amazed at how many of the arguments appealed to the potential of executing an innocent person. It was the dominant argument against the death penalty, at least in this case. Earlier this year I read John Grisham's book The Confession, a book which proved that books can be preachy whether they lean right or left. Grisham's book basically became an anti-death penalty book, telling the tale of an innocent person being executed while authorities ignored obvious evidence with amazing disregard and indifference. Once again, the whole argument from Grisham was that the danger of executing an innocent person should be enough to make us rid ourselves of the death penalty.

To sum up, a huge anti-death penalty argument boils down to better-safe-than-sorry. Because there is the potential of killing an innocent person, we should not take the risk.

This brings me to the abortion issue. Now, I personally believe that there is overwhelming medical support supporting the fact that the unborn are people. But let's set that aside and simply say that we are unsure. Let's even say that we are pretty sure that the unborn are not people, but we can't be certain. By the logic of better-safe-than-sorry, shouldn't we avoid abortion. After all, there is a chance that we will kill an innocent person. And while the death penalty always takes a life, I think few would argue that it takes an innocent life every time. On the other hand, if the unborn are people, then abortion takes an innocent life every time.

Now, I personally strongly oppose abortion and support (not as strongly) the death penalty. But if both sides agreed to adopt a consistent better-safe-than-sorry grid, I would be more than happy to jump on board.

Pro-Choice Americans at an All-Time Low

I tweeted this video last week, but I couldn't stop thinking about it for several reasons.
The link below is to a 4-minute segment on Morning Joe. They are discussing a recent poll that shows that pro-choice Americans are at a record low percentage. Please check out the video, and then check out the commentary below.



Now, if you watched the video, I want to walk through several very interesting elements of this story and how they covered it.
1. The disbelief of the facts by one member of the panel. As soon as the statistics were done being presented, that today 50% of Americans are pro-life and only 41% are pro-choice, one man on the panel asked if this was because the poll was using archaic methods of gathering information. When he was informed that this was not the case, he incredulously asked, "How do you explain that then?" His disbelief is informative. The pro-choice position has become such the accepted majority position in the public eye that this man thought that the statistics simply HAD to be mistaken. Important lesson: Media presentation of public opinion is not necessarily public opinion.
2. Technology's role in the pro-life movement. One panelist, Joe Scarborough, explains how advanced ultrasounds make it nearly impossible to deny that unborn babies are. . .babies. Several times he repeats the idea that it is simply undeniable that the unborn are persons. His most conclusive statement was, "You can call it what you want to call it, but that's a life in there." Something we complain about technology and the corruption it can bring. But thank God for the medical technology that has allowed us to see the reality of what is going on in the womb.
3. Seeing unborn babies makes it hard to be pro-choice. This is very similar to the point above, but I thought it deserved its own section. People are being swayed to the pro-life position because of what they see. In other words, when we are able to see reality we are compelled to lean to the pro-life side. None of us should be afraid to come face to face with the truth. The truth is sometimes unpleasant, but it should not be ignored or denied. The truth about what goes on in the womb informs our consciences concerning unborn children.
4. We are still unwilling to go all the way. The video ends with the entire panel agreeing that a person could be personally pro-life without being in favor of abortion being outlawed. Of course, they are right in the sense that people do claim that position. But this is not a rational or consistent position. If that is a person in the womb, it is NEVER okay for ANYONE to take that life. And, while grace and humility is needed, people need to be called out on this. It is not noble or balanced to say, "I would never personally kill that person, but I am in favor of protecting the rights of others to kill that person." If the unborn child is a person, he or she deserves full protection.

I pray that, through the courage of defenders of the unborn, and through the advances in medical and ultrasound technology, and through a reviving work of God in our hearts, we will embrace a full protection for unborn children. As, God-willing, we advance toward this, it is the calling of each person who embraces the pro-life position to actively promote the dignity and humanity of unborn children.