Acts 4: 32 – 5: 11
Want to still stick to your prior testimony?
32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need. 36 And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus, 37 having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 2 And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” 5 Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. 6 And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him. 7 Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?” She said, “Yes, for so much.” 9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. 11 So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.
The bible teaches that in the last days ‘lawlessness’ will abound. A major part of lawlessness is the erosion of truth. Telling the truth under oath is “a breathtakingly simple proposition on which the entire American legal system rests. False statements are undermining America. It uses to be that when a witness testified he or she would put their hand on the bible and answer that they ‘swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me God.’ Since we do not want our Holy God involved in our country anymore, the words to a witness today are, ‘Do you affirm to tell the truth?’
We know how many murders are committed each year 1,248,185 in 2016. We know the precise numbers for reported instances of rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and vehicle theft. No one keeps statistics for perjury and false statements-lies told under oath or to investigative and other agencies of the U.S. government-even though they are felonies punishable by up to five years in prison. There is simply too much of it, and too little is prosecuted to generate any meaningful statistics.
Although lying seems to be an inherent part of human nature, the narrow but serious class of lies that undermines the judicial process on which government depends has been a crime as old as civilization itself. Originally prosecuted in England by ecclesiastical courts, by the sixteenth century perjury was firmly embedded as a crime in the English common law. The offender was typically punished by cutting out his tongue, or making him stand with both ears nailed to the pillory. False testimony that resulted in the execution of an innocent person was itself punishable by death. Exile, imprisonment, fines, and “perpetual infamy” were meted out as the centuries passed. I would call that a great incentive to tell the truth.
Perjury was a crime in the American colonies and has been a crime in the United States since independence. Today perjury and false statements are federal offenses under U.S. criminal code Title 18, and perjury is also outlawed by statute in all fifty states. The obligation to appear as a witness if summoned and to provide truthful testimony has been inculcated in generations of Americans through civics and history classes. “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” is a phrase nearly every American knows by heart.
Yet lying under oath is a subjective crime. It requires the person telling the lie to know that the statement is false and to intend to lie. The subject of the lie must be “material,” of some importance, and not a trivial irrelevancy. Guilt or innocence turns not on accuracy, but on state of mind. For that reason, it is an extremely difficult crime to detect, prosecute, and prove.
Mounting evidence suggests that the broad public commitment to telling the truth under oath has been breaking down, eroding over recent decades, a trend that has been accelerating in recent years. Because there are no statistics, it’s impossible to know for certain how much lying afflicts the judicial process, and whether it’s worse now than in previous decades. Street criminals have always lied when confronted by law enforcement. But prosecutors have told me repeatedly that a surge of concerted, deliberate lying by a different class of criminal-sophisticated, educated, affluent, and represented in many cases by the best lawyers-threatens to swamp the legal system and undermine the prosecution of white-collar crime. Perjury is committed all too often at the highest levels of business, media, politics, sports, culture-even the legal profession itself-by people celebrated for their achievements, followed avidly by the media, and held up as role models.
This surge of perjury cases at the highest levels of business, politics, media, and culture poses some fundamental questions: Why would people with so much to lose put so much at risk by lying under oath? Whatever they may have done, why would they compound their problems by committing an independent felony, punishable by prison? What were the consequences? And what price are all of us paying for their behavior?
Today we are going to look at a court case that dealt with perjury. Interestingly enough it was held by the church. You see as the infant church of our Holy Lord Jesus was beginning Satan was trying to infiltrate it. Observing it today in which the husband and wife lied about contributing money we might say that the punishment does not fit the crime. Yet, we should take note that our Precious Holy Spirit treated what they did as a major offense. In truth crimes have been so heinous that lying under oath is not a big deal. I presently serve in the Philadelphia Police Department as a chaplain. In a conversation with the Police Chief I asked him about the reparative amount of criminals being put back on the streets. His answer kind of shocked me. In Philly there are about 25, 000 arrests made each year. He asked me, ‘Do you know how many of those arrests actually result in a night in jail?’ I told him I have no guess on the amount. He told me that less than 2% are put in jail. Then he asked me, ‘With all the serious crimes of murder, armed robbery, assaults, etc. why are the criminals let go?’ Again I had no answer. He told me because there is no room to put them. So, now do you see how crimes such a perjury are ignored by the court system?
Mankind without God has tried to implement a righteous existence among all people. Without God this type of human interaction will not work. Communism is such an example of this failure. However we do see this perfect type of harmonious existence displayed by the early church body. What is also being brought out here is that the first enthusiasm had now become settled practice, and the spontaneous generosity of chapter 2 had become an established and thought through pattern. Here was the ideal existence of the people of God, an existence full of mutual love and self-giving and sharing in common. Here too poverty was being eradicated by a common sharing. The life of the community was becoming more organized, and meanwhile the Rule of God was continually being proclaimed externally through the witness of the Apostles.
All situations could only result in the fellowship of Christians, filled with the love of God, making their utmost effort to ensure that none of their number was in need. It was an expression of practical Christian love. It was probably helped on by the expectancy that Jesus Christ must return soon, but we must not limit it to that. It was rather the practical outworking of what Jesus had taught. It was spontaneous self-giving resulting from the love of Christ within.
32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need. 36 And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus, 37 having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
As the church grew there was a total unity with each other in heart and mind as they have grown to know each other, there it was a spontaneous ‘togetherness’. There is a growing together in love. It had been our Lord Jesus’ dictum that all men would know Christians by the love that they showed to one another. This was first fully manifested in this early Jerusalem church by togetherness and now by growing unity in heart and mind.
They rejoiced in the Lord Jesus Christ, shared food together, prayed together, learned the truth together, witnessed together, and were becoming ‘of one heart and one soul’. They constantly revealed their love for one another.
The believers had gained a new outlook on their possessions. Instead of clinging on to them they recognized that they belonged to God and were therefore to be at His disposal. And that also meant that they should be available to any in need.
Today many people piously tell God that they see what they possess as belonging to Him and at His disposal. But it is a different matter when it comes to following it up. Having ‘given’ it to God they cling tightly onto it. Here, however, the new community put it into practice. They actually in practice treated their possessions as available to any who needed them. It was all voluntary. There was no constraint on anyone. They trusted the Apostles who had shared with them the Good News of The Lord Jesus Christ to distribute the funds as they saw fit.
All this was taking place because - ‘And great grace was on them all.’ All who are His know the greatness of the grace of God, of God’s unmerited love and favor, of His kindness and compassion. Without it none of us would be His. But this was something more. God was present among them in an unusual way. His unmerited love and favor moved them to be the same. They were filled with kindness and compassion. They walked constantly in His light. God was revealing His special favors. They were enjoying superabundance of blessing. They were fully conscious of ‘living in heavenly places’. It is in the light of such an exalted atmosphere that we must judge the sin of Ananias and Sapphira.
Have you ever experienced the favor of the Lord? It is quite awesome. However, you mess up and sin with your thoughts, or words, or actions and from personal experience the favor of the Lord’s active presence fades away. I hate that. I miss His presence and I want Him back close and active in my life.
As the church grew so did the needs. You would be amazed at the costs in running a church today. It no small point that these costs are significant with large church budgets running in the millions.
After using up their personal on hand assets they sold their ‘possessions and goods’ in order to continue to meet each other’s needs. They sold their lands and houses and brought the money to the Apostles.
We can now begin to see how what at first was a simple means of meeting obvious need, and revealing God’s love practically, was becoming a large administrative task that would begin to take up the entire Apostles’ time, and would make life impossible for them. They were neither trained for this task, nor had the time to do it properly. The neglect of Hellenist widows (6.1) was not due to favoritism or lack of concern; it was due to inefficiency in organization and planning. As we learn in chapter 6, it could not go on. If it were to be done properly and efficiently, changes would have to be made.
Knowing man’s human nature there had to come a time when the idyllic picture was broken. There was a threat from without. Now there would be something evil that infiltrated the body of Christ - hypocrisy and dealing falsely with sacred things within the church. It was and is even today a trouble which had to be dealt with drastically in order to prevent it from spreading. The purity of the church had to be maintained. It is an indication of Luke’s practicality that he tempers his description of the early church with recognition of treachery within.
In order to understand this account we must see the position clearly in its context. The church was going forward as one. There was complete love and harmony. The Kingdom of God was being manifested. The temper of the new age was being made known. And then secretly and insidiously into this perfect harmony came two people with the equivalent of a spiritual time bomb, a bomb that could have destroyed all that had been accomplished. It was a root of evil that could destroy the whole. And behind it was Satan. It was he who was seeking to undermine the witness and life of the church by hypocrisy. And Ananias and Sapphira were his representatives.
When man first came into the world his desire for what was pleasant resulted in betrayal, and in his expulsion from God’s earthly Paradise (Genesis 3). When Israel were on the very verge of taking possession of the promised land a man [Achan], filled with greed, almost brought the whole project to a halt. In both cases the crime was the same. They withheld from God what had been totally dedicated to Him. When Judas became disappointed with Jesus his love for money led him into betrayal, resulting in the crucifixion of Jesus and his own self-destruction. And now here again we have people whose love for money could well have proved the undoing of God’s people, another Adam and Eve, another Achan, another Judas. As the new creation, the new age, began they had had to choose between God and Mammon and they chose Mammon. But in reality it is worse. They did it pretending that they were choosing God. Indeed they went a stage further. They took what had been wholly dedicated to God and kept it back for themselves.
The point of this incident is that it was a rejection of the Kingdom of God while professing to accept it, and that it was crucially at a time when all eyes needed to be fixed on the King because the world was about to reveal itself in a wholesale attack on the Gospel. And it was a withholding from God of what had become His right because they had dedicated it to Him. It cut right into the heart of the total dedication of God’s people. It is a reminder that the behavior of each individual is of great concern to God. But thanks to Peter’s prompt action the church was kept pure and prepared. Had Ananias and Sapphira not been firmly dealt with, the outcome might have been very different. It was the first real test of the genuineness of the response of the early church, and the first evidence of what a serious matter it was to come under the Kingdom of God. And the final result was that the church continued to walk in awe of God and not of men.
Today the same evil has crept in yet the church will do nothing about it. Things that are blatancy against God’s Holy Word is not only condoned but promoted. I do not have to list for you what they are – You know!
There is a solemnity about this story that cannot be denied. It is clear that Peter was vividly conscious that God was directly involved in it. It is the only explanation for various elements within it. Why did Peter not admonish them and call on them to repent as he did later with Simon the sorcerer (8.22)? Why was Ananias’ body dealt with so abruptly so that even his wife was not involved in his preparation for burial? Why was she not immediately informed? Why did Peter, or some friend, not give Sapphira a warning of what might be? Why the whole affair was deliberately made so public? There is only one explanation - the act of deceit had already been committed in the mind. The crime had been done. The dedication had been drawn back on. God, Who knew all things, had already passed His sentence. And the thing had now to be made known to all. There was no going back. It was to be an example to the early church. Peter was simply appointed to be God’s executioner.
The similarity with the sin of Achan in Joshua 7, and it was the same sin, is striking, as is the harshness of the sentence. They had appropriated for themselves what had been fully and solemnly dedicated to God. They had broken their vow to the Most High which they should have brought to the Temple of the Lord. In the very Temple of God they would lie to God Himself. Their sin was exposed in all its awfulness. And they were therefore to be made an example to the flock. The seriousness of their crime might best be expressed in the words of Malachi 1.14, “But cursed be the deceiver, who --- vows, and sacrifices to the Lord a corrupt thing, for I am a great King,” says the Lord of hosts, “and my name is dreadful among the nations.” And that was what they were doing -Seeking to deceive our Great King and God.
The account begins with an example of one of Luke’s many contrasts. On the one hand was the godly man, Barnabas, who came and gave his all. On the other was the couple who tried to keep back part of the price. It is salutary today to consider that most of the church is exemplified in the second.
5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 2 And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
If we find this narrative something we have a hard time agreeing with, we must first recognize the grossness of the sin involved. This was no act of enthusiasm which simply turned out to be half-hearted (we are most of us guilty of that). This was from the beginning a planned, thought through and thoroughly discussed, deliberate act of deceit. They are depicted as scheming, conniving, barefaced and hardened liars. And they were doing it to God.
The scheme was that they would dedicate their land to God, sell it and then pretend that they were giving all the proceeds. They would make a great show of their sacrifice and dedication, but they would in fact hold back a good proportion for themselves. They would seek to deceive both God and His disciples who were working together in advancing the rule of God, in order that they might gain approbation and appreciation without cost, and this in an atmosphere where signs and wonders were happening all the time, and at a time when God was manifesting Himself in visible signs, and at a time when the church was open, honest and outgoing and were constantly ‘walking in the light’ with God. It represented a cynicism and hardness of heart that it would be difficult to surpass.
We should note where their eyes were fixed. Not on reward in heaven, nor on pleasing God. If they thought about it at all they must have known that God would know the truth about their act and would not be pleased, and that what they did would therefore contribute to neither. Rather their eyes and all their thoughts were on this life. They wanted the praise of men on earth, the ‘pride of life’. They wanted recognition and honor, and they did not mind what they did to get it. They did not care if in the end it destroyed the church. They just wanted recognition for themselves for a dedication that was not genuine. Many a man’s ministry has been destroyed by such a desire for recognition and praise.
In a humorous way I saw this act recreated for television in the show – The king of Queens. Doug and Carrie find out that they are selfish people when a tax preparer had asked them about their amount of contributions to charity. They never gave to a charity. They then decide to give money to help Deacon's son’s elementary school library. Here too their hearts were not right. They were willing to give money in order to be recognized. They gave enough money to become patrons which put their names on the top of the list of patrons so that people could see how generous they are. However, their names did not appear on the plaque as patrons they were listed as lower donors. Carrie wants to get her name corrected to patrons, while Doug does not care. She schemes and the teacher winds up putting their contribution way above what it should be. Doug feels convicted so he steps in and has the teacher change the donation name. The more they try to connive to get it corrected the more they are stifled. In the end the school teacher is fired.
Anyway let us get back to the serious issues of this chapter. Let us at this point briefly consider what this couple was doing. They were hitting at the very root of the church and of all that the church was. The church was of one heart and one soul, while they were pretending to be but were not. This might thus easily have begun to eat into the whole fabric of unity. Pretence cannot be kept up for long. Their attitude would soon feed through to others. The church was holding all things in common, but these two believed in keeping something aside for themselves, while pretending otherwise. The church was open and honest. These two were secretive and dishonest. Their attitude might soon have destroyed that happy condition of openness and generosity that abounded among God’s people. The church was looking to God as being there with them and acting among them. These two were treating God as though He was a far off and did not know what they were doing. The church was fully dedicating itself to God. These two had actually dedicated their property to God, but were therefore holding back what belonged to God. What they were doing was insidiously dangerous and might easily have brought the great revival to a shuddering halt.
So having sold the land and received the money Ananias secreted a part of it away and then brought the remainder and lay it at the Apostles’ feet, waiting for the praise, and the adulation, and the applause and the honor which he knew he would receive, especially because he had given all. His wife did not even come with him. She was prepared to wait for her share of the credit. Perhaps she was even a little ashamed. But she was equally culpable. Both had closed their hearts to God. The next step would then have been to receive leading places in the fellowship as those who had made a special sacrifice and in whom confidence could be placed, and their work of destruction would have begun. They would lead astray those who trusted them. When Achan retained for himself what had been dedicated to God he brought disaster on Israel (Joshua 7). These two were about to bring disaster on the church.
3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?
But what was his surprise when Peter, instead of revealing a face full of admiration and gratitude, looked sternly at him and informed him that what he was doing was nothing but the act of Satan. Instead of being ‘full of the Holy Spirit’ he was revealing himself as ‘full of Satan’. He was lying to the Holy Spirit, God at work visibly among His people. He was doing Satan’s work. He was the enemy within. As with Judas, through Ananias Satan was intruding himself among the people of God by subterfuge. Ananias was letting him into the body of Christ.
The question to consider here is ‘what was his lie’? It was not about what the price was. It was about an act of avowal and consecration that was blatantly untrue. He had sanctified all to God, and had then deliberately withheld it while proclaiming that he was giving all.
Peter had discerned the heart of the matter. He had recognized in this not just the actions of two rather foolish people, but an insidious attack by Satan himself, who had planned by these means to undermine God’s work, and who had been allowed to have control in these two rather sad, but sinful people. We must not just see the failure of Ananias and Sapphira as a slight coming short of the required standard. They had allowed themselves to be taken over by Satan.
So here the man who had failed Jesus under pressure in the courtyard of the High Priest’s house, but had wept bitterly as soon as he realized what he had done, faced the man who was now seeking to deceive God unashamedly. Had Ananias behaved like Peter did when he was faced up to what he had done, and had he immediately repented and wept bitterly who knows what might have happened? But he did not. Rather he stood and braved it out, listening in stubborn silence, even though his heart must have been racing. He had the heart of a Judas not of a Peter. All he could think of was that he had been found out.
Ananias should, of course, suspect that this would happen. In the Upper Room Jesus had given His Apostles’ the gift of discernment concerning man’s sins. And even if he had not known that he must have known that God could see his innermost heart. But it was all simply evidence of his unbelief. He did what he did because he did not believe, and wanted to take advantage of the poor fools who did. He did it because his eyes were fixed on earthly gain. But he had not just kept back part of the price of the land; he had kept back the whole of his life from God. And he was being the kind of example that could destroy others who might be tempted to follow his example. At this important stage in the life of God’s new people neither God nor the church mattered to him. What mattered to him was prestige. But he would learn that it was unwise to touch what was holy in the eyes of God. God took dedication seriously. Ananias did not.
4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
It should be noted here that the general situation in Judaism was that only a proportion be given. Back in Luke’s Gospel chapter 19 we learn that when Zacchaeus expressed his love for Jesus he declared that he would give a half of his goods, as well as restitution and this would be seen as extremely generous. The Mishnah declared that only a proportion of goods were to be offered to the Temple and that to give the whole was not valid. Elsewhere acts of charity were limited to one fifth of a man’s means. So it is significant of all the people who gave all, while following Jesus to the letter, were very much going beyond the norm. Yet in the face of the generosity of God in giving him free choice Ananias had conceived in his heart to lie to God. For that was his crime. He had chosen darkness rather than light because his deeds were evil. He did not want to walk in the light. And it had been a planned action, not a sudden impulse.
5 Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things.
The recognition that he had been exposed was too much for Ananias. His heart gave way and he breathed his last. He fell down dead before them all. The point was made that God had struck him down. And the result was that all God’s people were filled with awe and recognized even more that God was not to be mocked.
There are certain times in history where particular sins were seen as having such vital importance that the only solution was the death of the perpetrator. One example is the sons of Aaron who at the very time of the institution of the priesthood offered false fire to the Lord (Leviticus 10.1-2). Another was Achan who on first entry into the land had ‘kept back’ some of the booty of Jericho that had been specifically dedicated to the Lord (Joshua 7). In both cases instant death was the penalty. Those were times at the beginning of something new when an important lesson of obedience and respect for God had to be taught. The same was true here. All would now know that the new rule of God was not something to be taken lightly.
6 And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.
The young men then came forward, wrapped his body and took it away and buried it. In the hot weather of the Middle East quick burial was advisable, but in Jerusalem, the holy city it was essential. No corpse should be left until the morning. No doubt they ensured that any official requirements as regards a sudden death were observed, although there were sufficient witnesses who could testify as to what had happened. And that is the whole history of Ananias, the man who lied to God. So quickly was he disposed of, and clearly no one wept for him. He had been just a blip in the ongoing forward movement of God’s people. What a contrast with the future of Barnabas, the shining star who would go on to greater and greater things.
7 Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.
Sometime later his wife ‘came in’, probably to the porticoes of the Temple, totally unsuspecting of what had happened. It is probable that all felt embarrassed and that no one had the courage to say anything, for they must have been apprehensive as to what would happen next. All were seemingly agreed that it must be left in Peter’s hands. That was the easiest and the best way. It may be a significant indication of the couple’s lack of true connection with the community that she had no best friend to warn her.
8 And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?” She said, “Yes, for so much.”
Peter then asked her as to whether the land had been sold at the price stated. Perhaps he even held out the money that had been handed over to show her. She was to be given the chance to repent. But she was quite determined in her crime and quite hardened, and she confirmed the price that her husband had stated. She too was ‘full of Satan’, hardened in her sin.
This bears all the marks of an official enquiry, and a deliberate attempt to make public what was happening and obtains evidence in the sight of all. Peter was not acting here like a pastor, or even like an adjudicator. He was bringing out in public that the offence for which sentence had already been passed was genuine.
9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.”
Then Peter challenged her as to how she and her husband could have thought of testing the Spirit of the Lord out in this way, and informed her that those who had just buried her husband were at the door, and would carry her out as well.
10 Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband.
Thus Sapphira too fell dead, and the young men came in and took her body and buried her with her husband. They would meet God together at the Great White Throne Judgment.
11 So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.
Meanwhile the news of what had happened spread around, and the whole church were filled with awe and with the recognition that they must not treat God lightly, and many unbelievers heard, and they were made to think again about their lives. In their deaths Ananias and Sapphira would achieve far more than in their lives. They had sought credit for themselves. Instead all the credit went to God.
I think what we can take away here is how sin is so reprehensible to our Holy and Magnificent God. I grew up in a religion that taught that there were different degrees of sin. Some were called minor sins and others major sins. But in all truth sin is sin. We are not the ones who decide how offensive a sin is. It is only the prerogative of our Holy God to set His rules. It is our job to obey.
