Albert Barnes Commentary Acts 5

CHAPTER 5

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 appearance and to impose in this way on the early Christians and on God.

With Sapphira his wife. With her concurrence, or consent. It was a matter of agreement between them (Acts 5:2, 9).

Sold a possession. The word used here, kthma, 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 translated here as possession is translated in the Syriac, Arabic, and the Latin Vulgate as land.

The pretence 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 proceeds of it to God, to do so entirely, and without any reservation.

And kept back. The word here used 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 only three times in the New Testament, Acts 5:3; 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.

And laid it at the apostles' feet. This was evidently an act professedly of devoting all to God. Compare Acts 4:37; Acts 5:8–9.

That this was his profession, or pretence, is further implied in the fact that Peter charges him with having lied to God, Acts 5:3–4.

But Peter said. Peter could have known this only by revelation. It was the manifest design of Ananias to deceive, and there was no way of detecting him except 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 Scripture are traced to the influence and temptation of Satan. (John 13:27). Satan is especially called the father of lies (John 8:44, 55). 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 considered free from guilt because they have been tempted to commit it. God requires them to resist temptation; and if they yield to it, they must be punished.

Filled thine heart. A person's heart or mind is full of a thing when they are intent on it; when they are strongly impelled to it; or when they are fully occupied with it. The expression here means that he was strongly impelled or excited by Satan to this crime.

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.

The Holy Ghost. to pneuma to agion. 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 to the Divine influence which inspired the apostles, without reference to the peculiar offices which are commonly ascribed to the Holy Spirit. In other words, is a distinction recognized here 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 offense was committed against the Holy Ghost, and the Spirit of the Lord (Acts 5:9).
2. The name here used is the one employed in the Scriptures to designate the Third Person of the Trinity, as implying a distinction from the Father. (Matthew 1:18, 20; Matthew 3:11; Matthew 12:32; Matthew 28:19; Mark 1:8; Mark 3:29; Mark 12:36; Luke 12:10; John 14:26; John 7:39; John 20:22; Acts 4:8; Acts 5:32, etc.).
3. Peter intended, doubtless, to designate an offense 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 offense was one, therefore, against the Inspirer of the apostles. Yet that was the Holy Ghost as distinct from the Father. (See John 14:16, 17, 26; John 15:26; John 16:7–11; John 20:22. Compare Acts 5:32). The offense, therefore, being against Him who was sent by the Father, 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 peculiar magnitude, so great as to be deemed worthy of the immediate and signal vengeance of God. Yet the sin against the Holy Ghost is uniformly represented to be of this description. (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 Ghost 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 denominated 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 to an attribute, or against wisdom, or power, or goodness; nor can we lie to 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 Ghost, it follows that the Holy Ghost has a personal existence, or there is such a distinction in the Divine Essence that it may be proper to specify a sin as committed particularly against him.

   In the same way, sin may be represented as committed peculiarly 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 Ghost, 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. . And as sin against the Son proves that he is in some sense distinct from the Father, so does sin against the Holy Ghost prove that he is in some sense distinct from the Father and the Son.

2. The Holy Ghost is Divine. This is proved, because he is represented here as being able to search the heart, and to detect insincerity and hypocrisy. (1 Chronicles 28:9; 1 Corinthians 2:10, The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God; Revelation 2:23). And he is expressly called God. (See Barnes on Acts 5:4).

Whiles it remained. As long as it remained unsold. This passage proves that there was an obligation imposed on the disciples to sell their property. Those who did it, did it voluntarily; and it does not appear that it was done by all, or expected to be done by all.

And after it was sold, etc. 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 still had the disposal of it. The apostle mentions this to show him that his offence was particularly aggravated. He was not compelled to sell his property; and he had not even the poor pretense 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.

Thou hast not lied unto men. To men only; or, it is not your main and chief offence that you have attempted to deceive men. 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, (Psalms 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. . 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 Ghost is Divine; and the whole passage demonstrates, therefore, one of the important doctrines of the Christian religion, that the Holy Ghost is distinct from the Father and the Son, and yet is Divine.

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 exposed in this way; 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 unfortunate translation. The original simply means he expired, or he died. (See Barnes on Matthew 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 Barnes on Acts 5:11).

2. Though it was the act of God, 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 and was suddenly and unexpectedly detected.

   The fact that it was known—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 act of 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 physical frame that it has never recovered. The effect commonly is that the memory of guilt preys secretly and silently upon the frame until, worn out from the lack of rest and peace, it sinks exhausted into the grave.

   But instances have not been lacking 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 to take his life at once.

Great fear came. Such a striking and awe-inspiring judgment on insincerity and hypocrisy was suited to excite strong fear among the people. Sudden death always has this effect, but sudden death in immediate connection with crime is suited to affect the mind much more deeply.