The story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 is difficult. It strikes many readers as harsh, a return to Old Testament retribution. “Why this swift act of judgment? Why no opportunity of for repentance and restoration?”
No amount of commentary will ever take the edge off this passageāand that may be the point.
Below I offer five insights for unlocking why Luke, under the Spiritās inspiration, may have included this story in Acts. My goal isn’t to send you away with every question answered (though these insights helped me with mine), but to leave you with a new question drawn from the text itself.
1. Ananias and Sapphira are a foil
In all the shock and awe of the coupleās fate, itās easy to forget the first word in the story: āBut.ā (The chapter division certainly doesnāt help, either.)
Ananias and Sapphiraās deceit and greed stand in contrast to the sincerity and generosity of the community of faith (4:32ā37). Read 5:1ā11 and then go back and read the paragraph before, and a sense of sadness may come upon you. There is euphoria and utopia in the scene described. āOne heart and soul,ā āeverything in common,ā ānot a needy person among them.ā
āBut a man named Ananias . . .ā A dark cloud invades the scene. Greed and deceit enter the community like a virus. Amid the glorious expansion of the church, Ananias and Sapphira sneak in as a threat.
Note, too, that Sapphira falls down dead at Peterās feet (5:10), whereas Joseph brought all his money and laid it at the apostlesā feet (4:37). The generous disciple held Godās authority in high esteem and showed it by laying his possessions at his appointed messengerās feet. Ananias and Sapphira did not, and God made his authority known by laying them down.
2. There are strong parallels to Joshua 7
Commentators are quick to point out parallels, whether intended by Luke or not, to the story of Achan in Joshua 7. F.F. Bruce writes in the Acts commentary in the NICNT series:
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. It may be that the author of Acts himself wished to point this comparison: when he says that Ananias ākept backā part of the price (v. 2), he uses the same Greek word as is used in the Greek version of Josh. 7:1 where it is said that the Israelites (represented by Achan) ābroke faithā by retaining for private use property that had been devoted to God.1
In the very least, this parallel reminds us it is not out of character for God to bring swift judgment and guard his holiness.
But the parallels go beyond verb choice:
- Both events happen amid new beginnings: Israel just coming into the promised land and the New Testament Church taking root in Jerusalem. Could it be God is zealously guarding his tender shoot?
- Both events concern greed and possession. God had commanded the Israelites not take any devoted things into the camp (Jos. 6:8), and the budding church had made it a practice to sell all that they had.
- God swiftly and corporately punishes both parties. A notable difference is that Achanās whole family is punished with him, whereas Ananias and Sapphira are punished individually.
And so it seems reasonable to suspect that one reason for Godās swift judgment here is to guard the holiness of his people and their growing community. While the narrative does not state that outright, the parallels are striking, the response of the people is suggestive (v. 5, 11), and other passages in the New Testament command guarding the churchās purity (1 Cor 3:16ā17; 5:1ā5; 2 Cor 6:14ā18).
3. Satan was trying to thwart the Spirit
Ultimately, this passage is not about Ananias and Sapphira lying to the assembly and keeping back a portion for themselves. Itās about them lying to God (5:3, 9).
Peter himself indicates that the two could have just as well kept back a portion for themselves; it was theirs to do with as they pleased (v. 4). Instead, they presented it as all they had (in context, the phrase ālaid it at the apostlesā feetā in verse 2 makes this clear).
You see in Peterās somewhat prophetic statement in verse 3, āAnanias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spiritā?ā that principalities are at war. Satan is trying to get a foothold because he sees how powerfully the Spirit is moving. Whereas the community was āfilledā with the Holy Spirit (4:30), Ananias was āfilledā with Satan; āhe has become Satanās plaything.ā2
As John Stott put it, āIf the devilās first tactic was to destroy the Church by force from without, his second was to destroy it by falsehood from within.ā3
And so this is not simply a story of greed in the early Church. Itās about an attack on the church from withināan enemy scared and trying to stop the great momentum of the gospel.
4. The story is not normative
There is nothing in this story, Acts, or the New Testament as a whole that indicates this is a pattern for how God acts. In fact, if it were, the pattern would break in Acts 8 with Simon the sorcerer. Though Ananias and Simonās acts and motivations are slightly different, Peterās rebuke has a similar solemnity to itāand death is even warned. However, Simon responds with a repentant heart and is seemingly spared.
It is better to take this as a unique moment of sudden divine judgment. The people’s great fear indicates this was not something they were accustomed to, either.
5. The assemblyās response matters most
As is often the case with difficult texts, there is a temptation to read more than is there.
But a rule of responsible Bible reading is to pay the most attention to what the author draws the most attention to.
Lukeās repeated āGreat fear came upon all who heard it / the whole churchā (v. 5, 11) is the focal point. In fact, this is not the only time awe is inspired in Acts (2:43; 9:31; 19:17), which reinforces this reading. The phrase āand the word continued to spreadā functions this way in Acts, too (6:7; 12:24; 19:20; 13:49). Throughout Luke and Acts, Luke often ends stories with such summative statements (see Luke 1:12, 65; 2:9; 5:26; 7:16; 8:25, 35, 37; 9:34, 45; 21:26).
So what are we to do with our questions about this passage? I appreciate what Bruce says:
It is no part of a commentatorās work to pass moral judgment on Peter; it would be necessary, in any case, to know much more than is stated in the narrative. Sapphira, for aught that is known to the contrary, may have suggested the deceit to her husband. [I disagree with Bruceāverse 1 suggests Ananias took the initiative.] It is not Peterās character or even Ananias and Sapphiraās deserts in which Luke is primarily interested. What he is concerned to emphasize is the reality of the Holy Spiritās indwelling presence in the Church, together with the solemn practical implications of that fact.4
Our takeaways from the text should probably be no more and no less than that of the people who witnessed the event: fear and awe. God is a holy God who vanquishes evil and zealously defends his holiness. His judgments are his, and he only makes some of them known.
Why did God strike down Ananias and Sapphira rather than give them a chance to repent? How is it that Satan filled Ananiasā heart to lie (v. 3) but that Ananias also contrived the sin himself (v. 4)? Why didnāt Peter show the same grace toward Ananias and Sapphira that he was shown for his deceit and denial of the Lord (Matt 26:69-75)?
We do not know. The text does not speak to these questions, though other passages may help us find answers.
Ultimately, though, itās the text that demands an answer from you: Do you fear God?
Related articles
- The Unforgiveable Sin: Evidence You Have Not Committed It
- Does God Always Give Second Chances? John Says “No.”
- Strange Fire in Leviticus 10, and Why It Earned a Death Sentence
- Bruce, F.F.Ā The Book of Acts in the New International Commentary on the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1988), pg. 102.
- Joseph Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles in the Anchor Yale Bible series (Yale University, 1974), pg. 323.
-
Quoted by David Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles in the Pillar New Testament Commentary (Zondervan, 2009), pg 210.
- Bruce, 104.
Leave a comment