Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Acts 5

The details of the conspiracy are concisely stated. A certain Christian man named Ananias (meaning “God is gracious” in Hebrew) and his wife, Sapphira (meaning “beautiful” in Aramaic), wanted to enjoy the acclaim of the church as Barnabas had, but without making a genuine sacrifice. So they too sold a piece of real estate and pretended to give the full price to the apostles for distribution to the needy, though they conspired to keep back part of the money for themselves. Luke’s language here seems to draw a parallel between the sin of Achan just as the Israelites began their conquest of Canaan (see Jos 7) and the sin of Ananias and Sapphira as the church began its mission; both incidents come under the immediate and drastic judgment of God and teach the people a sobering lesson. This is very likely how the early church saw the incident as well.

The details of the conspiracy are concisely stated. A certain Christian man named Ananias (meaning “God is gracious” in Hebrew) and his wife, Sapphira (meaning “beautiful” in Aramaic), wanted to enjoy the acclaim of the church as Barnabas had, but without making a genuine sacrifice. So they too sold a piece of real estate and pretended to give the full price to the apostles for distribution to the needy, though they conspired to keep back part of the money for themselves. Luke’s language here seems to draw a parallel between the sin of Achan just as the Israelites began their conquest of Canaan (see Jos 7) and the sin of Ananias and Sapphira as the church began its mission; both incidents come under the immediate and drastic judgment of God and teach the people a sobering lesson. This is very likely how the early church saw the incident as well.

Probably no account in Acts has provoked more wrath from critics than this one has. Commentators have complained about the difficulty of accepting the death of both husband and wife under such circumstances and have questioned Peter’s ethics in not giving them an opportunity for repentance and in not telling Sapphira of her husband’s death. Even more difficult for many is the way the story portrays Peter, who appears to be without the compassion or restraint of his Lord. Jesus’ relations even with Judas, whose sin was a thousand times more odious, certainly were not on this level. But note that Peter did not view the action of Ananias and Sapphira as merely incidental. He spoke of it as inspired by Satan and as a lie to both the Holy Spirit and God. It was a case of deceit and was an affront, not just on the community level, but primarily before God. Deceit is spiritually disastrous—a sin, whatever its supposed justification, that sours every personal relationship. Where there is even the suspicion of conscious misrepresentation and deception, trust is completely violated.

Ananias and Sapphira were severely dealt with because their act of pretended piety (cf. v.4) was done voluntarily and because the greater freedom permitted in the church at Jerusalem made the individual Christian more responsible to be honest and more culpable when dishonest. In addition, the way Ananias and Sapphira attempted to reach their goals was so diametrically opposed to the whole thrust of the Gospel that to allow it to go unchallenged would have set the entire mission of the church off course. Like the act of Achan, this episode was pivotal in the life and mission of God’s people, for the whole enterprise was threatened at its start. And while we may be thankful that judgment on deceit in the church is not now so swift and drastic, this incident stands as an indelible warning regarding the heinousness in God’s sight of deception in spiritual and personal matters.

Probably no account in Acts has provoked more wrath from critics than this one has. Commentators have complained about the difficulty of accepting the death of both husband and wife under such circumstances and have questioned Peter’s ethics in not giving them an opportunity for repentance and in not telling Sapphira of her husband’s death. Even more difficult for many is the way the story portrays Peter, who appears to be without the compassion or restraint of his Lord. Jesus’ relations even with Judas, whose sin was a thousand times more odious, certainly were not on this level. But note that Peter did not view the action of Ananias and Sapphira as merely incidental. He spoke of it as inspired by Satan and as a lie to both the Holy Spirit and God. It was a case of deceit and was an affront, not just on the community level, but primarily before God. Deceit is spiritually disastrous—a sin, whatever its supposed justification, that sours every personal relationship. Where there is even the suspicion of conscious misrepresentation and deception, trust is completely violated.

Ananias and Sapphira were severely dealt with because their act of pretended piety (cf. v.4) was done voluntarily and because the greater freedom permitted in the church at Jerusalem made the individual Christian more responsible to be honest and more culpable when dishonest. In addition, the way Ananias and Sapphira attempted to reach their goals was so diametrically opposed to the whole thrust of the Gospel that to allow it to go unchallenged would have set the entire mission of the church off course. Like the act of Achan, this episode was pivotal in the life and mission of God’s people, for the whole enterprise was threatened at its start. And while we may be thankful that judgment on deceit in the church is not now so swift and drastic, this incident stands as an indelible warning regarding the heinousness in God’s sight of deception in spiritual and personal matters.

The psychological explanations of Ananias’s sudden death attribute his fatal collapse to the shock and shame of being found out. The verb Luke uses for his death, however, appears in the NT only in contexts where someone is struck down by divine judgment (5:5, 10; 12:23). Whatever were the psychological and physical factors involved, Luke’s emphasis is on God as the ultimate cause of Ananias’s death. This is the light in which he means his readers to understand his further comment: “And great fear seized all who heard what had happened.”