Mar 30, 2014
Acts 4:36-5:13
Download Audio:
Outline:
We noted last week how there are 3 tangible indicators of a Spirit-filled church, and since the church is really made up of nothing more than people we noted how the same three indicators should be present in your life as well.
1. A Spirit-filled church will speak the truth of God’s Word with boldness!
2. A Spirit-filled church will be unified by their love for Jesus and one another!
3. A Spirit-filled church will be filled with generous people!
In regards to this Spirit-induced generosity Luke tells us their generosity manifested in that people were freely selling their possessions and bringing the “proceeds” to the Apostles so that they could “distribute” these resources appropriately. The result of this model was that “great grace was upon them all, nor was there anyone among them who lacked.”
Now Luke presents for us a practical example of this Spirit-filled life....
Acts 4:36-37, “And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.”
Since Barnabas will be mentioned in the book of Acts 25 times and then again 5 times in the Epistles, I want to take a second and develop a character profile....
1. Barnabas was Hebrew. His birth name was “Joses” meaning “exalted one.” Many scholars see this as being a shortened version of the common name “Joseph.”
2. Barnabas was a Levite. This meant he was a member of the priestly tribe of Israel.
3. Barnabas was from Cyprus. This probably indicated he was part of the dispensation of Israel and therefore was not a practicing priest.
4. Barnabas was a follower of Jesus. Though we don’t know when Barnabas became a follower of Christ, there is obvious reasons to view him as being an early convert. It could be that Barnabas had made the pilgrimage from Cyprus to Jerusalem for the “Feast of First Fruits” and had been present for the “Day of Pentecost.” We do know that Barnabas was cousins with Mark (who’s mother Mary was a disciple of Jesus and in who’s home Jesus had the Last Supper) which could indicate a conversion even earlier than Pentecost.
5. Barnabas generously supported the church. It’s interesting Luke points out that Barnabas “having land, sold it.” The notable scholar Sandy Adams observed that “the OT Law prohibited the tribe of Levi from owning land – their priority was the Temple service - but apparently the Law had been unable to tame the heart of Barnabas. He insisted on ownership. But what the Law failed to do, the love of Jesus accomplished. When Jesus filled his heart, the contents of his wallet were not as important.... Here Barnabas bows at the apostles’ feet. Later he’ll become one.”
6. Barnabas had a Godly reputation (even before this act of generosity). Luke tells us the apostles gave him the nickname “Barnabas” which in the Aramaic meant “Son of Rest.” In order to aid in our understanding of how “Son of Rest” was applicable to “Barnabas” Luke continues by telling us this word is translated “Son of Encouragement.”
In the Greek, the word “encouragement” is actually a noun “paraklêsis” which is a derivative of the verb “parakaleo.” (As a compound word “para” - “by the side” and “kaleo” - “to call” the word means “a calling to one’s aid.”) Though the KJV translates “paraklêsis” as “consolation” we understand the word to mean “encouragement, comfort, refreshing, or help.”
The phrase “Son of Encouragement” indicates the nickname “Barnabas” was used by the apostles to describe him as being “the offspring of the one who encourages.” (In the Greek the one who “parakaleo” would have been the “parakletos” or literally “the one who comforts or helps.”) This is significant because in John 14:26 Jesus uses this masculine noun “parakletos” to refer to the Holy Spirit. It’s translated as “the Helper.”
This means when they called him “Barnabas” they were saying he was the “Son of the Encourager.” The apostles were affirming his very nature embodied that of the Holy Spirit! The man oozed the Holy Spirit! Which means....
7. Barnabas epitomized the person of the Holy Spirit. Though Barnabas will be a prominent character in the book of Acts, specifically known for his involvement in Paul’s first missionary journey, Luke presents this man to us first and foremost as being an example of a Spirit-filled life!
Acts 5:1, “But....”
As Luke continues his narrative (Note: chapter and verse breaks were not in the original text), this conjunction “but” was used to establish a contrast between the Spirit-filled Barnabas and a new set of characters he’s about to introduce in chapter 5.
Acts 5:1-2, “A certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 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.”
Luke begins by introducing us to this couple “Ananias” (Hebrew for “God is gracious”) and his wife “Sapphira” (Aramaic for “beautiful”). What a match - Grace and Beauty!
Luke tells they “sold a possession.” (We’ll come to find this possession was land.) In the context of the commonism that existed in the church and the example of Barnabas’ generosity, it would seem they sold this possession with the intent of giving the full “proceeds” to the church. Note: “Proceeds” means “the full sale price.” As we mentioned last week, no one had asked or coerced them to do this. Selling this land and giving the money to the church was a choice they freely made.
Luke continues by telling us that after selling this “possession” Ananias and Sapphira decide to only give part of the proceeds to the church not the full sale price.
This would appear to be the first of two serious missteps.
This phrase “kept back” is the Greek word “nosphizô” meaning “to misappropriate, to purloin, to embezzle.” In Titus 2:10 the same word is translated as “pilfering.” The idea is that Ananias and Sapphira had given the “possession” to God and had therefore determined to give the entirety of the “proceeds” to the church. However, once the “possession” sold for more than they thought it would they reneged and “kept back” what had already been allocated to God for themselves.
Though the text doesn’t specifically say, it is implied from the context of the remainder of the story, that Ananias (under the directive of Sapphira) “brought a certain part” of the proceeds to give to the apostles under the false pretense they were actually giving the whole in much the same way Barnabas had done.
Acts 5:3-4, “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? 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.”
“But Peter....” We see in this instance another manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the life of Peter. Though there was no way for Peter to know what Ananias had done since it had been a scheme hatched with Sapphira in secret, we can conclude Peter had been given the “Gift of Knowledge.” The Spirit gave him supernatural insight into the situation.
Concerning sin committed in secret.... Paul presents a stern warning in 1 Corinthians 4:5, “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one's praise will come from God.”
Note: Sins committed in private, demand an appropriate private rebuke. However since this sin was committed in public, it demanded a public rebuke by Peter.
Peter begins, “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?” Peter is clear that the offense was not that Ananias “kept back part of the land,” but that he presented his gift under this false presence. Peter accuses him of “lying to the Holy Spirit.” (The original language indicated that Ananias was presenting a deliberate falsehood through his actions). In essence, Ananias’ crime was one of hypocrisy! His actions revealed he was masquerading as someone he wasn’t. He was pretending, faking, deceiving others.
And what’s worse.... This hypocritical deed had been done because he had allowed “Satan to fill his heart.” The passion behind this act of generosity was not Christ and His church. His desire was instead to bring attention and glory to himself.
Peter continues, “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.” Though Satan had been the motivation, Peter isn’t letting Ananias off the hook. “It was in your control. This was something you conceived and did deliberately.”
Note: Hypocrisy in the life of an individual might be a sin witnessed by men, but this passage makes it clear that, at its core, hypocrisy is actually a greater offense to God.
It should also be pointed out that Peter is confirming the deity of the Holy Spirit. He began by saying Ananias had “lied to the Holy Spirit” only to then conclude his rebuke by affirming he “lied not to men but to God.”
Acts 5:5-6, “Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.”
Upon “hearing these words” Ananias “fell down and breathed his last.” The Greek word for “fell down” is “piptô” which means “to descend from an erect to prostrate position.” It was a term that spoke of “those suddenly falling dead.” To be clear Ananias was indeed dead Dr. Luke then said he “breathed his last.” This was a medical term used to declare that the “breath of life” had departed from the body.
Note: Contrary to our popular understanding of this passage, Peter did not pronounce a death sentence on Ananias. All he did was confront him on his sin, and I’m fairly certain Peter was just as surprised as anyone else when Ananias ended up falling down dead!
Acts 5:7-10, “Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?” She said, “Yes, for so much.” 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 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.”
Though we know Sapphira had been in cahoots with her husband (and I’m sure Peter was equally aware), the Apostle provides her an opportunity to come clean.
Note: Though the Bible exhorts “wives to submit to their husbands” the idea of submission does not apply to matters of direct and deliberate sin!
Sadly, Sapphira not only maintains the same lie she had concocted with Ananias, but unlike her counter part she brazenly denies any improprieties. Because of her role in this scheme, she would also experience the same judgment as her husband.
Peter tells 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 immediately she fell down and breathed her last.”
And this is where things get complicated.... If just left to the description of Ananias’ death, one might reasonably concluded he simply died of natural causes. Kind of like he was so shocked by Peter’s rebuke that he actually had a heart attack and died. However, the death of Sapphira clearly presents a picture of divine judgment. If Peter had been surprised by the death of Ananias, he was so certain of Sapphira’s impending death he even predicted it was about to happen before it occurred. The reality that God judged this couple by striking them dead is unavoidable.
The majority of Bible teachers present the story of Ananias and Sapphira and God’s swift judgment as a warning against hypocrisy within the church. I’ve even heard reputable commentators point to this story as being a perfect illustration as to how God deals with people “within the church” much differently than He does those “outside the church.” The basic “with revelation comes a greater responsibility” theory.
I’ve also heard Bible teachers explain the extreme way in which God dealt with Ananias and Sapphira as being consistent with the reality that when God begins a “new work” He always goes to extremes to establish a clear precedent. These expositors like to point out that when the children of Israel entered the land of promise, experienced their first victory by conquering Jericho, but suffered their first defeat because of the sin of Achan, the death of this man and his whole family was used by God to establish the precedent of the importance of obedience and purity!
One commentator stated, “When God launches a new movement He uses a flurry of miracles to authenticate. In Acts it was a rushing mighty wind, flames of fire, healing of the lame man - but then God deals harshly to preserve the work’s integrity.... This is the pattern in Acts. He wanted future generations of believers to understand the priority He places on purity and integrity. Spiritual pride, deceit, and two-faced spirituality are sins that short-circuit God’s work.”
And while I have the upmost respect for those that espouse both explanations, in light of the assumed belief that Ananias and Sapphira were Christians, I must be honest that neither elucidation as to why God would judge believers in such a harsh way makes sense to me.
Though I completely agree that hypocrisy within the church cannot be tolerated because of its destructive effects on both the individual and the church at large.... And while I also agree that God views the issues of obedience and purity among His people with extreme seriousness.... The notion that God would kill two believers who had been bought with the blood of Christ simply to establish a precedent for a “new work” still doesn’t sit well with the rest of Scripture.
If Ananias and Sapphira were believers as most suppose, then weren’t they living under grace and not the law which would distinguish them from Achan? Hadn’t their sin (past, present, future) already experienced the judgment of God when His wrath was poured out on Jesus? Was this really the precedent Jesus died to establish?
Don’t get me wrong.... I do believe that even the sins of believers bring with them very natural consequences, but this was God’s direct judgment!
James Montgomery Boice said, “True Christians do not lose their salvation by sinning. The punishment of Ananias and Sapphira, though extreme, was for this life only.” Sure, I would agree that death in and of itself is not much of a judgment for a Christian. We understand that death is not the end of anything but the moment we leave behind this muck and are transformed into glory. Could God, in striking Ananias and Sapphira, have simply been calling them home, while also setting this important precedent for the church? Maybe. But once again this is not what the text seems to indicate.
If they were believers, Ananias and Sapphira made a tragic mistake, but was the crime really worth the punishment? And if it were.... Why then do we not see hypocrisy in the church experience the same judgment today?
I’m of the opinion that this passage becomes unnecessarily complicated when we automatically assume Ananias and Sapphira were actually believers. If you look back at the text you will notice that never once does the passage indicate this was the case.
Some will point to the fact that by contrasting Ananias and Sapphira with an obvious Christian (Barnabas) Luke was establishing this connection. Proponents of this view present this passage as Luke contrasting two sets of believers and the way they gave (one who gave genuinely and the others who gave disingenuously).
And yet, I think this position overlooks the greater context of the passage.
While it is true “giving” was a way Luke establishes this contrast, I believe the greater distinction was actually the heart behind the giving, and not the giving itself.
We noted that at the end of Acts 4 Luke was discussing the clear manifestations the filling of the Holy Spirit had in the heart of a believer: boldness, unity, and generosity. And while Barnabas was a perfect example of a Spirit-filled believer, we’re never told this was the case with Ananias and Sapphira. Actually, in diagnosing the core problem, Peter observes the contrary.... “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart?”
I believe the distinction Luke is bringing to light was that.... In contrast to Barnabas (the prototype of a Spirit-filled life) there were some within the church masquerading as believers who were in actually nothing more than the tools of Satan.
Think about it this way.... Over the last four chapters we have seen the church experience incredible growth. We saw in Acts 2 how initially 3000 were added to the original 120 as a result of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Then we witnessed only one chapter later how another 5000 came to saving faith following Peter’s second sermon.
Jesus was clearly at work through His church by the power of the Holy Spirit and it was generating ripples throughout Jerusalem. And it was Barnabas who served to illustrate that this work was not simply limited to the original followers of Christ (the apostles). His life, like many others, had been authentically transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit!
And while what was taking place in Jerusalem was incredible and revolutionary in its own right, this work of God would not continue unopposed for very long.
It’s been said, “Satan only attacks those in whom he feels threatened by” and this was none truer than how Satan strategically went after this early church.
As we’ve already seen, Satan’s initial strategy when it came to opposing the church was through intimidation. In order to squelch what was happening, in the first part of chapter 4, we saw how the religious establishment “severely threatened” Peter and John to no longer “speak or teach in the name of Jesus.” And yet, not only did Peter and John refuse to cave to their demands, in response to the fresh filling of the Spirit that came in verse 31, we’re told “they spoke the word of God with boldness.” It was clear this church was not going to be intimidated!
This is why, as we enter chapter 5, Luke presents this story of Ananias and Sapphira to illustrate that Satan had shifted to a new strategy in his attempts to derail the work Jesus was accomplishing through this church.... Infiltration!
To me this provides a much better explanation as to why God dealt so swiftly, deliberately, and publicly with Ananias and Sapphira. God intervened in such a drastic way in order to preserve the integrity of His work from the corrosive infiltration of the enemy!
As demonstrated by their own actions, it was clear Ananias and Sapphira had not experienced the same transformation Barnabas had enjoyed through the filling of the Spirit. They were not interested in giving in order to care for the needs of the church. They wanted to give so that they could receive a greater place of influence within the church.
I believe this was not a story of God correcting the behavior of believers or seeking to set a precedent for how he would handle hypocrisy. Rather the story of Ananias and Sapphira was about God protecting the church from non-believers seeking to infiltrate the ranks!
Though I agree that “with revelation comes a greater responsibility,” it is also true that God deals with those “outside the church” much differently than He does those “within” - especially when those “outsiders” present a clear and present danger to His people.
Not only does this understanding make more sense to the narrative Luke is presenting, but it also seems more consistent with the heart of God towards the unbelieving world who would desire to cause His people harm. (Consider the Canaanites in the OT.)
To further validate this point look at the direct and immediate results of the deliberate intervention of God protecting His church from Satanic infiltration....
Acts 5:11-13, “So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things. And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch. Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly.”
“Great fear came upon all the church....” It is an inescapable reality that God’s handling of Ananias and Sapphira produced a healthy fear within the church! Though they understood anew that the stakes were high when it came to sin, obedience, holiness, purity, and the like, they were also aware that God was serious when it came to the infiltration of the enemy.
If there is anything this story should warn against it’s unbelievers “playing church.” You see the church is a very dangerous place for an unrepentant sinner who seeks to infiltrate the ranks by presenting themselves as something they’re not!
“Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly.” While it is absolutely true “God wanted future generations of believers to understand the priority He places on purity and integrity” I am convinced the lesson in this story served to send a clear message to the world outside the church!
The holiness of the church, the reality that following Jesus was a serious endeavor, and the fact that God would actively protect His people had fostered an environment where unbelievers respected the church and understood it was not to be trifled with!