In Reply to: Re: Ananias & Sapphira posted by Acheick on November 21, 2002 at 08:39:14:
Yancey is right, and if you re-read the exact words in Acts you'll see that hypocrisy was the reason, not the withholding so-called. Peter told Ananias, "Before you gave it wasn't it YOURS?" (Yes, it was, he didnt' have to give it.) And after you sold the land, wasn't the money still YOURS? (Yes it was, even though he'd sold it with the intent of turning it in.) But the rub came when he lied about what he'd done because he wanted a fund to cover his butt while at the same time getting the "glory" for having given so much. He'd "lied to the Holy Ghost."
Back in the days of the Early Church, giving was voluntary. You didn't 'have' to forsake all and drop it off at the apostles' feet, nor was it even done to prove how 'spiritual' you were. There was a very practical reason for it which some Bible teachers have explained: the poor people and widows in Jerusalem depended upon handouts from the Temple sacrifices. That was built into the law: after the priests had taken their portionof the Fellowship Offerings, etc, they disbursed the restof the food to the poor. But the poor were some of the most receptive to the Gospel, so many had become Christians, and the priests stopped sharing the temple food with anyone who confessed Christ. So the apostles had to call for extra, emergency funds from the rich who had extra "lands and houses", and it worked.
That's why they didn't keep up the particular practice (Acts 2:44-45). There was no need for it after a while. In Corinthians Paul took up an offering "for the poor saints in Jerusalem" during a famine, but he said, "Give willingly, without constraint for God loves a cheerful giver."
Berg completely distorted the orginal purpose of that practices, and the Ananias and Sapphira incident.