S T O T T B I B L E S T U D Y

Acts 4:32-6:7. Satanic counter-attack

We noted at the beginning of Chapter 3 that, as soon as the Spirit came upon the church, Satan launched a ferocious counter-attack. Pentecost was followed by persecution. An alternative title for this chapter might be `The strategy of Satan'. His strategy was carefully developed. He attacked on three fronts. His first and crudest tactic was physical violence; he tried to crush the church by persecution. His second and more cunning assault was moral corruption or compromise. Having failed to destroy the church from outside, he attempted through Ananias and Sapphira to insinuate evil into its interior life, and so ruin the Christian fellowship. His third and subtlest ploy was distraction. He sort to deflect the apostles from their priority responsibilities of prayer and preaching by preoccupying them with social administration, which was not their calling. If he had been successful in this, an untaught church would have been exposed to every wind of false doctrine. These then were his weapons - physical (persecution), moral (subversion) and professional (distraction). Now I claim no very close or intimate familiarity with the devil. But I am persuaded that he exists, and that he is utterly unscrupulous. Something else I have learned about him is that he is particularly lacking in imagination. Over the years he has changed neither his strategy nor his tactics, nor his weapons; he is still in the same old rut. So a study of his campaign against the early church should alert us to his probable strategy today. If we are taken by surprise, we shall have no excuse. Luke is concerned, however, not only to expose the devil's malice, but also to show how he was overcome. First, the hypocrisy of Ananias and Sapphira was not allowed to spread, for God's judgement fell on them, and the church grew by leaps and bounds (5:12-16). Secondly when the Sanhedrin again resorted to violence, they were restrained from killing the apostles by the cautious counsel of Gamaliel (5:17-42). Thirdly, when the widows' dispute threatened to occupy all the time and energies of the apostles, the social work was delegated to others, the apostles resumed their priority tasks, and the church again began to multiply (6:1-7).

1). The believers enjoy a common life (4:32-37)
Luke has just recorded that, in answer to their prayers, the believers were freshly `filled with the Holy Spirit'(31). The immediate result was that they `spoke the word of God boldly'. With this we should perhaps link verse 33: *with great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus*, which was one of their primary apostolic responsibilities (cf.1:22). Thus they ignored the Sanhedrin's ban, and their witness was chacterized by both boldness and power. Indeed, *much grace was with them all*, an expression which may describe their `wonderful spirit of generosity' (JBP), or refer to the fact that they were `held in high esteem' (NEB), or be a more general statement that God's grace was sustaining them. Luke does not leave it there, however. He is concerned to show that the fullness of the Spirit is manifest in deed as well as word, service as well as witness, love for the family as well as testimony to the world. So, just as after the first coming of the Spirit he describes the characteristics of the Spirit-filled community (2:42-47), so after they are again filled with the Spirit he provides a second description (4:32-37). Moreover in both cases his emphasis is the same. *All the believers*, he begins, in 4:32 as in 2:44, formed a closely knit group. They `were together' (2:44), as they devoted themselves to `the fellowship' (2:42, and they *were one in heart and mind* (4:32). This was the fundamental solidarity of love which the believers enjoyed, and their economic sharing was but one expression of the union of their hearts and minds. It is instructive to compare Luke's two pictures of the same united, Spirit-filled church in Jerusalem. Although the accounts are verbally independent of one another, he mentions in each the same three consequences of their mutual commitment. The first I will call their radical attitude, in particular to their possessions. They `had everything in common' (2:44); *no-one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had (4:32b). Both verses contain the two key words *hapanta koina*, `all things in common'. In the light of Peter's later statement to Ananias that his property was his own (5:4), we cannot press these words into meaning that the believers had literally renounced private, in favour of common, ownership. Perhaps the important phrase is that *no-one claimed* his possessions as his own. Although in fact and in law they continued to own their goods, yet in heart and mind they cultivated an attitude so radical that they thought of their possessions as being available to help their needy sisters and brothers.

Secondly, their radical attitude led to sacrificial action, namely that *from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them*, and then put the sale money *at the apostles' feet*,
so that they might distribute it (34b-35). The same actions of selling and distributing are referred to in 2:45. In both cases the selling was voluntary and sporadic (*from time to time*), as the need for ready cash arose.

Thirdly, both the radical attitude and the practical action were based on the equitable principle that distribution was proportionate to genuine need. The two accounts use the identical words *kathoti an tis chreian eixen*, meaning `according as anyone had need' (35b, cf.2:45). Only in the second description, however, does Luke state the consequence of the principled distribution of relief, namely *there were no needy persons among them* (34a). Calvin wrote in his commentary:

We must have hearts that are harder than iron if we are not moved by the reading of this narrative. In those days the believers gave abundantly of what was their own; we in our day are content not just jealously to retain what we possess, but callously to rob others... They sold their own possessions in those days; in our day it is the lust to purchase that reigns supreme. At that time love made each man's own possession common property for those in need; in our day such is the inhumanity of many, that they begrudge to the poor a common dwelling upon earth,
the common use of water, air and sky.

In seeking to evaluate the so-called "Jerusalem experiment', we shall be wise to avoid extreme positions. We have no liberty to dismiss it as a rash and foolish mistake, motivated by the false
expectation of an imminent Parousia and causing the poverty which Paul had later to remedy by his collection from the Greek churches. Luke gives no hint of these things. Nor can we say,
however, that the Jerusalem church, being filled with the Spirit, laid down an obligatory model - a kind of primitive Christian `communism' - which God wants all Spirit-filled communities to
copy. The fact that the selling and giving were voluntary is enough to dispose of this. What we should surely do, instead, is to note and seek to imitate the care of the needy and the sacrificial generosity which the Holy Spirit created. Of course many societies have dreamed of the ending of poverty. The Greeks, for example, looked back to a golden age in which all property was
public, and Pythagoras is said to have practised it with his disciples, and to have coined the epigram `among friends everything is common (*koina*). Plato later incorporated this
ideal in his vision of a utopian republic. Then Josephus wrote that the Essenes, whom we know as the Qumran community, `live the same kind of life as do those whom the Greeks call Pythagoreans'. Yet the inspiration for the common life and love of the Jerusalem church will have come neither from Pythagoras, nor from Plato, nor from the Essenes, but from the Old Testament, as illumined by Jesus. For the law was quite clear on the matter: `there should be
no poor among you' (Dt.15:4). In addition, Luke stressed Jesus' teaching that the gospel of the kingdom was good news for the poor. (eg. Lk.4:18;6:20; 7:22). But how could it be so unless it
offered them justice as well as salvation, the abolition of their poverty as well as the remission of their sins? Having portrayed the solidarity of love enjoyed by the Jerusalem church, Luke supplies his readers with two contrasting examples: Barnabas whose generosity and openness fulfilled the ideal (4:36-37) and Ananias and Sapphira whose greed and hypocrisy contradicted it (5:1ff). `Barnabas' (Son of Encouragement) was actually the nickname which the apostles gave, on account of his helpfulness, to *Joseph, a levite from Cyprus* (36). He *sold a field he owned*, presumably in Cyprus, and laid the money *at the apostles' feet* (37). It was an act of liberality fully in keeping with his character as it later emerges in the Acts narrative. Luke
deliberately introduces him here.

Acts 5:1-11. Ananias and Sapphira are punished for their hypocrisy

The story of the deceit and death of this married couple is important for several reasons. It illustrates the honesty of Luke as a historian; he did not suppress this sordid episode. It throws
light on the interior life of the first Spirit-filled community; it was not all romance and righteousness. It is also a further example of the strategy of Satan. Several commentators have suggested a parallel between Ananias and Achan - the Achan who stole money and clothing after the destruction of Jericho. Thus Bengel wrote: `the sin of Achan and that of Ananias were in many respects similar, at the beginning of the churches of the Old and
New Testament respectively'. F.F.Bruce sees a further analogy: `The story of Ananias is to the book of Acts what the story of Achan is to the book of Joshua. In both narratives an act of
deceit interrupts the victorious progress of the people of God. What we are told is that *a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira*, first *sold a piece of property* (1) and then,
*with his wife's full knowledge (or `connivance', JB), he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostle's feet* (2). To all appearances, Barnabas and Ananias did the same thing. Both sold a property. Both brought the proceeds of the sale to the apostles, and both committed it to their disposal. The difference was that Barnabas brought all the sale money, while Ananias brought only a proportion. Thus Ananias and Sapphira perpetrated a double sin, a combination of dishonesty and deceit. At first sight. there is nothing wrong in their withholding part of the sale money. As Peter plainly said later, their property was their own both before and after the sale (see verse 4). So they were under no obligation to sell their piece of land or, having sold it, to give away any - let alone all - of the proceeds. That is not the whole story however. There is something else, something half-hidden. For Luke, in declaring that Ananias *kept back* part of the money for himself, chooses the verb *nosphizomai*, which means `misappropriated' (BAGD). The same verb was used in LXX of Achan's theft (Jos.7:1), and in its only other New Testament occurrence it means to steal. (Tit. 2:10). We have to assume, therefore, that before the sale Ananias andSapphira had entered into some kind of contract to give the church the total amount raised. Because of this, when they brought only some instead of all, they were guilty of embezzlement. It is not on this sin that Peter concentrated, however, but on the other, hypocrisy. The apostle' complaint was not that they lacked honesty (bringing only part of the sale price) but that they lacked integrity (bringing only part, while pretending to bring the whole). They were not so much misers as thieves and - above all - liars. They wanted the credit and the prestige for sacrificial generosity, without the inconvenience of it. So, in order to gain a reputation to which they had no right, they told a brazen lie. Their motive in giving was not to relieve the poor, but to fatten their own ego.

Peter saw behind Ananias's hypocrisy the subtle activity of Satan. He confronted Ananias: `*Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and
have kept for yourself [nosphizomai] some of the money you received for the land?*' (3). Peter accused him both of misappropriation and of falsehood, both of stealing and then of lying about it. But there was no need for either sin. `*Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing?
You have not lied to men but to God*' (4). We notice in passing that Peter assumes the deity of the Holy Spirit, since to lie to him (3) was to lie to God (4).

No reply from Ananias to Peter's indictment and question is recorded. Luke tells us only that God's judgement fell upon him: `he dropped dead' (5a, NEB). Understandably *great fear*, the
solemnity which is experienced in the presence of the holy God, *seized all who heard what had happened* (5b), even while certain *young men* attended to the burial (6). *About three hours later* the incident repeated itself. Ignorance of her husband's death, Sapphira *came in*. Peter gave her the chance to repent by asking her to state the price they had received for the land, but she merely identified herself with his duplicity (7-8). Peter protested that they had conspired *to test the Spirit of the Lord*, presuming to see whether they could get away with their
deception, and warned her that those who had buried her husband would bury her too (9), whereupon *she fell down at his feet and died*, and the young men buried her *beside her husband* (10). For the second time Luke refers to the *great fear* which *seized the
whole church*, and indeed *all who heard about these events* (11). Many readers of this story are offended by what they regard as the severity of God's judgement. Some even say they `hope that Ananias and Sapphira are legendary'. Or they try to exonerate God by attributing the death of Ananias and Sapphira instead to Peter who, they say, either laid a curse on them or put them under undue psychological pressure, thus anticipating the use of a modern lie
detector. But, even if the anguish of a violated conscience contributed to their death on the human level, Luke clearly intends us to understand that it was a work of divine judgement.
Once this has been accepted, there are at least three valuable lessons for us to learn.

First, the gravity of their sin. Peter stressed this by repeating that their lie was not directed primarily against him, but against the Holy Sprit, that is, against God. And God hates
hypocrisy. Luke has recorded Jesus' denunciation of it (eg. Luke 6:42; 12:1,56; 13:15), together with his warning that those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit (in deliberate defiance of known truth) will not be forgiven (Lk. 12:10). Yet the sin of Ananias and Sapphira was also against the church. Is it intentional that Luke here uses for the first time the word *ekklesia*? (11) He thus affirms the continuity of the Christian community with God's redeemed and gathered people in the Old Testament. (cf. ekklesia in 7:38 and in LXX of, eg. Jos. 8:35). Luke seems to be underlining the great evil of sinning against God's people. Falsehood ruins fellowship. If the hypocrisy of Ananias and Sapphira had not been publicly exposed and punished, the Christian ideal of an open fellowship would not have been preserved, and the modern cry `there are so many hypocrisies in the church' would
have been heard from the beginning. The second lesson to be learned concerns the importance, even the sacredness of the human conscience. Luke will later record Paul's claim before Felix that he always strove to keep his `conscience clear before God and man' (Acts 24:16). This seems to be what John meant by `walking in the light'. It is to live a
transparent life before God, without guile or subterfuge, whose consequence is that `we have fellowship with one another' (1 Jn. 1:7). The `brethren' of the East African revival, who lay great stress on this teaching, amusingly illustrate it by expressing their desire to `live in a house without ceiling or walls', that is, to permit nothing to come between them and either God or other people. It was this openness which Ananias and Sapphira failed to
maintain.

Thirdly, the incident teaches the necessity of church discipline. Although physical death may have continued in some situations as a penalty for those sins which `despise the church
of God' (eg. 1 Cor.11:22,30), it came to be associated with excommunication (e.g.. 1 Cor.5:5; 1 Tim.1:20). The church has tended to oscillate in this area between extreme severity (disciplining members for the most trivial offences) and extreme laxity (exercising no discipline at all, even for serious offences). It is a good general rule that secret sins should be dealt with secretly, private sins privately, and only public sins publicly. Churches are also wise if they follow the successive stages taught by Jesus (Mt.18:15ff). Usually the offender will be brought to repentance before the final stage of excommunication is reached. But offences which are serious in themselves, have become a public scandal, and have not been repented of, should be judged. Presbyterians are right to `fence the table', that is, to make access to the Lord's supper conditional. For, although the Lord's table is open to sinners (who else either needs or wishes to come to it?), it is open only to penitent sinners. We have now seen that, if the devil's first tactic was to destroy the church by force from without, his second was to destroy it by falsehood from within. He has not given up the attempt, whether by the hypocrisy of those who profess but do not practice, or by the stubbornness of those who sin but do not repent. The church must preserve its vigilance.

Next:: Acts 5:12-16. The apostles heal many people.