Grace Gone Bad: False and Fatal Religion

We have been talking about grace, that elusive concept about God’s mercy and forgiveness. Part really of the mystery of godliness, grace elicits strong emotions—anger and jealousy, joy and enthusiasm, peace and tranquility. Today we’ll consider: Is there such a thing as too much grace? Can grace be too much emphasized? Can it be overemphasized? 

It’s important, I think, to understand that grace is not the opposite of obedience. Obedience is what Wo/Man is about and what Wo/Man does, whereas grace is an attribute of God. It is his goodness that is dependent upon a covenant, a promise, that he will be true to himself as only he can be true, by gifting us with his righteousness. 

We’ve seen in the last few studies that grace is manifested through the Holy Spirit. It’s personal, just what you need, when you need it. It comes to you in just the right way. I hope that you don’t get too tired of talking about grace, because grace never gets tired of you. 

On his deathbed, the great Adventist preacher–evangelist of my youth—Harold Marshall Sylvester Richards Sr. (1894–1985), commonly known as H. M. S. Richards—was asked what he would do differently if he had his life to live over again: “I would,” he replied, “have spoken more about God’s grace.”

It is impossible to overstate the extent of God’s grace, and I for one am eternally grateful for that. We have, I believe, more to learn about God’s grace. Even more importantly, we have more to comprehend about the magnitude of God’s grace and its effect on our lives. 

Today, I want to turn to Acts 4 and 5 for another look at grace; this time, at grace gone bad. Looking at it in the context of the early Christian church might provide some new insights. Last week we focused on the manifestation of grace at Pentecost and how it shaped the early Christian church. We ended our discussion with this:  

 So then those who had received his word were baptized and were added that day about 3000 souls. And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles teaching, and to fellowship, and to the breaking of bread and to prayer. And everyone kept feeling a sense of awe. And many wonders in science were taking place throughout the through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together and held things in common. And they began selling their property and possessions and sharing them with all as anyone might have need. And day by day, continuing with one mind in the temple and breaking bread from house to house. They were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, Praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day, those who are being saved. So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.  Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all the believers were together and had all things in common; and they would sell their property and possessions and share them with all, to the extent that anyone had need. Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:41-47)

We pick up the story of grace in Acts 4: 

 For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each to the extent that any had need.  Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement), owned a tract of land. So he sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.   (Acts 4:34-37)

 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the proceeds for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God.” And as he heard these words, Ananias collapsed and died; and great fear came over all who heard about it. The young men got up and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him.  Now an interval of about three hours elapsed, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter responded to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for this price?” And she said, “Yes, for that price.” Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.” And immediately she collapsed at his feet and died; and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard about these things. (Acts 5:1-11)

On the face of it, this story seems simple to understand, yet it is puzzling to justify. The punishment seems out of proportion to the crime. There are, after all, numerous stories in the Bible about lying and cheating and stealing that don’t result in summary execution. One might argue that it would help in fundraising for the church—it would foster better giving, perhaps, and extract more generosity. 

But let’s return to the context of the story to understand what I believe to be the real meaning: 

 And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. (Acts 4:32-33)

The believers were single-minded, and great grace was upon them all. Grace was being manifested in an unusual way: The feeling that nothing that they possessed was their own, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the gift of grace, all were so strong that no one felt the need to own or possess anything. So sure were they of God’s grace and his subsequent blessing that possession of money, owning land, having materials and other assets of any kind, were not needed. This was a group totally reliant upon God. Their religion was centered on God and what he was doing among themselves not on themselves and what they were doing. 

They were relying on grace and not on their works; so much so that they felt that what they possessed was not even their own. This reliance on grace was a direct result of being filled with the Holy Spirit. God’s blessing was his grace. What I own is the result of my work, my effort, my initiative. To disown something is to divest myself of that thing, to not center something on me and what I possess. 

So along come Ananias and Sapphira, believers (apparently) in this community of faith, but they’re holding something back. What they’re holding back is a portion of their own work. They won’t sacrifice some of their own work. This, you see, is fatal religion. To fail to completely relinquish our own work, to hold your own effort back, is to repudiate the all-encompassing power of God’s grace. 

Grace, you see, demands everything. Grace demands at all. There is no room for both God’s grace and my work; that is fatal and false religion. True religion involves a total divestment of my work. It is to relinquish everything that I possess, as far as my own effort goes; to give it all, in order to empty myself. To hold back my possessions is to fail to accept God’s all-fulfilling grace. I feel the need to do something for myself to hold something back to hold on to something. This is fatal religion as illustrated in the story. 

In fact, what we see here, what is illustrated here, is the unpardonable sin. 

 “The one who is not with Me is against Me; and the one who does not gather with Me scatters. Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.” (Matthew 12:30-32)

Here we see that sinning against the Holy Spirit (some translations say “lying” against the Holy Spirit, this translation says “blasphemy” against the Holy Spirit, others say “insulting” the Holy Spirit, some say “grieving” the Holy Spirit) is unpardonable. It is fatal religion because it repudiates grace. The Holy Spirit is the merchant of grace. To insult the Holy Spirit is to repudiate grace. Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit, they repudiated God’s grace. Shunning grace is fatal religion. 

Hebrews says: 

 How much more severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:29) 

Once again, we see the Holy Spirit is defined as “the Spirit of grace.” What does it mean to insult the Spirit of grace? The word “insult” in the Greek—enubrizó (ἐνυβρίζω)—is only used in the scripture this one time. The meaning is to repudiate, to insult, to treat contemptuously, to mock, to cause the promise of grace to have no effect. It is to say:”I don’t trust you, God, to make your grace for us—for me—as easy as it sounds. Let me insult you by arrogantly adding a little bit of my work in there for good measure.” 

The root of this word to insult in the Greek denotes waves pounding the shoreline, the crushing force of an ocean wave. Ocean waves are relentless, continuous, eroding, and powerful. This is how God describes the insult of the Spirit of grace when we try to add our own work to God’s grace. Only the persistence of our insult, like the relentless pounding of the waves upon the shore, can eventually grieve the Holy Spirit and result in the unpardonable sin. It’s unpardonable because only grace can save us. And if we insult the Holy Spirit by presenting our own works to help God’s grace, we are on faulty and fatal ground. To limit God’s grace by holding back and substituting some of my own work is the source of fatal religion, according to God. 

In 1776, an Irish preacher named Augustus Toplady wrote a song which I think captures the concept of true religion well, The name of the song is Rock of Ages.  The first verse goes: 

1 Rock of Ages, cleft for me, 
let me hide myself in thee;
let the water and the blood,
from thy wounded side which flowed,
be of sin the double cure;
save from wrath and make me pure.

Then he begins to shape the conversation of our discussion today: 

2 Not the labors of my hands
can fulfill thy law’s demands;
could my zeal no respite know,
could my tears forever flow,
all for sin could not atone;
thou must save, and thou alone.. 

And then this is the crux: 

3 Nothing in my hand I bring,
simply to the cross I cling;
naked, come to thee for dress;
helpless, look to thee for grace;
foul, I to the fountain fly;
wash me, Savior, or I die. 

4 While I draw this fleeting breath,
when mine eyes shall close in death,
when I soar to worlds unknown,
see thee on thy judgment throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me, let me hide myself in thee. 

Finally, we see the effect that this episode, this dramatic display, has on the witnesses: 

 And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard about these things. (Acts 5:11) 

While it could be easily understood that “fear” here is meant to be “terror,” the Greek word is the same word we saw in Acts 2:43 telling the results of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, with everyone filled with “awe.” Some translations use the word “reverence.” Acts 5 uses the word “fear.” They were filled apparently not with terror but with awe and reverence. They were, as we might say today, “God-fearing” people. Grace elicits reverence and awe. To contemplate grace is to be overwhelmed by it, to be encompassed by it, and to be swept away by it. 

What are your thoughts about grace, about mixing your works with God’s grace, about true religion and fatal religion, and about the question: “Can grace be overemphasized?” Can religion be based on grace alone? How can you evangelize using God’s matchless grace? What does a lack of free divestiture and full divestiture really mean? What do we learn from the failure of Ananias and Sapphira? To let grace do it all?

Donald: Grace is what’s expected of us. It is provided by the Holy Spirit, but it’s really expected of us toward others. My responsibilities as a teacher for the 20 years prior to my retirement were really to provide grace to at-risk students at the university. It was a challenging role, because it was expected of me by those who were at risk to provide grace and to allow them to persist in spite of their efforts. I found it very difficult to work with the institution because the institution had predefined policies that rendered me unnecessary: The student either fit within the policy or did not, and should be retained or expelled accordingly. 

But I was grateful to the university for allowing me to provide grace. And that was always measured. Grace does not hold a ruler. Everybody can get a ruler. We wish we knew what we had to do. Just tell us! But in reality, we don’t want a ruler, we want to grace. Because with a ruler, we will fail, probably. Grace is an exception to the rule. 

On a recent trip, my wife and I changed flights due to delays and ended up being separated from our baggage. The airline’s policy required that we go to the original destination airport to collect it. That was the policy. Our possessions were our responsibility, and it is our responsibility to provide possessions on behalf of the work of the Lord. 

But I think we fall short in our efforts. We really want to behave by policy. And should we provide grace? I don’t know if that all makes sense. But to me, it’s easy to say “This is policy, so this is the way it’s going to be.” But if that was the way God was going to treat us, we would all come up short, I think. 

C-J: The point I hear Donald making is: It’s time and place. At the time this story was written, the original people are gone. These were wealthy people, they had an abundance, they expected the Messiah to return and this misery to be over within their lifetime. So I would never sell my house and give it all away. You should always have a plan B. 

To live completely by grace is maybe an ideal, but it’s not very practical. I’ve seen people donate thousands of dollars to a church, by faith hoping that they were planting a seed and God would multiply it. That’s presumptuous sin, to me. “You’re not being a responsible adult. You have property, you have children. What were you thinking?” 

The narrative is very important, but another word for narrative is strategy. So in the case of the writing of the book of Acts, the strategy was: We want to grow the church, we want to get as many people into the fold. But really, they were still talking to predominantly Jewish people. As they moved into Greece, Antioch, and around the Mediterranean, the message had to become more liberal: Okay, so you can eat unclean things, you can do this and that, but just be dedicated to God. The idea of hospitality was an ancient mandate. This was just “We have more than enough, there are people there because of war, because of famine, we need to show the generosity of God and God will do the rest.” 

We still have that mindset. “I give what I can, and God will do the rest.” To whom much is given, much is required. But to do this “all or nothing” I agree with Donald that the key element is what only God can do with grace. The book of Acts is harkening back to the first fruits going back to ancient times: “Bring the 10 percent, the firstborn, unblemished.” 

But really, the grace we’re talking about is the redemption. I can say “I forgive you”, but it’s more like “I’ll put up with you. I can’t really forgive you, because I don’t forget.” But with God, it’s not just forgiveness: “…and it shall be remembered no more, for you are covered in this covenant.” 

It’s only because I know I can do nothing in myself that I can come back again. Or when I’m walking towards sin and and say, “Lord, please don’t let me take another step in that direction. Remind me that it is in humility, and thanksgiving, that I remain in covenant with you.” I have the Bible verse on my tongue or the psalm in my heart. But I know my boundary, which is “Don’t get ahead of God or out of God’s grace.” 

The story, the narrative, the strategy isn’t what’s important. Everything should point back to God, to grace, to this thing that we cannot do for ourselves. I don’t think anybody, or very few people, are called to give away all that they own. In places where there’s a lot of poor people, it’s profitable. You need more people to till the land, you need more survivors to keep the population healthier to defend yourself. There was a rationale. It’s a different narrative, or strategy, for survival. These people thought: “Game’s up! Tick-tock! It’ll happen in our lifetime.” 

And we still hear that message today: “God is coming in this lifetime.” It doesn’t matter. Go all in, go out and preach, spread the gospel. That’s the Great Commission. I don’t think most responsible people would do that unless they truly felt called to God and it was confirmed.

Kiran: Dr. Weaver said that grace is not the opposite of obedience. It is an attribute of God manifested through the Holy Spirit. Obedience is something that man does. It’s the action of man. To a Seventh Day Adventist, that is the most controversial point. Why? The book 1888 for (Almost) Dummies says it is impossible to be truly reconciled to Jesus, and not also be reconciled to his holy law. “Therefore, true justification by faith makes the believer to become obedient to all the commandments of God. There is a direct link between true justification by faith and Sabbath Keeping.” 

This is the problem. Based on this, if I accept the grace of God, then the result should be complete obedience to God. That is the source for my depression, because no matter how much I accept the grace of God, I’m driving and see a billboard featuring some alluring picture. Jesus says you commit adultery even just thinking about it, and that is sin. 

As I read of other Protestant churches, they too seem to believe that grace is not the opposite of obedience, that grace results in fruits of the Spirit. They don’t talk about complete obedience to the law. But Seventh Day Adventist literature says that if you accept grace you will completely keep the whole law. I haven’t met an Adventist yet who can do that, but we cling to this literature, and this is the source of such depression for many people. We read this every day. It is everywhere.

Reinhard: We have faith by the grace of God. We experience justification by faith and righteousness by faith as good followers of Christ. When we have righteousness, we are justified and automatically obey God’s law. I believe that’s what Christians do in their daily life and in their relationship with God. If something happens, God will take care of us as long as we give him our hearts and our minds. 

I think the early Christian movement—the movement of God’s people including Ananias and Sapphira—was just like the early Adventist movement when people sold their property because they were expecting God to come soon. They were of one mind, united in one faith by grace. They were very much fired up about their new religion, their new belief. When the community of like-minded people got together, they probably supped together and worked together. 

I too used to think that the judgment of Ananias and Sapphira was disproportionate to the crime they committed but with maturity and constant re-reading of the Bible I think I found the answer. They were part of the community, beneficiaries of the sacrifices made by the people who sold all their property. They all ate together, celebrated together, and worshiped together. So the Holy Spirit would not allow the movement—so pure, so without blemish—to be sullied by the couple. 

The Holy Spirit had to set the tone. They received punishment on this earth but we don’t know if they were saved for heaven. Just like Judas, we don’t know that they will not go to heaven. We cannot judge them. The summary judgment was death. Only God knows what is in store for them after the second coming.

David: These passages make me uncomfortable. I just cannot put grace in the same sentence with punishment, but that’s what seems to be happening here. I cannot believe that grace can be insulted. If it can, it’s not grace. I really don’t understand this. I understand Reinhard’s explanation, but I’m afraid I don’t buy it. This is a very difficult passage for me.

Reinhard: Isn’t it just like when the Israelites disobeyed and rebelled against God in the desert on the way to Canaan? The three leaders were punished. I think God sets the tone. He will not tolerate disobedience, because it damages the movement and sets a bad example to other people. 

That’s my take on it, but I agree it’s hard to understand. Grace was meant to embrace everybody, to show the love, but I think there are times when God has to put his foot down.

David: The God of the Old Testament was a jealous God who inflicted punishment on people, then along comes Jesus preaching a message of nothing but mercy and redemption, and then, as soon as he is gone, you’ve got Paul saying “Ah yes, but that mercy is not for Ananias” and the old God slips back in. They were no longer listening to the message of Jesus, yet we are listening to them. This concerns me.

C-J: I think sin is its own reward, and then religion gets behind it. It’s like when you are training up a child: The kid is going to disappoint you, the kid doesn’t really have an understanding of “If I don’t get this right now, I’m not going to do very well down the road.” A decent parent doesn’t go out and beat their kid, “How many times do I have to tell you this? Say it again! Let’s do that again!” A loving parent says, “How can I help you understand why this is important? Where do you get stuck? You know, let’s do this together!” Modeling it for them. 

Learning to be a responsible person in life isn’t just about paying your bills and fidelity and loyalty and showing up. It’s right thinking. And right thinking takes practice, like anything else. And sometimes I’ll make a decision based on limited information. I make my choice and somebody says: ”But you didn’t go far enough in asking the right person. You thought it was enough, but you weren’t asking the right person, you didn’t go up far enough for that final decision, your goal.” 

I think that the God I want to serve (or try to serve) is a God of grace that says “Do it again. Do it again. Let’s think about this. What did you get right? What did you get wrong? How could you have done it better?” and not getting in the wrong place. People, places, or things: Know who you choose for teachers and mentors and interpretation of information. That takes a long time to do.

The 10 Commandments are a good place to start in terms of guardrails. But I don’t want to be a child with God. I want to be an adult with God. I want to sit at the big girls’ table. I don’t want to sit at the children’s table. I want to fully partake and be responsible. “Why did you do that?” “I got off the rails. I didn’t think, I just reacted. My anger was self justified but it showed no grace.” 

I do not want to be a follower of religion and doctrine. I want to be led by the Holy Spirit, which is an active relationship, a give-and-take, and it’s grace that makes me humble.

Donald: I hear Reinhard use the language (and it’s not new—I’ve heard it many times in my life): “God will not tolerate….” We understand that, but how does it align with “God is a God of grace”? I just don’t know how you put those two sentences together.

Kiran: Contrast the treatment of Ananias and Sapphira with the way Jesus treated Peter. He told him “You’re going to deny me”, and Peter did so; but what he got was grace, forgiveness. Jesus knew Judas was going to betray him, sell him, but he didn’t get punishment. Look at the woman who committed adultery and all the people that came to kill her and trap Jesus. 

I understand that if I tell God I will rely on my own righteousness and not on his grace I will be condemned, because there is no goodness in me that I can claim to be useful for the redemption of myself. The reality is we don’t act like Jesus. If we did, this world would be an amazing place.

Anonymous: I think this passage might have an answer; 

 Therefore you have no excuse, you foolish person, everyone of you who passes judgment; for in that matter in which you judge someone else, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. But do you suppose this, you foolish person who passes judgment on those who practice such things, and yet does them as well, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and restraint and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will repay each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, He will give eternal life; but to those who are self-serving and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, He will give wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of mankind who does evil, for the Jew first and also for the Greek, but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who does what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. (Acts 2:1-11) 

The passage gives the idea that we cannot escape if we take lightly the richness of God’s kindness, patience, and long suffering. You can see the results of doing that, in the passage. It seems to me that’s grace gone bad, when we take God’s grace lightly and not fear God’s goodness and God’s kindness and God’s patience with us. And that’s what brings judgment..

Sharon: This might be a cop-out but I don’t think this story impacts the character of God. The character of God is unchanging from beginning to end and is unquestionable grace. What I struggle with, as some of you are struggling with, is how does this story make sense in light of the character of God? I’m just hoping that maybe, when we get to heaven, we’re going to see that there was a big mob that was going to assault them and tear them to pieces, so God did the divine thing by letting them sleep simply and quickly. 

There’s got to be more to the story than what we’re given here. I don’t want to make light of the story, but somehow through this act there is such an infinite element of love that we don’t understand. 

So I think that’s the joy about looking forward to heaven, when our human minds grapple with such simple yet deeply complex issues. And maybe we won’t understand those until that Resurrection morning when Jesus can explain it and demonstrate to us how his love played out in this grace-gone-bad story.

David: To me, Jesus already explained things very, very simply and clearly through his parables. Think Prodigal Son for a case study in grace! Kiran mentioned a whole host of stories where God’s grace shines through, and that’s what Jesus was all about. It’s really very simple, or so it seems to me. If you feel absolutely compelled to do something, then let it be to love God and love your neighbor! How simple could it be? 

That is the character of the God that I believe in; not a punishing God who kills some poor guy just for hiding some property. It’s not that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, it’s that any punishment doesn’t fit God’s character. The simple story was brought to us by Jesus, told by Jesus; and it is all I need, personally, for my relationship with God.

Carolyn: When they were moving the ark, Uzzah reached out because it was falling, and all of a sudden was struck dead. That has bothered me in the same way as Ananias and Sapphira, because it’s so out of the way I think of God. But I always can come to terms in my own heart that this is what the cross signals. 

We have the 10 Commandments as a guide, but I think the Holy Spirit has been given to us at Pentecost and is a guide also. Before that, I don’t know what they had to let them know the boundaries. 

I am confused about these stories, but I still think the cross has given us the grace and has shown us the love that Jesus came in our human form and showed all through his life. He showed compassion. He showed us the way. But I don’t have the answers.

Don: I don’t have the answers either. But I see them as being illustrative of the same principle regarding what is fatal religion, what is false religion, or just what is religion, that will result in destruction, not in salvation. In the case of Uzzah, we see God being placed in a box, and you can’t put God in a box. That’s not where God resides, and you can’t help God in the journey—it’s fatal religion to reach out and believe you can help God by writing and making God do what God’s supposed to do. God is God, and he’ll do what he wants. 

So to me, that story and this story are both illustrative of what is fatal religion. You cannot come to God without emptying yourself. It is fatal religion to cling to one’s possessions. 

I see the stories in that light, not in terms of individuals and summary judgment. I see it as an illustration of what is true religion and what is false, fatal religion. That may not be the correct explanation, it might not even be a good explanation, but that’s how I see it. 

Reinhard: I think if Jesus had been in Paul’s shoes at that time, he might not have done what Paul did. Paul was a bit zealous. But we have to remember that the apostles were given the power to make judgments. Maybe he was driven by the Holy Spirit. But would Jesus do the same? Maybe not.

Don: “What would Jesus do?” is a good segue for next week, when we’ll talk about Acts 15 and 16 and the incorporation of Gentiles and the Jewish laws into this picture of grace, and ask the question, “What would Jesus do?” 

Donald: We would be in a totally different place if we had only the Old Testament to deal with. The Old Testament provides the policy. In my estimation, that’s what the 10 Commandments are—the policy. But in comes a New Testament that brings grace to that policy. 

If we stopped at just the Old Testament, the conversation would be totally different. But God died for us and grace is provided because of that. If we stop and do religion on the basis of policy, I think we’ve lost the value of the New Testament.

* * *