There is a bit of folk wisdom that goes something like this: “Whenever you hear someone say that ‘It’s not about the money,” it usually is.” But this morning, I want to share from a passage that is almost always focused on the money and probably should not be. I don’t believe the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved this passage to teach us about stewardship. Yet, it almost always seems to be on Stewardship Sunday that we hear sermons on this text. But I believe this passage is about contrasting spiritual life with spiritual death, spiritual power with spiritual emptiness. (Read the text)
It’s probably too bad, at times, that we have chapter breaks where we have them. I’m one of those guys who particularly dislikes paragraphs or even sentences that begin with the conjunction “but,” much less entire chapters. Yet, that’s what we have in Chapter 5 of Acts. The story of Ananias (the root of the name is “God favored” or “God showed grace”) and Sapphira (“beautiful” from the Aramaic) is definitely told in contrast to what has gone before. So, let’s look at what went before in order to determine what’s really at issue in the passage.
Verse 32 emphasizes that the believers were of one heart and one soul (“life”). “One heart” means that their volition, their “decider” as the current President Bush called himself, and their “want to” were aligned to the same objective. “One soul (“life”)” means that they were in agreement about what was most important in their common life and the purpose of their partnership. Action went along with commitment and dedication.
Yet, it goes even further. No one grasped onto personal privilege or held to his/her own agenda versus the needs/expectations of the partnership—the partnership of faith (that’s what “koinonia” means). They held everything common. The community was more important than the individual.
Verse 33 underscores two great things. First, we are told that the apostles had GREAT POWER in their testimony about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus (or in some Greek translations and texts, resurrection of Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ the Lord, Jesus Christ, our Lord, or our Lord, Jesus Christ). The purpose of banding together in the special partnership of the church was to witness to the life-changing power of Jesus’ resurrection and the attitudes and actions of the early church were such that the “preaching” had GREAT POWER. And folks, no church can have GREAT POWER in its preaching where the assembly of believers is not unified in purpose and resources.
Second, there was GREAT GRACE. Think of grace as being about GIVING. God GAVE us His Son. We didn’t deserve it, but God met our need of salvation. In the same way, the “haves” in the early church took care of the needs of the “have-nots.” Nowhere does it say that the “have-nots” deserved it. We merely read in this verse that there was great, tremendous, grace, giving. In the next verse, we see that those who owned property were even willing to liquidate their real estate to meet the needs of those who had nothing.
Now, I know—you’re thinking that Pastor Johnny wants you to liquidate your assets and bring the proceeds into Northwest Baptist. No, I want you to read these verses like this: “Because, wherever there was a need, those who had the means to meet the need, met it for the glory of God.” Even in the early church, where the idea of a welfare state or someone else owing someone a living wasn’t routine, there were those who took advantage of the generosity of God’s people. We can see this in Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 4:28 where the one who used to get material needs met by stealing was no longer to steal but to get a job. This covenant or contract provision of holding everything in common worked both ways. No one had it soft. No one had permission to quit working. It was merely that by pooling the resources, all needs were met.
What would happen if we were to do that, today. We know that a group called Koinonia Farm attempted this in Americus, GA. What happened to them? They were persecuted by people who called them, “communists,” and even kicked out of Rehoboth Baptist Church. After their leader, Clarence Jordan, died, things held on for a while but eventually, people charged off on their own agendas.
So, I’m not even going to attempt to suggest that we establish a commune here at Northwest. I’m not going to suggest that it is God’s will for you to sell everything you own and put it at the feet of pastor, deacons, and trustees. What I’m going to challenge you to do is to see that needs are met. Do we need a Sunday School class for children or a Children’s Church worker besides Wailam? Let’s see that the need is met. Do we need to continue refurbishing this building? Let’s see that the need is met. Do we need to reinstate the food pantry? I don’t know. I thought we were past that need, but if we need to do that, let’s see that the need is met.
You may not own property and you may not have tangible assets, but you have time, talents, and the privilege of prayer. With those resources, no need in our church should go begging. It’s not about the money! Money is nice and money is necessary, but it’s really about the commitment. Are we going to “get r done!”
The Bible follows with a positive example and a negative example. The first example is a fellow named Joseph (v. 36), whose name means “God adds”—a name of blessing if I’ve ever heard one, with the nickname, Barnabas (sometimes translated from the Aramaic as “Son of encouragement,” “Son of exhortation,” or more literally as “Son of prophecy,” but here stated as “Son of help” or “Son of consolation” using the same root as that from which we get the Holy Spirit as “Comforter” or “Helper.”
We’re told that he is a Levite, interesting in the fact that Levites were precluded from owning personal property throughout most of the Old Testament, and that he was from Cyprus (a Mediterranean island not part of Israel). We don’t exactly how he got the land and the Greek word used for it suggests an open field, possibly an undeveloped field, but the important fact is that this person who could have relied upon personal privilege (as a Levite, he had many privileges in terms of leading in worship and making claims on the temple offerings) went out of his way to meet the needs of the early church. He liquidated his land and brought the money to the feet of the apostles.
Now, folks, let’s not get the wrong idea. The church hadn’t selected the SEVEN yet to administer the money and take care of the physical needs of the church members, so the only way to bring money and place it out in the open where everyone could see was to place it at the feet of the apostles who, in turn, were most likely at the front of the congregation where they could visibly teach and testify.
I don’t believe it was like some commentators who picture the apostles as seated high above the rest of the congregation so that the gold and silver were placed below their feet. There really isn’t any evidence to support that. Rather, I picture the apostles standing in front of the congregation and those who wished to support the Lord’s work coming forward to contribute much like one makes a decision during an altar call or invitation, today. Indeed, ever worshipped in an African-American church? When we first arrived in Georgia, we visited a little church in Tyrone and, guess what? At offering time, we all walked in front of the church and placed our offerings in the plates.
Joseph (to whom God had apparently added this property) Barnabas (the one who lived up to his name by encouraging, helping, and providing an example for others) didn’t hold anything back. Even for those of us who may not own property, have a nice stock portfolio, or drive nice cars, Barnabas is an example. He held nothing back, but we often hold back our personal energy, our time, our talents, and our dedication. We often have that back row mentality that says, “I’m here, Lord. I’m in for the minimum. I don’t want to get into trouble, but I don’t want to get too involved, either.”
And in contrast to Barnabas, we see two other believers. Ananias (whose very name means, as I suggested before, “favored by God”) and Sapphira (again, whose name I indicated meant “beautiful” in Aramaic). Let’s assume that the favor Ananias had received was wealth. That would sort of make Sapphira his “trophy wife.” Their very names exude success and attractiveness. Humanly speaking, they have it all.
But, Ananias and Sapphira aren’t satisfied with “having it all” in the human sense. They want to become big wheels in the church, too. They, like many humans, want to eat their cake and have it, too. But, as we all learned as little kids, when you eat that cookie now, you don’t have it to eat later.
Now, the Greek noun translated as “possession” in verse 1 of Chapter 5 is not that same noun as that translated as “field” or “land” in verse 37 of Chapter 4. The noun in Chapter 5 normally meant “personal possession.” In later Greek, it could also mean “land” or “real property,” but in traditional usage (of which I can only assume that Dr. Luke was tremendously familiar), it represented something smaller and more personal than the large property implied in the noun used for Barnabas’ land. So, at least implied in the wording, is the suggestion that even if Ananias and Sapphira had given the entire amount, it wouldn’t have been quite as big a deal as that of Barnabas.
Remember, of course, that in God’s eyes, it isn’t the number of zeros after the digit that matters—the size of the donation, it is the willingness of the giver. And in this case, they weren’t even willing to give all that they had received. They wanted to have the credit, the reputation, without giving the gift.
Now, check out what it says in verse 2 of Chapter 5. It says that they “kept back” part of the price. The verb used here (and again in verse 3) is the same verb that Greek Jews used to translate the Hebrew of Joshua. In Joshua, the Israelites were told to take no prisoners from Jericho and to destroy anything that could not be given to God. There was a reason for that. The more of Palestine that the Jews assimilated, the more chance they had to be alienated from their dependence upon God. So, as they began to claim the promise, they were ordered to keep nothing—either destroy it or give it to God.
BUT, just as Ananias and Sapphira didn’t quite follow the example of Barnabas, there was a fellow by the name of Achan who decided that there were a lot of nice things in Jericho and it was a real waste to merely destroy them. He must have also felt like the priests and Levites would just waste the value if these nice things were given to God. So, Achan “kept back” a little for himself.
You can read what Achan “kept back” in Joshua 7:21. In today’s language, that goodly Babylonian garment, two hundred shekels of silver, and wedge of gold worth fifty gold shekels would be equivalent to: “I couldn’t pass up that designer tuxedo, wad of bills, and portfolio full of bearer bonds.” Yet, it wasn’t WHAT he “kept back” that counted, it was the FACT that he disobeyed God that cost him his life.
And now, Ananias and Sapphira have conspired against God in an attempt to deceive God’s people. And, in case you think I’m wrong when I say that “It’s not about the money,” check out verse 4. They didn’t have to sell the property. They could have kept it. BUT, they wanted to dance the “hokey-pokey” with God—putting their right foot in and their right foot out. They wanted to be known as church members, but they wanted to keep enough resources to be able to do their own thing. The problem wasn’t with the offering. The problem was with the insincerity of the giver. God wants us to be honest with each other. God wants us to be totally committed. He doesn’t want us doing the “hokey-pokey” in any form—with our prayer, with our testimony, with our offerings, with our teaching, with our singing, or even with our attendance.
So, Peter confronts Ananias with his dishonesty and the would-be social climber seems to have either a massive heart attack or a stroke. He dies immediately after he is confronted by Peter’s rebuke. Some people think Peter caused this. I don’t believe that. It isn’t like a pagan high priest cursing an unbeliever and the evil spirits proving their power by killing the victim. In this case, it is more like a person realizing that he has aligned himself against Almighty God and, in that ultimate sense of “What have I done?” he gives up the ghost.
It isn’t so preposterous. Even today, we use the expression “scared to death.” That may be merely an expression to many of us, but there are numerous accounts of people who, confronted with the inexplicable or the unexpected, find the strain too much and actually die of a heart attack or stroke.
Now, the truth is that Ananias didn’t have to die. He could have repented. Instead, he dies in shock and everyone who is witness to this is in shock as well. Where we closed out Chapter 4 with the disciples preaching with Great Power and the congregation being cared for with Great Grace, we now have a pall of Great Fear come over everyone in verse 5. Now, remember, “fear” in the Bible has both the familiar meaning of being something that frightens us (“phobos,” the noun used here is the word from which we get the English, “phobia.”) and the undertone of hushed reverence.
In this case, I think the entire church was frightened that anyone in their midst would try to pull something over on God. I also think that sudden death made them realize that HOLINESS was expected within the congregation. They had a responsibility to live right with each other and with honesty and integrity toward God. So, in verse 6, they quickly remove the contagion by removing the body.
Now, some have tried to explain away this quick and private burial by stating that they didn’t have proper embalming materials and, it probably being a hot day in Jerusalem, they needed to get rid of the decomposing corpse in a hurry. While that’s possible, we see many occasions in the Bible where the burial procession was at least a day after the death (the widow’s son in the gospels) or there was a protracted viewing (Dorcas in Acts 9:37). I believe that the quick removal and burial was for two purposes: 1) to make sure that there was not undue mourning over someone who had died under God’s judgment; and 2) to get the physical reminder of “rebellion” or “sin” out of the church as fast as possible.
You see, just as God didn’t want Achan to keep that booty from Jericho lest he be tempted to adopt the culture and beliefs of Jericho when times got rough, God didn’t want the early church to treat “rebels” as heroes. Unfortunately, many times in today’s churches, we DO treat the disaffected members of our congregations as heroes. They leave the church because they are angry at the pastor or someone else. We feel sorry for them. They no longer feel comfortable in the church because their lifestyle isn’t in agreement with its teachings? We claim that the church leaders are out of touch or inflexible. In the early church, they couldn’t wait to remove the evidence of someone who “held out” on God.
But sin is rarely accomplished in a vacuum and this conspiracy to defraud God wasn’t, either. Verse 7 tells us that three hours passed. We don’t know where Sapphira was during that time. Perhaps, she was off doing business as usual and surprised when her husband didn’t come home at the usual time. Maybe, she was waiting at home for Ananias to come home and tell her about the incredible accolades they had earned with their “generosity.” Eventually, she shows up looking for her husband. Isn’t it interesting that the time lapse is THREE hours—a divine interval that could have given her ample time to get right with God and confess what she had done. BUT NO! She keeps the conspiracy going in verse 8, so Peter reiterates the crime—not the crime of not giving enough to the church but the crime of lying against the Holy Spirit.
And when Peter says that the pallbearers are waiting for her, just as they carried out her husband, I don’t think Peter was invoking God’s vengeance or God’s judgment. I think he was telling her that he knew what was going to happen. It was PROPHECY, not a CURSE. I know this because there have been a few times in my life when I had a direct word from the Lord and I desperately wanted my hearers to go a different direction. “Carl,” I once said (I’ve changed the name—even though no one hearing this would know the person of which I speak.), “if you do this, you’ll lose your wife and family.” He did it anyway and the last I heard, his wife was having an affair and his children weren’t sure who to call, “Daddy.”
Sapphira, like Ananias, could (in my opinion) have confessed, could have repented, could have been forgiven, but they died in rebellion. And the result? In verse 11, the result was the same as in verse 5—GREAT FEAR. I believe the early church had GREAT POWER and GREAT GRACE because God was so present, so visible in their midst that there was GREAT FEAR with regard to disobeying Him.
So, how is our church going to get GREAT POWER and experience GREAT GRACE? It all comes back to focusing upon God’s will—ONE HEART and ONE SOUL (“LIFE”) serving with GREAT POWER to share GREAT GRACE in an appropriate attitude of holiness that some might call GREAT FEAR.
You see, it isn’t about the money. It’s about the obedience, the commitment, and the expectation.
