New Page 1

Ananias & Sapphira (Part 1)

Passage To Study: Acts 5:1-6

1But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 2And 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. 3But 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? 4While 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.” 5Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. 6And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.

(Verse 1) - But a certain man - In the previous chapter the historian had given an account of the eminent liberality and sincerity of the mass of early Christians, in being willing to give up their property to provide for the poor, and had mentioned the case of Barnabas as worthy of special attention.

In this chapter he proceeds to mention a case, quite as striking, of insincerity, and hypocrisy, and of the just judgment of God on those who were guilty of it. The case is a remarkable instance of the nature of “hypocrisy,” and goes to illustrate the art and cunning of the enemy of souls in attempting to corrupt the church, and to pervert the religion of the gospel. Hypocrisy consists in an attempt to “imitate” the people of God, or to assume the “appearance” of religion, in whatever form it may be manifested. In this case religion had been manifested by great self-denial and benevolence.

The hypocrisy of Ananias consisted in “attempting” to imitate this in appearance, and to impose in this way on the early Christians and on God. If we miss the contrast between Joses and Ananaias and his wife, we miss a part of the real point of the passage.

With Sapphira his wife - With her concurrence or consent. It was a matter of “agreement” between them, (Acts 5:2, 9). This agreement was in regard to holding back a portion while appearing to give the whole. It seems safe to assume that there was no malicious plan with regard to their intent towards God. It was not He Whom they were intent on deceiving. It was the members of the body around them.

Sold a possession - The word used here does not indicate whether this was “land” or some other property. In Acts 5:3, however, we learn that it was “land” that was sold; and the word here translated “possession” is translated in many versions as “land.” The reason for which this was sold was doubtless to have the appearance of religion. That it was “sold” could be easily known by the Christian society, but it might not be so easily known for “how much” it was sold. Hence, the attempt to impose on the apostles. It is clear that they were not under obligation to sell their property. But, “having” sold it for the purposes of religion, it became their duty, if they professed to devote the avails of it to God, to do it entirely, and without any reservation.

We should be careful here that we do not impugn their motive entirely. It is not needful to make them entirely and completely hypocrites in this matter. In fact, there is little doubt that they had some, if not a good measure, of genuine affection for and desire to help the less fortunate members of their fellowship.

(Verse 2) - And kept back - The word used here means properly “to separate, to part:” and then it means to “separate surreptitiously or clandestinely for our own use” a part of public property, as taxes, etc. It is used but three times in the New Testament, (Acts 5:3, and in Titus 2:10, where it is rendered “purloining.”) Here it means that they “secretly” kept back a part, while “professedly” devoting all to God.

His wife also being privy to it - His wife “knowing it,” and evidently concurring in it. This underscores his wife's part in the entire matter - not only on the perifery.

And laid it at the apostles' feet - This was evidently an act professedly of devoting all to God. (Compare Acts 4:37; also Acts 5:8-9). That this was his “profession,” or “pretence,” is further implied in the fact that Peter charges him with having “lied” unto God, (Acts 5:3-4). This would indicate to us that this "laying" was an official act of duty toward the church. That the Apostles had some jurisdiction over they and their gift is apparent as well.

(Verse 3) - But Peter said - Peter could have known this only by “revelation.” It was the manifest design of Ananias to deceive; nor was there any way of detecting him but by its being revealed to him by the Spirit of God. As it was an instance of enormous wickedness, and as it was very important to detect and punish the crime, it was made known to Peter directly by God.

Why hath Satan - Great deeds of wickedness in the Scripture are traced to the influence of Satan. (Compare Luke 23:3; John 13:27. Especially is Satan called the “father of lies,” John 8:44-45. Compare Gen. 3:1-5). As this was an act of “falsehood,” or an attempt to deceive, it is with great propriety traced to the influence of Satan. The sin of Ananias consisted in his “yielding” to the temptation. Nowhere in the Bible are people said to be free from guilt from the mere fact that they have been “tempted” to commit it. God requires them to “resist” temptation; and if they “yield” to it, they are guilty and must be punished.

Filled thine heart - A man's “heart” or “mind” is “full” of a thing when he is “intent on it”; when he is strongly “impelled to it”; or when he is fully occupied with it. The expression here means that he was “strongly impelled” or “excited” by Satan to this crime. St further speaks to how fully and completely he was (they were) given to doing this thing. It wasn't a whim, nor was it an impulse or an accident.

To lie to - To attempt to deceive. The deception which he meant to practice was to keep back a “part” of the price, while he “pretended” to bring the whole of it; thus “tempting” God, and supposing that he could not detect the fraud. This is not to say that anyone can, in reality, actually deceive the Holy Spirit. This is not possible. Yet, we see here the intent so to do. We can't believe that they consciously thought they could deceive God. So, we are left with the idea that this is a situation where he as much as did as Petersays. In seeking to deceive Peter and the rest of the body, they were, in effect, lying to the Spirit.

The Holy Ghost - The main inquiry here is, whether the apostle Peter intended to designate in this place the “third person” of the Trinity; or whether he meant to speak of God “as God,” without any reference to the distinction of persons; or whether he referred to the “divine influence” which inspired the apostles, without reference to the special offices which are commonly ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Or, in other words, is there a “distinction” here recognized between the Father and the Holy Spirit? That there “is,” will be apparent from the following considerations:

(1) If no such distinction is “intended,” it is remarkable that Peter did not use the usual and customary “name” of God. It does not appear why he guarded it so carefully as to denote that this offence was committed against the “Holy Spirit,” and “the Spirit of the Lord,” (Acts 5:9).

(2) The name used here is the one employed in the Scriptures to designate the third person of the Trinity, as implying a distinction from the Father. (See Matt. 3:16; 1:18, 20; 3:11; 12:32; 28:19; Mark 1:8; 3:29; 12:36; Luke 12:10; John 14:26; 7:39; 20:22; Acts 4:8; 5:32, etc).

(3) Peter intended, doubtless, to designate an offence as committed particularly against the person, or influence, by which he and the other apostles were inspired. Ananias supposed that he could escape detection, and the offence was one, therefore, against the Inspirer of the apostles. Yet that was the Holy Spirit as “distinct from the Father.” (See John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-11; 20:22. Compare Acts 5:32). The offence, therefore, being against him who was “sent” by the Father, and who was appointed to a particular work, clearly supposes that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father.

(4) A further incidental proof of this may be found in the fact that the sin here committed was one of special magnitude - so great as to be deemed worthy of the immediate and signal vengeance of God. Yet the sin against the Holy Spirit is uniformly represented to be of this description. (Compare Matt. 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-29). As these sins evidently coincide in enormity, it is clear that the same class of sins is referred to in both places; or, in other words, the sin of Ananias was against the third person of the Trinity. Two remarks may be made here:

(1) The Holy Spirit is a distinct Person from the Father and the Son; or, in other words, there is a distinction of some kind in the divine nature that may be designated by the word “person.” This is clear from the fact that sin is said to have been committed against him - a sin which it was supposed could not be detected. “Sin” cannot be committed against an “attribute” of God, or an “influence” from God. We cannot “lie unto” an attribute, or against wisdom, or power, or goodness; nor can we “lie unto” an “influence,” merely, of the Most High. Sin is committed against a “Being,” not against an “attribute”; and as a sin is here charged on Ananias against “the Holy Spirit,” it follows that the Holy Spirit has a “personal” existence, or that there is such a distinction in the divine essence that it may be proper to “specify” a sin as committed especially against him. In the same way sin may be represented as committed especially against the “Father” when his “name” is blasphemed; when his “dominion” is denied; when his mercy in sending his Son is called in question. Sin may be represented as committed against “the Son” when his atonement is denied; his divinity assailed; his character derided, or his invitations slighted. And thus sin may be represented as committed against “the Holy Spirit” when his office of renewing the heart, or sanctifying the soul, is called in question, or when “his” work is ascribed to some malign or other influence. (See Mark 3:22-30). And as sin against the Son proves that he is in some sense distinct from the Father, so does sin against the Holy Spirit prove that in some sense he is distinct from the Father and the Son.

(2) The Holy Spirit is divine. This is proved, because he is represented here as being able to search the heart, and to detect insincerity and hypocrisy. (Compare Jer. 17:10; 1 Chr. 28:9; 1 Cor. 2:10, “The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God”; Rev. 2:23. And he is expressly “called” God. See the notes on Acts 5:4).

(Verse 4) - Whiles it remained - As long as it remained unsold. This place proves that there was no “obligation” imposed on the disciples to sell their property. They who did it, did it voluntarily; and it does not appear that it was done by all, or expected to be done by all. They had no compulsion, from God or from man, to sell. It was entirely of their own will. They chose so to do. This makes their sin all the more heinous.

And after it was sold - Even after the property was sold, and Ananias had the money, still there was no obligation on him to devote it in this way. He had the disposal of it still. The apostle mentions this to show him that his offence was especially aggravated. He was not “compelled” to sell his property - he had not even the poor pretence that he was “obliged” to dispose of it, and was “tempted” to withhold it for his own use. It was “all” his, and might have been retained if he had chosen. This emphasizes the time factor. He had time to think it through and change his mind. It underscores the deliberateness of his action.

Thou hast not lied unto men - Unto people “only,” or, it is not your “main” and “chief” offence that you have attempted to deceive people. It is true that Ananias “had” attempted to deceive the apostles, and it is true, also, that this was a crime; but still, the principal magnitude of the offence was that he had attempted to deceive “God.” So small was his crime as committed against “men” that it was lost sight of by the apostles, and the great, crowning sin of attempting to deceive “God” was brought fully into view. Thus, David also saw his sin as committed against “God” to be so enormous that he lost sight of it as an offence to man, and said, “Against thee, thee ONLY, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight,” (Ps. 51:4).

But unto God - It has been “particularly” and “eminently” against God. This is true, because:

(1) He had professedly “devoted” it to God. The act, therefore, had express and direct reference to him.

(2) It was an attempt to deceive him. It implied the belief of Ananias that God would not detect the crime, or see the motives of the heart.

(3) It is the prerogative of God to judge of sincerity and hypocrisy; and this was a case, therefore, which came under his special notice. (Compare Ps. 139:1-4). The word “God” here is evidently used in its plain and obvious sense as denoting the “supreme divinity,” and the use of the word here shows that the Holy Spirit is “divine.” The whole passage demonstrates, therefore, one of the important doctrines of the Christian religion, that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son, and yet is divine.

(Verse 5) - And Ananias, hearing these words - Seeing that his guilt was known, and being charged with the enormous crime of attempting to deceive God. He had not expected to be thus exposed; and it is clear that the exposure and the charge came upon him unexpectedly and terribly, like a bolt of thunder.

Fell down - Greek: Having fallen down.

Gave up the ghost - This is an unhappy translation. The original means simply “he expired,” or “he died.” (Compare Matt. 27:50). This remarkable fact may be accounted for in this way:

(1) It is evidently to be regarded as a “judgment” of God for the sin of Ananias and his wife. It was not the act of Peter, but of God, and was clearly designed to show his abhorrence of this sin. (See Acts 5:11).

(2) Though it was the act of God, yet it does not follow that it was not in connection with the usual laws by which he governs people, or that he did not make use of natural means to do it. The sin was one of great aggravation. It was suddenly and unexpectedly detected. The fast that it was known, and the solemn charge that he had “lied unto God,” struck him with horror. His conscience would reprove him for the enormity of his crime, and overwhelm him at the memory of his wickedness. These circumstances may be sufficient to account for this remarkable event. It has occurred in other cases that the consciousness of crime, or the fact of being suddenly detected, has given such a shock to the frame that it has never recovered from it. The effect “commonly” is that the memory of guilt preys secretly and silently upon the frame, until, worn out with the lack of rest and peace, it sinks exhausted into the grave. But there have not been missing instances where the shock has been so great as to destroy the vital powers at once, and plunge the wretched man, like Ananias, into eternity. It is not at all improbable that the shock in the case of Ananias was so great as at once to take his life.

Great fear came - Such a striking and awful judgment on insincerity and hypocrisy was suited to excite awful emotions among the people. Sudden death always does it; but sudden death in immediate connection with crime is suited much more deeply to affect the mind.

(Verse 6) - And the young men - The youth of the congregation; very probably young men who were in attendance as “servants,” or those whose business it was to attend on the congregation, and perform various offices when Christians celebrated their worship. The word used here sometimes denotes a “servant.” It is used also, (Acts 5:10), to denote “soldiers,” as they were commonly enlisted of the vigorous and young. The fact that they took up Ananias voluntarily implies that they were accustomed to perform offices of servitude to the congregation.

Wound him up - It was the usual custom with the Jews to wind the body in many folds of linen before it was buried; commonly also with spices, to preserve it from putrefaction. (See John 11:44). It may be asked “why” he was so soon buried; and especially why he was hurried away without giving information to his wife. In reply to this, it may be remarked:

1. That it does not appear from the narrative that it was “known” that Sapphira was privy to the transaction, or was near at hand, or even that he had a wife. Ananias came “himself” and offered the money, and the judgment fell at once on him.

2. It was customary among the ancient Persians to bury the body almost immediately after death; and it seems probable that the Jews, when the body was not embalmed, imitated the custom. It would also appear that this was an ancient custom among the Jews. (See Gen. 23:19; 25:9; 35:29; 48:7; 1 Kings 13:30). Different nations differ in their customs in burying the dead; and there is no impropriety in committing a body soon after death to the tomb.

3. There might have been some danger of an excitement and tumult in regard to this scene if the corpse had not soon been removed; and as no valuable purpose could be answered by delaying the burial, the body was decently committed to the dust.

God vests very much authority in His leaders. It is no small matter to fail to submit to them, or to seek to deceive they, or the rest of the body. It is not so much that they have the right to tell us what to do; as much as it is that they stand in the place of God and we must treat them as such.

I need to view the leaders in my life with this regard, not for them personally, but for the place that they hold before me in God’s economy.