I saw this clip, thinking to use it for family devotions one night along with reading from Acts 5, but I did not because it was not in line with Acts. I wonder why they change the story, when the story is so engaging already. Ananias comes in first. A more straightforward interpretation would be that Peter caught their lie right away. There was nothing about betting against the apostles mission or betting against God in the story. Peter asked if, after it was sold, was it not in their control? The issue he mentioned was lying to the Holy Ghost. Another detail-- they laid the proceeds that they did give at the apostle's feet.The blood from the eyes thing was added in and made it more scary and dramatic. But it isn't in the Bible. Maybe it happened that way, maybe it didn't. IMO, it is probably unlikely a Jewish man and woman who weren't married would go hang out in a tent alone like that back then. Hillel and Shammai apparently would have opposed such things, and Peter was probably influenced by Shammai's teachings and Sanhedrin rulings on eating with Gentiles until his revelation in Acts 10
Quick links
FAQ
Register
Login