Welcome
Prayer
Word set to music
Silence
Okay we left off last week with Luke describing a donation that was made by Barnabas.
He had said that the believers were unified and that none had unfulfilled material needs due to the generosity of those who had “lands and houses” who chose to sell them and lay the proceeds at the apostles feet.
This brings us to a scriptural “but.”
All the good is going on and then suddenly we are presented with this big BUT . . . this big, “however.” Read with me at chapter five beginning at verse 1.
Acts 5.1-7
Milk
January 31st 2016
Acts 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
Acts 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
Again in chapter four Luke described the liberality and sincerity of the early Christians – how they were willing to sell their property to provide for the poor and Barnabas’s example was used.
In contradistinction to what Luke now tells us it seems that in the case of Barnabas his offering was from the heart for God and others and not one made for show or out of pretense.
Here he gives us the opposite heart in a couple – Ananias and Sapphira.
Now, a couple of things to remember. First of all, this was the earliest of church gatherings and was absolutely and extension of the former economy or the Old Testament.
I think we should also remember that in that former economy everything was according to the appearance and the external. In other words what people did was more important than if their heart moved them to do it or not.
I think it’s also important to remember that the result of Ananias and Sapphira was very much a product of this being the early church (which needed stark examples and protection in order to survive) and that what happened to them was very Old Testament-like.
Finally, I think we need to give this couple grace. I would suggest that what they died for is something most of us have either fallen prey to at some point in our lives – so we can’t be too hard on them.
What were they guilty of? Religious hypocrisy, that is, appearing or trying to appear to be “more of something good before man than they really were before God.”
The commentators are very hard on Ananais and Sapphira but if we take all of these factors into consideration I think we are lead to stepping back from judgement and are inclined to see what occurs here as a lesson and example of how not to be.
One final point before we move on in the examination. Religious hypocrisy was something Jesus ardently strove against.
Almost all of His negative reactions to individuals was pointed at the religiously hypocritical. With this being the case we can see why such an emphatic exclamation point was put on the actions of Ananais and his wife.
Barabas sold some property and placed the proceeds at the feet of the apostles BUT . . .
a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
Because of the Greek we don’t know what the possession was but at verse three we learn that it was land.
Now, built into this story is the notion that the sale was done by pretense. Maybe the couple announced that they were also going to sell some property for the poor.
All we’re told here is they sold some land but this is in light of Luke telling us about Barnabas doing the same thing in the previous chapter. And since there were no chapter/verse breaks in the original mss we can see that this story is a continuation of the Barnabas example.
In some way or another a pretense was made, a hypocrisy occurred where Ananais and Sapphira made it look like they were being extremely benevolent and here is the point of the whole situation – this pretended benevolence was so they could APPEAR super devout when in reality their devotion was skin deep.
Again, this is human nature – to look better than we really are – and in our day and age we give ourselves a LOT of liberty in this don’t we?
We do it with our employers, we do it before our collegues and we even do it with our family members – allow ourselves to be viewed as more devout or dedicated or giving of ourselves than we really are.
The big difference here is they did this before God and others in the Christian faith, in the early church, and in the presence of apostles who were given hyper gifts to guide the church.
What exactly did they do. They sold a piece of land (verse 2)
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
The word here for kept back means they separated part of the proceeds for their own use.
Now listen – nothing wrong with that. Again, this is not a lesson in sacrifice. It’s a lesson in religious hypocrisy. They PRETENDED to have sacrificed all when in reality they had not – that’s it.
We are not given all of the backstory here but the elements of context and laying it at the apostles feet tells us that pretensions were made by them as doing, and therefore being, more than they were.
Because of Peter’s response to them, however, I do see reason why the commentators are so hard on Ananais and Sapphira.
At the other end of the spectrum maybe they were attempting to buy their way into church leadership and maybe Peter knew it. Maybe they schemed together and decided that in this new movement there was an opportunity to advance their multi-level marketing down-line or something like that?
Maybe they thought they could give just enough to benefit themselves and their desires. Admittedly it does seem to be the case when we look at the reactions of Peter and the results from God.
Let me pull over to the side here and talk about this among ourselves because there is a principle here that needs to be addressed and that principle is one of openness before God.
The popular term bantered about is transparency.
Because it is so easy to slip into inauthentic behaviors – especially with regard to giving time, money or religious service – it truly requires a conscious effort to avoid it whenever possible.
And a great help in achieving this is believing (remembering) that everything we say and do really is known and seen by God.
This is not a threat nor a curse but a fact that if really believed it will become part of the actions and attitudes we take.
Apparently this is something Ananais and Sapphira forgot, never knew, or frankly didn’t care about. And my bet is that when it comes to this situation it was probably the latter – they cared more about what men thought of them than God.
This is yet another reason I am convinced that all outward material approaches to religion are done and that the Kingdom of God thrives in the Spirit – because of this great temptation to please and play up to the whim and ways of Man over the direct views and will of God.
Bottom line – try and get to the point, as hard as it is – to do nothing to impress or gain the favor of man, men or their institutions – especially in the realm of religion.
Do not give money to be seen or rewarded of men.
Do not volunteer time or service so man can congratulate and regale you.
Don’t pray to men or so men can hear you, pray to God.
Don’t sing to be heard of men, sing to God.
Whatever we do to and for God, to be seen and heard and recognized by Him will last.
Everything else has its own earthly reward.
Jesus hit the principle square when he said, regarding giving:
Matthew 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
I wish I had the faith to strip away the tax exempt benefit of giving to the ministry – I really do because then all the giving could remain anonymous.
But rarely do we find people of means willing to give because our laws reward giving to a tax exempt entity and because people of means need write off they usually give to those places that will grant them such.
Someday I may have the intestinal fortitude to make this leap.
Jesus doesn’t just stop at giving but adds:
5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
The principles are clear. So after laying the pseudo-feigned amount down (verse 3)
3 Peter said, “Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?”
How Peter knew is up to conjecture. It may have been apparent by a discrepancy in the amounts or he certainly could have known this by revelation.
Obviously, however, Ananais desire was to deceive and he probably did not think there was any way his fraud would be detected.
But again, having been given power by Christ to go out and represent Him Ananais was about to learn a hard but quick lesson.
Notice too the question Peter asks Ananais:
“Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?”
It is an oddly phrased sentence in the King James. Reading it in this translation:
“Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?”
Ananaias could have replied:
“I don’t know why Satan has filled my heart to lie to the Holy Spirit – ask him.”
The more literal translations put the question like this though:
“Ananias,” Peter exclaimed, “how is it that Satan has so taken possession of your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit, and kept back a part of the money paid for the land?
Or
“Ananias, wherefore did the Adversary fill thy heart, for thee to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back of the price of the place?”
The question opens us up to all sorts of things. First of all, were Ananaias and his wife true believers? Based on their actions some might suggest that no, they were just in the movement to belong or got caught up but that they were certainly not truly touched in the heart by God.
I disagree. When we consider Peter’s question it seems like he was wondering how on earth Satan got ahold of their hearts so greatly that they were able to actually lie to the Holy Spirit and be tempted to hold back part of the price while acting like they had generously given it all.
And if this is the case, which I believe it is, then it shows that Satan can certainly get into those of us who believe and get us to act in ways foreign to God.
Floating around Christian circles I have heard it said that once a person is born again and God has entered their heart that Satan cannot make a home therein.
I have even taught this. Not so sure about it any longer.
I think that God can certainly give us new hearts upon receiving Him. And that the presence of the Holy Spirit does dwell within but it also seems possible for Satan to enter in those who give him residence to the point where believers can do his deeds.
Hence stories like this and advice from almost all the apostles to be careful about the wiles and ways of darkness.
We are also left to wonder if Ananais and Sapphira were saved?
Obviously they were not saved from physical death but neither was the thief on the cross.
I tend to believe that they were believers, (that is why Peter asked how on earth Satan got ahold of their hearts so strongly) and that as believers they submitted to temptation and God allowed them to be used as an example to the early church.
But I see no reason to believe why they would not have entered heaven – they were saved by grace through faith and we read nothing about them denying the faith, just succumbing to a temptation at one of the worst times in Christian history.
And by the way, since we are talking about Christian history we have to note that amidst all the hypocrisy and religious pretentiousness we don’t have any other records in almost 2000 years where other people who have succumbed to religious pretentiousness were killed on the spot.
So again, this circumstance was for them in that day, in that specific time, and illustrates physically what such religious hypocrisy can do to the Spirit within – kill it.
Finally, also note that in this case Peter assigns the origin of their religious hypocrisy to Satan.
In John 8:44 Jesus calls Satan, “the father of . . . lies,” And Peter makes it clear that Ananais has lied – but in this case, to God.
And of course this brings us right back to the directive to be transparent before God as all darkness, all obfuscation, all deception, and all lies originate from the realm of darkness and not light.
To whom did Ananais and Sapphira lie?
Peter says:
“Ananias, wherefore did the Adversary fill thy heart, for thee to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back of the price of the place?”
Let me cover the contents of verse 4 before addressing the question as to whom Ananais lied. Here, Peter says to Ananais:
4 Whiles it (the property) remained (in your control/ownership), was it not thine own? and after it (the property) was sold, was it (the proceeds) not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
This passage clearly shows that for the believers all the way back in that day, and therefore all believers out until today, what an individual owns materially is always theirs – whether it be in cash or durable goods.
Again, nobody at anytime every has the power or right to every tell another believer what they can, should or need to do with their property or cash.
And while that should be clear quite clear it amazes me how many people allow people in religious leadership to commandeer the stewardship each individual has over their own property.
Okay, let’s talk however about what is far more important a matter being brought out in these passages – a matter known in theological circles as the make-up of God.
Here in Acts 5 (specifically verses 3-4) many people believe that we have some very strong evidence for the Trinitarian make-up of God and specifically what is known as the third person of the Holy Trinity, the person of the Holy Spirit.
I want to take the remainder of our time together NOT . . . NOT to deny this view nor to sway you to accept the non-Trinitarian view.
But I do want to use it to clearly delineate how these verses can – can and do – support either view and are NOT absolute proof for any particular position.
What is great about doing this is along the way we will gain some sound knowledge that will add to the way you and I ultimately decide to see what the Bible is saying.
From the Trinitarian view these passages prove that there is a distinction between the 1st Person of the Trinity (known as the Father) and the third (known as the Holy Spirit or hagias pneuma).
Promoters of the Trinity position say that it is obvious that these passages support a clear distinction for the following reasons:
First, if no such distinction is intended, it is remarkable that Peter did not use the usual and customary name of God. Instead Peter says that Ananais lied to the Holy Spirit and having done this shows that there is a clear delineation between the person of the Father and the person of the Spirit.
Also, Peter seems to infer that Ananias in particular offended the actual Person or Influence which inspired and lead the church since Pentecost and NOT Jesus nor the Father. Since the Holy Spirit was sent by the Father (like Jesus was sent by the Father) the argument is that the offense was against the being sent (the Holy Spirit and NOT against the Father directly.
Additionally, by taking Jesus words that all manner of sin against Him could be forgiven but the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven in this world or in the world to come and the fact that Ananais and his wife dropped dead after apparently committing this sin that this is evidence (to the Trinitarian mind) that the Holy Spirit is a third personage of the God and not the same as the Father or the Son ut nevertheless equal with God as Peter says in verse 3 that Ananais lied to the Holy Spirit and then in verse 4 equates this lie to God himself.
A big point of support the Trinitarian uses in this case of Ananais and his wife is that a sin cannot be committed against “an attribute of God or an influence from God.”
In other words it is impossible to lie to wisdom or power or goodness but it is only possible to lie to a person or being – like God.
Since Peter says that Ananais lied to the Holy Spirit the thought is the Holy Spirit MUST be a being separate from the Father, and therefore supporting the Trinitarian claim.
Just to remind you, the doctrine of the Trinity, which many people do NOT realize, is that there are three distinct and separate beings or persons, as distinct as I am from Seth and Seth is from Derrick, and that these three are God.
The admission is that God is one, but one of three distinct uncreated persons co equal and co-eternal.
We won’t discuss the debates that orbit around these descriptions today but that is the creedal stance.
Since Ananais lied to the Holy Spirit Person it only goes to show that the Holy Spirit is a separate and distinct being.
To the Trinitarian, mostly because of Jesus comparison about sinning against Him verses sinning against the Holy Spirit, it is possible to sin against the Father, and it is possible to sin against the Son, and because of this it is possible to therefore sin against the Holy Spirit, once again proving that they are three, they are distinct, and yet make one God.
In light of these passages (and several others) the claim is that the Holy Spirit is Divine because He (and I use He here to align with the Trinitarian claim that the Holy Spirit is a person and is male in gender) can search the heart, teach truth, detect insincerity and do a number of other things which some suppose prove that “He” is a person.
In this case when passages like:
Jeremiah 17:10 say:
“I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.”
And then 1st Corinthians 2:10 says:
“But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.”
The fact that Jeremiah says Yahway searches the heart and 1st Corinthians says the Holy Spirit does, it seems to be evidence for the Holy Spirit to be both a personage and God.
On the other hand, to non-Trinitarians, which are categorized as everything from Unitarian, and Modalist, and Monarchiastic Modalist, and Oneness believers, there is the view that God and Holy Spirit can refer or mean something very different from separate beings in a Trinity.
They point out that since there is not one verse that actually describes the Trinity it is a theory of men around the time the Christian creeds took root and were established to unite the faith under a common doctrine.
To these, the doctrine of Trinity is proof of circular reasoning. What is meant by this is that First
the doctrine is assumed and believed.
Then passages are seen and interpreted through the accepted belief, thereby “proving” the doctrine to be true.
Add in the fact that the masses echo and apparently support this reasoning and couple this with the natural tendency that popular opinion makes the rule, and therefore a perfect circle of reasoning is created . . . and upheld.
To break this apparent cycle there must be attempts to shatter it, and one of the first ways is to assume (that’s right, I used the word) but is to assume that the term, Holy Spirit is just another name of God.
This is an almost unconscionable act in some peoples minds but to a non-trinitarian, if Jesus was God with us, the Holy Spirit could just as easily be the same, allowing the Non-Trinitarian to maintain their devout allegiance to one single solitary God.
Another circle-shattering fact, even proved from these two verses, is that to speak of the Holy Spirit is to speak of God and to speak of God is to speak (in this setting) of the Holy Spirit – which was, after all, what God sent once His Son ascended.
Trinitarians suggest that these passages supports both their points that the Holy Spirit is a separate being but paradoxically also that this separate being is God.
To the non-Trinitarian things are simplified – to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God . . . because the Holy Spirit is God working in and among men.
In other words the need to create a third person is eliminated.
What oneness Pentecostals, and Unitarians, and Modalists of every ilk say is what we are reading here in Acts 5:3-4 is an example of Semitic Parallelism which is a very common occurrence in scripture. All it means is God is equated with the Holy Spirit.
I mean obviously, Ananais did NOT lie to two separate persons – the Father and then the Spirit. He lied to God, who was present in him by His Spirit.
Let’s get to some brass tacks – Trinitarians believe in three persons and others say everything from no third person exists to only one being exists – God.
Let me let you in on a little secret. When we read the English translations of the New Testament Spirit is sometimes capitalized and sometimes is left lower case.
Did you know that spirit in the Greek Mss all six letters were upper case, and that the choice to make Spirit lower case was the decision of Man.
But Young’s Concordance says something interesting. He says:
“Spirit is used of God Himself, or the Divine Mind, His energy, His influence, His gifts. (LISTEN) When pneuma hagion is being used as another name for the Father it should be capitalized, just as any Name is capitalized.”
Let me give you an example from scripture to illustrate this.
When the holy spirit is given by God, as a gift it should NOT be capitalized. In other words in the Bible,
“The holy spirit” is very different from “the Holy Spirit.”
All we need to do is look at the example of Jesus conception and birth as recorded in Luke to see when the holy spirit should be capitalized and seen as another name for God or not capitalized and known as the power of God.
All references in scripture call Jesus the Son of God except in Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18-20. What happens there? Jesus the Son of the holy spirit.
Listen to what they say:
Luke 1:35 says “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
And Matthew 1:20 says:
“But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
Did Jesus have two fathers? Of course not. Was Jesus the Son of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity? Of course not.
Jesus was the Son of God as scripture clearly describes Him.
Therefore we know that the title Holy Spirit in these passages in Luke and Matthew ought to be Upper Case, describing God Himself.
This information doesn’t necessarily solve our problem here in Acts 5:3-4 but what it does give us is another option on how to interpret what is being said.
The reason is because it proves that if Holy Spirit should be capitalized is refers to God Himself and if not it refers to the influence or power of God that Ananais lied to – removing the need for a third person all together.
Something to think about. And again, how you choose to see it all is between you and God.
After saying these words to Ananais what was the outcome?
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
Remember now, this was still very much the Old Testament and these people were Jews who related to it.
Peter was called to the House of Israel and before him was a man guilty of religious hypocrisy.
I do not believe this has any literal application or place in the Body of Christ ever since – except of course spiritually.
And the manner in which I personally see this event having application to us today is when we too chose to lie to God, choose to outwardly offer up false alms and pretentiously do things in God’s name we all experience a death.
Death to faith.
Death to the Spirit.
Death to walking in the light.
Commit enough actions along this route and we may find ourselves in a spiritual grave yard.
It does not appear that Peter had any hand with the sudden death of Ananais but that it was an act of God. And one that terrified all involved – surely its intended purpose.
And I bet for no short period of time the believers of that day were really careful when it came to pretending or feigning religious devotions.
Last verse – one I find so hilarious when compared to our day and age:
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
All we can do is make conjecture about who these guys were and what prompted them do take such action.
Today it’s pretty hilarious (or disturbing depending on your world view) for a married man to fall over dead and for the young servant in the church to take him, wrap him up , carry him out and bury him!
Right!
Pretty efficient if you ask me. But what would cause these guys to do this?
First, they may not have known he was married.
Secondly, and a little more dreadfully, such a death may have jeopardized the early believers safety and maybe they thought, “We’d better lose this body before the rulers or Romans come a running – we’ll explain it to the widow later.”
Or maybe this was the custom. We know they wound bodies up for burial so that was in harmony with custom and we know that in some cultures instant burial was required (like the Persians of that day) and maybe since the body was not embalmed the Jews adopted this practice.
Whatever the reason, Ol Ananais dropped dead, was wrapped, carried and buried. Next week we’ll continue on reading about his unsuspecting wife.
Q and A
Greek
