One Thing You Still Lack


CONT., page 4




Not only do we have the assurance from Yahweh's laws, as well as the cited pattern that "atonement money" is highly relevant to this covering for the two-part Remnant, as well as the historical evidence that this act of holding all things in common was a unique practice of the first Remnant, we will now see that the abandonment of that practice was, as recorded in Acts, tantamount to getting out from under that covering and being judged, even as the sons of Israel were judged at the numbering performed by David.

On the one hand, the mere practice of the first Remnant in holding all things in common affords great evidence to our question at hand. This certainly lets us know that the possibility of this being the legal substitutionary covering is very real. But, if Yahweh wished to bolster the significance of that act as a Divine covering, then this would be most assuredly accomplished if He also demonstrated the consequence for the removal of that covering. And this is precisely what we find in this brief yet very significant account in the history of the first Remnant.

Likewise, if Yahweh wanted to tell us something, yet not tell us directly so as to conceal that information for a later generation, a later people - His second Remnant - then the way to do that would be to provide a very revealing historical account, without providing the overt commentary on why all the things happened. Thus He could provide the message, yet also hide it. And this is exactly what we have here in Acts. Without telling us outright, Yahweh tells us by example, by consequence and contrast, that this first Remnant practice of holding all things in common is the substitutionary covering of the bride, and the removal thereof being decidedly fateful!

Not only do we find multiple statements regarding the implementation of the practice that Yahshua instructed His disciples to follow (as we will see), but by a sovereign and very consequential act, we once again see what the outcome was for the removal of that covering. This is through the graphic account and example provided with Ananias and Sapphira. Let us examine what took place.

We have already read the passage where Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property and "kept back some of the price for himself." Upon doing this, Peter confronted him and exposed the one who was the source of this offense, the same one who had equally "stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel" - Satan. Satan, who had incited the offense that caused the death of the 70,000 who were removed from under the required "atonement money" covering, here likewise caused Ananias to remove himself from the substitutionary "atonement money" covering over the first Remnant. Instead of selling the property and giving the entire designated amount to the apostles as he said he had done, he lied to the Holy Spirit and kept some of it for his own purposes. By doing this, Ananias removed himself from the covering of holding all things in common, and the effect was he immediately died upon the exposing of his deeds.

This is extraordinarily clear evidence that holding all things in common is in fact the substitutionary covering for the Remnant. And this is made even more evident when we see specifically what then happened with Ananias. As we said, Yahweh did not give us overt commentary as to why all of this took place; so it is only now when He is giving His second Remnant bride understanding, that these events take on such remarkably expressive meaning. Let us look closer at this.

In Yahweh's "commentary by events," considering that Ananias removed himself out from under the covering of the bride, is it not all the more significant that when Ananias died, the first thing that was performed was that a young man rose and "covered him up"? Why was it so necessary for Luke to tell us this piece of information? In the natural, what difference was it that he was covered up? Why did Luke not just tell us that Ananias died and they carried him out and buried him? Why was it necessary for the Holy Spirit to point out that when he died, they covered him?

When examining a man who lied to the Holy Spirit and departed from the covering of holding all things in common, this act of now covering him takes on immense significance! Here was a man who uncovered himself in this most important role as Yahshua's bride, and died for it, and the first response was to cover him! Is there no mistaking that by this seemingly common act, Yahweh is once again giving us graphic commentary as to what was taking place here? For Yahweh to not come right out and tell us what was taking place here, He certainly provided enough meaningful details to give us a clear message - Ananias stepped out from the covering of the Remnant bride and suffered death for it. Why else would this have happened, other than a very dramatic event took place to demonstrate the GREAT importance of the covering of this Remnant bride?

What took place next is yet further affirmation of what we are already seeing and learning, but even more so providing a very great warning to us today. The Holy Spirit next tells us once again some very specific information that in all practicality does not seem necessary as a part of this account. In verse seven we read - "Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened." Do you want to know what would happen to the second Remnant if we behave in the same way Ananias and Sapphira behaved? Why was it specifically recorded that "three hours" elapsed? Again, Yahweh is providing a detail in this account that seems entirely unnecessary, but relative to what He is telling us here by these events, is most meaningful and revealing.

There are two time lengths associated with Christianity. These are identified with the periods of "two" and "three." Why? Because the church has been given three periods of time to perform their work, or three thousand years. Why then the "two"? Because if Yahshua cuts these days short to "two," then He will return in two thousand years and not three thousand years. Thus we have the question noted in Luke following Yahshua telling His "little flock" to sell their possessions - Will He return in the second watch or the third (Luke 12:38)? We can all hope it will be the second, or after two thousand years. But when the Holy Spirit wants to say that something is relative to the end of the allotted church period, irregardless whether it is 2,000 or 3,000 years, then it is always relevant to the number three.

Thus, when Sapphira came in to the apostles three hours later, He was telling us that this next event was relative to a message, or even warning, to the second Remnant that would come at the end of the apportioned time given to the church. Thus it is immensely relevant that Sapphira did not come in with her husband, and Peter address both of them at the same time. The separation of these two by three hours testifies to the two-part Remnant separated by Christianity. We will further examine this shortly.

Adding to this testimony of the two-part Remnant is the meaning of the names of these two individuals. Based on their ill actions, one might suspect that the meanings of their names might be somewhat negative and reflect the flaws that led to their deaths. But, this is not the testimony at all. Instead, Yahweh provided witness that He is in fact giving a merciful yet firm warning to the two Remnant whom he loves.

We find that Ananias means - "compassion of Yahweh or mercy of Yahweh." (Interestingly, Ananiah means - "covered by Yahweh.") Although we see here in Ananias the warning that one should not turn away from Yahweh's Remnant covering, the message remains that this is the work in His kingdom for which He will show mercy and compassion; this is the work of the first Remnant. Though the first Remnant had to die, death will not prevail over them and they will rise in the first resurrection and, with the second Remnant who do not die, reign with Yahshua for 1,000 years.

Sapphira provides a warning to the second Remnant who, like Rachel, is the beloved bride that is beautiful to Yahshua. Thus, Sapphira means - "beautiful, splendid, precious." No, there is no name here addressing a fault, but the warning here is to one who is beautiful and precious to Him.

There can be little doubt at this point that these deaths of Ananias and Sapphira, separated by three hours, represent both warnings as well as affirmations as to the GREAT significance of this covering afforded to the two-part Remnant of holding all things in common, as well as the consequence of stepping out from under that covering. How much more evidence is needed in order to see what Yahweh is telling us? It can well be concluded at this point that holding all things in common is indeed Yahweh's covering over His two-part Remnant bride.

What then is the obvious warning given to us here by what happened to Ananias and Sapphira? It is this - get out from your covering Remnant, and you will not escape death. Ananias and Sapphira cast off their covering, and they died. The entire first Remnant as well were forced to likewise step out from that unique covering experience, and they too died. Now, will we as His second Remnant avail ourselves to that necessary covering, or equally step out from under it? Hopefully we will apply the covering.

Sapphira was given the opportunity separate from her husband to make this effectual covering real for her. The report that her husband gave regarding the sell of their property was presented to her by Peter, and she supported that report and thus likewise rejected the covering by equally lying to the Holy Spirit; and immediately she too died. We too will have a separate opportunity and choice to uphold the covering. As the second Remnant, we have the hope and expectation that we will be caught up alive at the end of our time on this earth to escape death. This is our hope, this is our purpose; and selling all must be our covering.

In this account we have found both affirmation that holding all things in common is the covering of the bride, as well as the warning that to depart from this covering has GREAT consequences. Even as we have seen the great significance to the second Remnant in the warning to "Remember Lot's wife" (found only in second Remnant Luke 17:32), let us hear all the more the warning - Remember Ananias' wife!

We have here the record and presentation of events that are not just some casual historical account; but rather, a most specific and, as we see, most significant message regarding the covering of the two-part Remnant that is separated by Christianity; and the warning to not reject that covering.

We will soon proceed to the next section that affords even more evidence that the covering we see so surely testified to here, is in fact that which we suspected from looking at the recorded activities of the first Remnant. But we find that this account of Ananias and Sapphira, that is so revealing and confirming, is clearly contrasted to another's actions that are exemplary of what entering under that covering meant.

We find that this account concerning Ananias and Sapphira begins with the word - "But." If this account began with this word, it is obvious that the Holy Spirit was intentionally seeking to contrast these actions with something else, so that the two contrasting accounts are intended to be far more than mere historical recordings; but rather, intentional, revealing, and meaningful contrasts.

We already know what the message was regarding Ananias and Sapphira. Let us now see what the "But" in this account brought into contrast. In the immediately preceding verses we read:

And Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means, Son of Encouragement), and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

This, in contrast to Ananias and Sapphira, was and is to be the faithful response of the Remnant. This is the Son of Encouragement who was faithful to his covering, and by laying his wealth at the apostles' feet, did not have to lay himself at their feet, as did Sapphira. This is the first Remnant Son of Encouragement who later came along beside the teacher of the breach period of Christianity to strengthen and help him, until the time in which a rift of disagreement separated them, creating a breach. The breach between first Remnant Barnabas and Christianity Paul was clear testimony and evidence of the breach created by Christianity.

Thus we see a meaningful comparison - on the one hand was Barnabas, who sold his tract of land and gave all of it for the care of the whole; in contrast to Ananias and Sapphira, who equally sold their land but lied to the Holy Spirit and kept some of it for their own personal well being.

Thus we ask the important question - Do we have here regarding the contrast of Barnabas versus Ananias and Sapphira a mere historical account, or an intentional Divine message?

Given that:

The contrast between faithful Barnabas and unfaithful Ananias and Sapphira was clearly set forth,

The details of this account are so very revealing,

The practice of the first Remnant was in holding all things in common,

The Law of Yahweh requires a covering over the Remnant bride,

Other testimonies throughout the Scriptures affirm these truths,

It is obvious that these events go beyond mere historical accounting, but provide an intentional Divine message that has been concealed until the time of the seeing second Remnant. It is for this Remnant that this message is so vitally important, a message that provides essential information preparing the bride to cover herself, and preparing for the return of Yahshua. One can be a "Son of Encouragement" and sell your possessions to the benefit of the whole, or be an Ananias and Sapphira and hold things for your own personal benefit, removing yourself from your Remnant covering.

We have now seen that (1) money can in fact be a legal covering to Yahweh, that (2) this covering was practiced by the first Remnant, and (3) the covering was confirmed by the consequences for the two who set it aside. Thus, even at this point, we can state with a great degree of confidence that this practice of holding all things in common was and is the covering of the Remnant bride, allowing her to go to Yahweh and to speak on His behalf. But, this is not all that Yahweh has given us in order to more confidently trust that this is indeed the case. Let us now move on to another witness - the teachings of Yahshua and the Luke factor.


Continue to page 5 of One Thing ... for  "Good Teacher, what shall I do?"


Return to home page