John Calvin Commentary Acts 5

The things which Luke has reported until now showed that the company, which was gathered together under the name of Christ, was rather a company of angels than of men. Moreover, it was an incredible virtue that the rich men divested themselves of their own accord, not only of their money but also of their land, to relieve the poor.

But now he shows that Satan had invented a stratagem to get into that holy company, and that under the guise of such excellent virtue, for he has wonderful wiles of hypocrisy to insinuate himself. In this way Satan assaults the Church when he cannot prevail by open war. But we must especially in this place pay attention to the intention of the Holy Spirit.

For in this history He meant to declare, first, how acceptable singleness of heart is to God, and what an abomination hypocrisy is in His sight; and secondly, how greatly He approves the holy and pure order and governance of His Church. For this is the principal point: the punishment with which Ananias and his wife were punished.

As its greatness at that time terrified them all, so it is to us a testimony that God cannot abide this unfaithfulness, when, bearing a show of holiness where there is none, we mock Him contemptibly. For if, having weighed all the circumstances, we are desirous to know the essence of the matter, Luke condemns no other fault in Ananias than this: that he meant to deceive God and the Church with a feigned offering.

Yet there were more evils packed under this dissimulation: the contempt of God, whom he does not fear, though he knew his own wickedness; sacrilegious defrauding, because he keeps back part of that which he professes to be holy to God; perverse vanity and ambition, because he vaunts himself in the presence of men, without paying any attention to God’s judgment; lack of faith, because he would never have acted this way unless he had mistrusted God; the corrupting of a godly and holy order; furthermore, the hypocrisy itself was a great offense.

The act of Ananias made a good appearance, although he had given only half of his land. Nor is this a small virtue for a rich man to bestow half of his goods on the poor; but the sacrifices of the ungodly are an abomination to God (Proverbs 15:8); nor can anything please Him where singleness of heart is lacking.

For this reason Christ considers the two mites offered by the widow more significant than the great sums of others, who out of their great abundance gave some part (Luke 21:2). This is why God makes an example of such sharp punishment in Ananias.

Now, let us note every point by itself. He laid it at the feet of the apostles. Behold, what ambition does! Ananias is ashamed not to be considered one of the best; therefore, although he is greedy for money, yet so that he may gain a reputation among men, he deprives himself of some part of his riches.

Meanwhile, he does not consider that he lies and deceives in the sight of God, and that God will punish this lie. So it is that he honors the apostles’ feet more than God’s eyes. Therefore, we must take good care that when we do well, we do not seek to be praised by the bystanders; and it is not without cause that Christ says that it is profitable for us, when we give our alms, for the left hand to be ignorant of what the right hand does.

And Peter said. How did Peter know Ananias’s fraud (and stealing?) Undoubtedly, it was by the revelation of the Spirit. Therefore, Luke signifies to us that the apostles, in a way, represented God Himself and acted in His place. If the Spirit of God, speaking through the mouth of a mortal man, so severely presses a hypocrite—who is otherwise adorned with the beautiful appearance of virtues—how will the reprobate endure the voice of God Himself, with the sound of the trumpet, when they appear before His judgment seat?

Furthermore, Peter points out the cruelty and horribleness of the offense by his question, when he says that Satan had filled the heart of Ananias. For there is no one whose heart is not pricked by the temptations of Satan, and all people are also tempted in many ways; indeed, these temptations penetrate their minds. But where Satan possesses the heart, he reigns in the whole person, having, as it were, expelled God.

This is a sign of a reprobate: to be so devoted and surrendered to Satan that the Spirit of God has no place. What follows afterward concerning lying may have a double meaning: either that he falsely made a show of the Spirit, or that he lied against the Spirit.

And, indeed, it is literally mentiri Spiritum; but since the Greek word [ψευδεσθαι] is joined with a double accusative case, and that agrees better with the context, I am more inclined to think that Ananias is rebuked because he lied falsely to the Holy Ghost. This Peter confirms shortly after, when he reproaches him for this: that he has lied to God, and not to men.

Therefore, we must be very careful that hypocrisy does not reign in us, which has this wickedness peculiar to it: to attempt to deceive God and, as it were, cornicum oculos configere. To attempt to blind those who are most wise; this cannot be without disloyal and improper mockery. Therefore, it is not without reason that Peter says that when this happens, the heart is possessed by Satan. For who (unless he were devoid of reason) would dare to blaspheme God in such a way? Therefore, Peter questions him as if about something astonishing, because such blindness is horrible.

Did it not remaining. This magnifies the offense because he sinned, being compelled by no necessity. For since it is no just or lawful excuse to have been provoked by other means, how much worse is it to willingly rush headlong into wickedness and, as it were, with deliberate intent to bring down God’s vengeance?

From this, we gather that no one was compelled to sell his goods or lands. For Peter says that Ananias had complete freedom to keep both his land and his money, because in the second part, the field that was sold is taken to mean the price itself. Therefore, he would nevertheless have been considered faithful, even if he had kept what was his own. By this it is clear that those who say it is not lawful for believers to possess anything of their own are people out of their minds.

Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. Although the words are interpreted differently, I do not doubt that this confirms the previous statement. For hypocrites so entangle themselves in so many deceptions that they think they are not dealing with God. And Peter speaks this specifically because Ananias had deceived the Church. But he should have considered that where two or three be gathered together in the name of Christ, he is present there as the chief governor (Matthew 18:20).

Indeed, he should have behaved himself in that assembly no differently than if he had seen God with his own eyes. For since God will reign in the Church, if we give Him any reverence, we must religiously reverence that rule and government which He exercises by His Word.

The apostles were indeed men, but not private individuals, because God had put them in His place. Moreover, we must note that he says that he who lies to the Holy Spirit lies to God, for the divinity of the Holy Spirit is clearly proved by this manner of speaking. Similarly, Paul says, Ye are the temples of God, because his Spirit dwelleth in you (1 Corinthians 3:16–17 and 6:19).

When Ananias heard these things. The death of Ananias does, indeed, declare and prove the force of the word, which Paul highly extols; namely, that it is the savor of death unto death to those which perish (2 Corinthians 2:16). He speaks, indeed, of the spiritual death of the soul, but there was a visible sign in the body of Ananias of that punishment which cannot be seen with human eyes. He was not slain with a sword, by force, or by hand, but was stricken dead simply by hearing the voice. When we hear this, let the threatenings of the gospel terrify us and humble us before it is too late, lest we also experience a similar effect. For that which is spoken of Christ,

“He shall slay the wicked with the breath of his mouth”
(Isaiah 11:4).

This prophecy not only pertains to the head of the wicked but also to every member. For to those who refuse the salvation offered in His word, this word, which was naturally life-giving, must necessarily be deadly to them.

But if anyone thinks it an absurd thing that the apostle punished Ananias bodily, I answer:

1. That this was an extraordinary event.
2. That this power was one of the gifts of the Spirit, as it appears from 1 Corinthians 19:10.

And as for those who think that this was too cruel a punishment, this happens because, weighing Ananias’s sin in their own balance and not in God’s, they consider that a light offense which was, in fact, a most great and grievous crime, full of such heinous offenses as I have already described.

Still others are skeptical of this account, because they see many hypocrites escape scot-free daily, who mock God no less than Ananias did. Indeed, they think this because they themselves, being flagrant despisers of God, are nevertheless still unpunished for their wickedness.

But just as God poured out visible graces upon His Church in the beginning, so that we may know that He will be present with us by the secret power of His Spirit—indeed, He showed openly by external signs that which we experience inwardly by faith—so too, by the visible punishment of these two individuals, He declared how horrible a judgment remains for all hypocrites who will mock God and His Church.

And there came great fear. This was the Lord’s purpose: by punishing one, to make the rest afraid, so that they might reverently beware of all hypocrisy. And that which Luke says, that they feared, also pertains to us. For God meant to give all ages a lesson at that time, so that they may learn to deal sincerely and uprightly with Him. Meanwhile, the punishment of this wicked person ought to have encouraged the godly from then on to consecrate their goods more freely to God and the poor, because they could understand how precious alms was in the sight of God, seeing that its profanation was so punished.

The punishment with which the Lord punished Sapphira contained nothing new, except that the example was further confirmed by it. And it happened by the sure providence of God that the Church should see separately the obstinate wickedness and treacherous mind of both of them. Since their faults were similar, they could have been exposed together; but it was more fitting and profitable for the Church that they should individually expose their own wickedness.

Sapphira was not prompted by the sight of her husband to deceive (as often happens), so that her fault could be attributed to shame. Rather, acting of her own accord and urged on by no other influence, she appeared to be no better than her husband. Moreover, their wickedness in lying was similar, since she could see from Peter’s questioning that their deceit had been discovered.