Acts 5:1-11

CRITICAL REMARKS

Acts 5:1. Ananias.—Perhaps the same name as Ananiah (Nehemiah 3:23) or Hananiah (1 Chronicles 3:21; Jeremiah 28:1; Daniel 1:6), translated in the LXX. Ἀνανίας, and signifying the cloud or mercy of God. Sapphira.—Possibly from the Greek σάπφειρος, sapphire, or from the Syriac שׁפּירא, beautiful.

Acts 5:2. Kept back part of the price.—Lit. took away for himself from the price, as Achan did of the accursed thing (Joshua 7:1); compare Titus 2:10. Privy to it.—Conscious of it to herself—i.e., aware of the reservation.

Acts 5:3. Why hath Satan filled thine heart?—Compare the influence exerted by this father of lies (John 8:44) upon Judas (Luke 22:3; John 13:27). To lie to the Holy Ghost.—Lit. that thou shouldst lie, as regards the Holy Ghost—i.e., with intent to deceive Him, ψεύδεσθαι, with the accusative of the person deceived, as in Deuteronomy 33:29; Isaiah 57:11 (LXX.). Though the purpose was rather that of Satan who had filled Ananias’s heart, than of Ananias himself, yet Ananias’s freedom of will and power of resistance to the tempter is recognised in the question “Why?”

Acts 5:4. Was it—i.e., the possession—not thine own? should be, remaining (unsold) did it not remain to thee (as thy possession)? The language shows that the practice of selling private property and casting the proceeds into a common fund was not obligatory on the first Christians as a term of communion. Why?—τί ὅτι = τί ἐστιν ὅτι = quid est quod = cur? Hast thou conceived.—Lit. placed in thy heart; compare Daniel 1:8; Malachi 2:2. “Satan suggested the lie, which Ananias ought to have repelled; instead of that he put it in his heart” (Alford). Not unto men, but unto God.—(Compare 1 Thessalonians 4:8.) A weighty testimony to the divinity, as well as personality of the Holy Spirit (compare Matthew 28:19).

Acts 5:5. Gave up the ghost.—Expired, breathed out his life; used again only of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:23). The phrase occurs frequently in the LXX. Great fear came on all them that hoard these things.—Not merely upon all present (De Wette), but upon all to whom the report came.

Acts 5:6. The young, or younger men, were the more youthful members of the assembly (Neander, De Wette, Alford, Hackett, Zöckler, and others) in distinction from the older. There is no need to suppose them a special class of assistants (Kuinoel, Meyer), or that presbyters had already been appointed (Olshausen), although on the ground of this natural distribution of work between the young and old in the common life of the Church, the later official distinction may have arisen (Holtzmann). Wound him up.—συνέστειλαν. I.e., taking συστέλλω to be = περιστέλλω (Ezekiel 29:5, LXX.; Jos., Ant., XVII. iii. 3), wrapping the body up—e.g., in their own mantles (Alford, De Wette); or, perhapes better, adhering to the literal sense of the word, to place together, laying the body out, composing its limbs (Zöckler, Holtzmann), and so making ready for burial. “The speedy burial of the dead practised among the later Jews was unknown in earlier times. See Genesis 23. It was grounded on Numbers 19:11 ff. The practice was to bury before sunset of the same day” (Alford).

Acts 5:7. Three hours after allowed sufficient time for interment.

Acts 5:8. So much.—Perhaps pointing to the gold still lying where it had been laid by Ananias.

Acts 5:9. To tempt the Spirit of the Lord.—Compare 1 Corinthians 10:9. Behold draws attention to the sound of approaching footsteps (Olshausen, Hackett, Holtzmann) although the whole clause may be only a lively or poetic manner of speech (Alford, Zöckler).

Acts 5:10. Fell down straightway.—That the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira were designed by the writer as supernatural occurrences cannot be doubted; and that they were so is shown by the impossibility of accounting for them by natural means, such as horror at detection and fear superinduced by Peter’s words. The idea that the story of Ananias and Sapphira, though having a basis in fact, is only a legend, corresponding to the Old Testament narratives of Achan (Joshua 7) and Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1), and framed for the purpose of supporting the notion that he who is excommunicated must perish bodily (Weizsäcker) may be dismissed as without plausibility.

Acts 5:11. The Church, ἐκκλησία. Here used for the first time in the Acts to signify the body of believers who had been called out of the world.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 5:1

The Story of Ananias and Sapphira; or, Hypocrisy unveiled

I. The character and standing of Ananias and Sapphira.—

1. Husband and wife. They stood towards one another in the holiest of natural relations. “Marriage is honourable in all” (Hebrews 13:4). Happy they in whom the sacred bond of wedlock is cemented by love and religion (Ephesians 5:25). Had Ananias and Sapphira been like their names, “finer names than Barnabas” (Stier)—he a vessel of the grace of God, and she clear and transparent like the sapphire (see “Critical Remarks”)—all had been well. But, alas! “their souls were not like their names” (Stier), and in them the marriage union, having been perverted to unholy ends, what was meant for a blessing turned out to be a curse. Instead of being helpers of each other’s faith and joy (2 Corinthians 1:24), and provoking one another to love and good works (Hebrews 10:24), they became mutual tempters and confederates in sin. Adam and Eve, if they were the first married couple who conjointly went astray (Genesis 3), have, unhappily, not been the last: witness Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 12:16); Ahab and Jezebel (1 Kings 16:29); Herod and Herodias (Matthew 14:3).

2. Of good social standing. This was obvious from the circumstance that they possessed a bit of land. Ownership of the soil—whether right or wrong—has always been esteemed a mark of superior position (see Job 22:8). The landless have ever been accounted mean, and not unfrequently treated as slaves and chattels. Nor have such ideas been confined to men of the world, but they have been suffered to penetrate even within the precincts of the Christian Church. 2. Of fair Christian profession. “Without doubt,” says Besser, “the Holy Spirit had had His work upon them both. They were both believers, and embraced in the precious word spoken of the multitude of the faithful (Acts 4:32). Probably they had made themselves prominent above others through their beautiful gifts (of grace), had prayed with power, and been able boldly to despise the threatenings of the enemy.” Whether this was so or not, unquestionably they belonged to the number of disciples. Having publicly professed their faith in Christ, they had been baptised and received into the Christian community. Whether their so-called conversion dated from the day of Pentecost, or the healing of the lame man, cannot be ascertained. But manifestly they were persons of repute in the congregation. “They had a name to live” (Revelation 3:1), whether it was deserved or not.

II. The project and sin of Ananias and Sapphira.—

1. Their project.

(1) Its substance was good—to sell their property, retain part of the purchase money, bring the remainder into the Church, and lay it down at the apostles’ feet exactly as Joses had done. If they had a wish to emulate the man of Cyprus, there would still have been nothing reprehensible in what they proposed to do had they only let the truth be understood that they were contributing not the whole but only a part of their estate.
(2) Its motive was bad—to obtain credit for doing a handsome, generous, self-sacrificing deed of kindness without inflicting on themselves a total loss, to secure for themselves praise to which they were not entitled—viz., for giving all, whereas they were only giving part of their patrimony. In other words, vanity and greed lay at the root of their procedure.
(3) Its execution was clever—the scheme was carried out promptly, soon after it had been conceived, so that no space was left for hesitation which might lead to an alteration in their plans; faithfully, in exact accordance with the prearranged programme, so that little chance was left for miscarrying; conjointly, with the full concurrence of both partners, so that neither could cast the blame of failure upon the other; and publicly, with the knowledge and approbation of the Church, so that all might appear open and above board.
2. Their sin.

(1) In what it consisted. Not in selling the land or in contributing only a portion of the price to the common fund. They need not have sold the land unless they pleased. Nor were they obliged to surrender the whole or any portion of the realised price, if they chose to do otherwise. “There was no law imposing payment and specifying amount” (Binney). All was voluntary. Their transgression lay in pretending to contribute the whole when they were only devoting a part. Deception and hypocrisy were the faults with which they were chargeable.
(2) By whom it was instigated. The nearer motives have been explained. The power behind these was the Devil. Satan had filled their hearts with the desire of gaining reputation as generous and self-sacrificing givers without parting with too much of their property. To the promptings of the arch deceiver they had yielded. Having opened the gateways of their souls at his suggestion, they had soon sunk beneath his sway.

(3) Against whom it was directed. It was a sin against their own souls, against the apostles, against the Church, and even against Christ; but it was chiefly a sin against God and the Holy Ghost. This, according to Peter, formed its main aggravation. Yet it must not be confounded with what is specifically called the sin against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:32).

III. The detection and punishment of Ananias and Sapphira.—

1. The detection.—This was

(1) unexpected. By Ananias and Sapphira themselves, who, no doubt, never dreamt that any one, and least of all Peter, would get to know of their little plot; but hardly less by the congregation who, it may be imagined, never anticipated that any of their number would be guilty of such a miserable crime. The unexpected, however, is that which mostly happens; nor can evil doers count on a moment of security.
(2) Instantaneous. No preliminary suspicions, or strange surmises, or precognoscing of witnesses, or leading of evidence, was required. At once and on the spot, with the suddenness of a flash of lightning, the secret offence was laid bare. Ananias and Sapphira were hypocrites, and had lied unto the Holy Ghost.
(3) Complete. The whole story was divulged,—the selling of the land, the keeping back part of the price, the concert between the two. Nothing remained concealed from the searching gaze of Peter, whose eyes had been inwardly illumined by the Holy Ghost.

(4) Public. The sin had been conceived in secret, but its exposure occurred in public, according to the saying of our Lord: “There is nothing hid which shall not be manifested,” etc. (Mark 4:22).

2. The punishment.

(1) Sudden. Swift upon the heels of dection followed the infliction of retribution, as it did with our first parents (Genesis 3:8), with Cain (Genesis 4:9), with Judas, John 1:18), with Herod (Acts 12:23), and as it often does in Providence still.

(2) Severe. “Ananias, hearing Peter’s words, fell down and gave up the ghost” and three hours after, “Sapphira,” entering the congregation, and learning what had happened to her husband, also “fell down immediately at Peter’s feet.” One after the other their bodies were composed for interment, wrapped up in linen, or perhaps in the young men’s mantles, carried forth, and buried. Whether their souls perished with the dissolution of their bodies cannot be told. Charity would incline one to the belief of Augustine that this terrible doom was inflicted on their bodies that their spirits might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 5:5).

(3) Supernatural. The suggestion that Ananias and Sapphira died through shame and the detection of their crime, and fear of the consequences that might ensue to them on its getting known to the community, will not explain the double death in manner and circumstances so exactly alike. Besides, Peter’s language (Acts 5:9) shows that both of the deaths were miraculous. To dismiss the whole story as a legendary working up of some simple occurrence connected with Ananias and Sapphira is inadmissible.

(4) Solemnising. It profoundly impressed the whole Church and the outside public, so far as it became known. And no wonder. “When God’s judgments are abroad the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness” (Isaiah 26:9).

(5) Sanctioned. By right and justice. Though severe, it was not more severe than the sin deserved (Romans 6:23), or the circumstances of the case demanded. It was needful to check hypocrisy on the threshold of the Church; and if the rigour of Divine vengeance has since then been relaxed, that is not because the sin of hypocrisy has become less hateful in God’s sight (Job 13:13; Job 13:16; Luke 11:44), but because “mercy” has began to “rejoice against judgment” (James 2:13).

Learn.—

1. That two actions may be similar in men’s eyes, and yet intrinsically different in God’s. Example: the actions of Barnabas and Ananias.
2. That God will accept no gift for either His Church or His poor of that which hypocrisy and greed leave over. God’s proper portion is the firstfruits.
3. That God still sits over against the treasury of the Church and jealously guards His honour from all reproach that may be cast upon it by His people’s gifts.
4. That no plot can be too secret to escape the all-seeing eye of God.
5. That, though hand join in hand, yet will not the sinner go unpunished.
6. That “not a great and mixed multitude, but the holiness of His people, is pleasing to the Lord of His Church” (Lechler).
7. That Christ’s people should guard themselves carefully against temptations to sin.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Acts 5:1. Ananias and Sapphira; or, the Fearful Perversion of the Marriage State.—This occurs when marriage is—

I. A fellowship of goods and a business transaction, instead of a union of hearts in the Lord.

II. A union to the service of the flesh, the world, and the devil, instead of a pious resolution, “As for me and my house.”

III. A walking together to hell, instead of being helpers together of one another’s joy, and pilgrims towards heaven. Contrast Ananias and Sapphira with Zacharias and Elizabeth.—Gerok.

Acts 5:1, with Acts 4:3. Barnabas and Ananias.

I. Compare.—In being—

1. Men;
2. Professors of Christianity;
3. Givers.

II. Contrast.—In their—

1. Characters. Barnabas, a good man and sincere Christian; Ananias, an insincere disciple and flagrant deceiver.

2. Gifts. That of Barnabas proceeding from Christian love and sympathy, and being complete as well as honest; that of Ananias being inspired by envy and selfishness as well as impaired in its extent, and deceitful in its mode of presentation.

3. Rewards. Barnabas being set upon a pedestal of immortal renown; Ananias being fixed on a pillory of undying shame. Barnabas being promoted to a position of usefulness in the Church; Ananias being punished with instantaneous destruction, and so held up as a warning to future ages.

III. Suggest.—

1. That all who profess faith in Jesus Christ are not sincere disciples.
2. That all gifts to Christ’s treasury are not equally acceptable to Christ.
3. That different destinies await the true and the false professor of religion.

Acts 5:3. Man’s Partnership with Satan in his Sins.

I. In connection with lies.—He is a liar, and the forger of lies; the hater of truth and uprightness.

II. In connection with errors.
III. In connection with forms.
IV. In connection with unbelief.
V. In connection with his own original falsehood in Paradise.—H. Bonar, D.D.

Acts 5:3. Satan and the Holy Ghost.

VII. Satan.—

1. The existence and personality of Satan. Peter did not speak in allegory when he said, “Why hath Satan filled thy heart?”

2. The reality of Satanic influence on the human heart. The sin of Ananias and Sapphira was traced back to the direct agency of the devil.

3. Satanic influence, though undeniable, does not destroy the responsibility of man. Satan can fill no man’s heart against his will.

II. The Holy Ghost.—

1. The divinity and personality of the Holy Ghost. The former implied in the fact that the Holy Ghost could be lied against and tempted; the latter in the title God ascribed to Him (Acts 5:4).

2. The access the Holy Spirit has to the human heart. Proved by the inward illumination of Peter as to the conduct of the guilty pair.

3. The perpetual inhabitation of the Church by the Holy Ghost. Ananias and Sapphira imagined they had only their fellow-Christians to hoodwink. Peter explained the aggravation of their sin to lie in this, that it had been committed against the Holy Ghost.

Acts 5:5 Sudden Deaths.

I. Possible occurrences.—And may be either natural events or supernatural judgments.

II. Impressive spectacles.—Calculated to arrest the careless and render the wicked thoughtful.

III. Solemn lessons.—Teaching all

(1) the nearness of the end, and
(2) the wisdom of being ready.

Acts 5:5. Church Discipline.

I. Its necessity.—Shown then by the case of Ananias and Sapphira; shown now by the admitted presence in the Church of those who “walk disorderly.”

II. Its authority.—The example of Peter, supported by the teaching of Christ (Matthew 18:15), Paul (1 Corinthians 5:2; 2 Corinthians 2:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; Titus 3:10), and John (2 John 1:10).

III. Its effect.—When faithfully and lovingly administered mostly good; if not to the offending party salutary, to the Church and the world mostly impressive and instructive.

Acts 5:1. The Sevenfold Union of Ananias and Sapphira.

I. United in marriage.—Husband and wife.

II. United in profession.—Both members of the Church.

III. United in liberality.—Both agreed to give a contribution to the Church fund.

IV. United in sin.—Their plot was devised and acted on in concert with each other.

V. United in detection.—Both were found out at the same time and by the same apostle.

VI. United in punishment.—Both were visited with death.

V. United in infamy.—Both serve as a memorial and warning to future ages.

The Love of Money, as exemplified in Ananias and Sapphira.

I. It impaired their Christian characters.—Assuming them to have been genuine disciples, it certainly prevented them from rising to any height in the religious life, if it did not utterly extinguish grace within their hearts. Alongside of the love of Mammon the love of God cannot thrive (Matthew 6:24).

II. It maintained its hold upon them, notwithstanding their privileges.—They had probably witnessed the wonders of Pentecost, beheld the healing of the lame man, listened to Peter’s sermons, enjoyed the fellowship of the disciples, perhaps themselves led the prayers of the congregation; and yet this deeply seated vice, the passion for money, kept its ground.

III. It impelled them to a course of heinous sin.—To avarice, to deception, to hypocrisy, to vainglory, to lies, to pretence and ostentation—a pitiable crop of evil to come to harvest in Christian souls. “The love of money is the root of every kind of evil” (1 Timothy 6:10).

IV. It involved them in an awful doom.—Detection, exposure, death, infamy. “They that will be rich,” etc. (1 Timothy 6:9). For other examples of the love of money see Simon Magus (Acts 8:18), the Sorcerers (Acts 16:19), Demetrius (Acts 19:24), Felix Acts 24:26).

The sin of Ananias and Sapphira.

I. The character of the sin.—It was not simple falsehood. The common practice of holding it up before children, as an illustration of the guilt and danger of lying, has no warrant to justify it. Their sin was the attempt to deceive and defraud God. Many a man since has ventured upon the same experiment. In every community there are some who are so convinced of the worth of religion that they desire to share in its blessings. They outwardly embrace the Christian faith; they unite with the Church; they are measurably careful in the discharge of routine duties. Neither their conduct nor their neglect is such as to subject them to discipline; and yet, while conceding so much, they are far from having made a complete surrender of themselves to God. Their religious life is a perpetual attempt at con-promise. The bulk of their time and energy is devoted to self and the world; the dust and sweepings are offered to God. Ananias in broadcloth and Sapphira in silk sit in the churches every Sabbath. They call themselves disciples, and pride themselves on their consistency; but both the name they assume and the boast they make is a lie to the Holy Ghost. They keep back a part, and the greater part, of the price of discipleship.

II. The origin of the sin.—In general phrase, we may say that it was due to an evil heart, but its specific root was the love of money. In our day, when men are called to choose between piety and property, there are many who hesitate, prevaricate, and end with a compromise. Multitudes of avowed believers withhold as much as possible of their wealth from God. They are prodigal in their prayers and hymns and exhortations, but close-handed with their money. Like the tree in the ancient legend, which uttered a moan and bled whenever a twig was broken off, those who call themselves Christian men writhe and suffer when forced to anything like a liberal surrender of their worldly substance for the glory of God and the salvation of men. The old poison of avarice is still in the veins of the Church.

III. The discovery of the sin.—It seemed unlikely that the transaction would be made public. Ananias and Sapphira would not circulate the story of what they had done. There was apparently no way in which the affair could become known. So, doubtless, these deceivers reasoned. But there was an uncalculated factor in the equation. There was a spiritual side to the matter which was unreckoned. It affected the kingdom of God as well as the real estate market. It is a truth which men are slow to learn, that there is a Divine detective system in the universe, by whose workings “all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.” It is easy to deceive the world. Men may consider us generous, when in reality we are pinched and small in our charities. To God, this world is one vast whispering-gallery, and every sin which men commit reports itself to Him; and “there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, and hid that shall not be known.” Men cannot measure our consecration to God.

IV. The punishment of the sin.—It was startling and severe. One moment Ananias and Sapphira stood before the apostle in the flush of life and health, with the lie upon their lips; the next they were in eternity, beginning the experience of its unchanging awards. The penalty might be judged extreme for a single sin; but, at the outset of the Christian Church, it was important to emphasise the fact that the liberty of the Gospel was not license. More than that, the sin itself was significant. As the single blossom is evidence whether the stock from which it comes is noxious weed or fragrant flower, so this action was proof of a heart alienated from God in its deepest life and purposes. Such feeling and intention was a hindrance to the kingdom of righteousness. And this punishment was anticipated and representative. The judgment continues to be executed. Men now who attempt to defraud God by their partial consecration, by the much they spend on themselves and the little they devote to Him, are not beaten down as with a lightning-stroke; but, all the same and just as really, they die spiritually. They are dying at the root. The complete loss of spiritual life is only a question of time. Atom by atom their interest in Divine things dissipates; headland after headland of faith sinks into indistinctness in their drift away from them; doctrine and duty lose their hold on their acceptance and conduct; and at last they have a name to live and are dead.—Monday Club Sermons.

Ananias and Sapphira.

I. The sin of Ananias and Sapphira.—It is expressly stated to have been “lying unto the Holy Ghost” (Acts 5:3). It will be observed that in Acts 5:3 the personality and Deity of the Spirit are asserted in an incidental way. Peter varies the charge of lying to the Spirit in the third verse to lying to God in the fourth.

1. Their act was gratuitous.—In the community of goods which prevailed in the infant Church the rights of property were not obliterated; there was no compulsory communism.

2. It was marked by covetousness. There is a strange mingling of discordant elements in their act. They loved the praise of men, and were unwilling to be held in less consideration than Barnabas. But they loved money quite as well, even better. Zeal and faith of some sort led them to profess the name of Christ, but beneath their profession lurked a hateful lust for influence and greed of money.

3. Unbelief also entered into and aggravated their guilt. This had a twofold aspect. Obviously, they distrusted God. We can imagine that the failure of the sustentation-fund was the subject of anxious debate between them. “Suppose this community of goods should become exhausted, what then? Is it not our duty to retain some security against the contingencies of the future?” They feared to endanger their comforts beyond recall; a portion of their property would be safest in their own hands. Moreover, there appears to have been a worse feature than distrust of God in their act. There was the feeling, latent, unconfessed mayhap, that they would not and could not be detected in their deed.

4. The sin was preconcerted. They “agreed together” to deceive the Church and the Spirit in the Church. The plan was concocted deliberately and dispassionately. No doubt they spent much time and thought in working out a device which should save appearances with the Church and gratify their avarice. Together they contrived the pious fraud, and they executed it together. This fact intensifies the criminality of their conduct.

5. The devil’s agency in the sin. “Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?” Covetousness and unbelief prompted the deceit, we might be disposed to say. But the apostle saw deeper. He saw that the devil had been joined by this guilty couple. Whether consciously or unconsciously, this wretched pair was assisted by the devil in the attempt to impose upon the Spirit of God. The device which they adopted exposed them to his assaults. Had they been honest with themselves, with the Church, and, above all, with God, they had been kept from the snare of the fowler. Instead, they helped him weave and spread the net in which themselves were taken. Poor victims!

II. Their Punishment.—it was instantaneous. As their sin challenged both the omniscience and justice of God, He at once vindicated the holiness and majesty of His character. Instantly His wrath streamed forth and consumed the guilty couple.

III. The lessons taught by this solemn incident are many—a few of which only may be designated.

1. And mark well the Divine abhorrence of prevarication.
2. The certainty of the exposure of hypocrisy. God will unmask the hypocrite.
3. Religious enthusiasm without grace is dangerous. People run fearful risks when they profess more than their spiritual strength can carry.—W. G. Moorehead, D.D.