Acts 5:1

This chapter recounts the tragic fall of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11), the continued success and popularity of the apostolic mission (Acts 5:12-16), the renewed opposition of the Sanhedrin with another arraignment of the apostles before them (Acts 5:17-32), the purpose of the Sanhedrin to slay the apostles thwarted by Gamaliel, and the beating of the Twelve by the Jewish authorities (Acts 5:33-42).

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. (Acts 5:1)

ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA

But ... This word clearly connects the event of Barnabas' generous action which had just been narrated, with what ensues here. As Boles noted, "The two illustrations here were intended to be brought in contrast, as the conjunction `but' introduces the sentence."[1]

The parallel with the conquest of Canaan in the Old Testament is evident in this event, this story being to the book of Acts what the story of Achan is to the book of Joshua. "In both, an act of deceit interrupts the victorious progress of the people of God."[2] (Joshua 7:1ff).

Ananias and Sapphira ... The first of these names means "Jehovah hath been gracious," and "If SAPPHIRA is Greek, it means SAPPHIRE; if Aramaic, it means BEAUTIFUL."[3] How tragic is the contrast between these lovely names and what befell those who wore them.

Sold a possession ... This does not mean that they sold all that they had, or that they had been commanded to sell anything at all.

The event about to be related was a dramatic change from the wonderful miracles of mercy and healing which, until then, had marked the deeds of the apostles; but it was necessary that the severity of God, as well as his mercy, should be stressed. And, just as Jesus had withered the fig tree, there appeared here "an instance of severity, following the instances of goodness: God is to be both loved and feared."[4]

The truth of the narrative of Ananias and Sapphira is guaranteed by its painful character. No historian would have gone out of his way to invent it.[5]

As Ramsay saw this narrative, "It is a moral apologue, not as invented to embody a moral, but as remembered because it did so."[6]

DeWelt was correct in making this wonder the first of a class:

We have witnessed in the past record the evil forces from without, but this chapter opens with the account of the first marks of the evil one within the fold.[7]

Wesley, however, it seems to us, was wrong in his view of this incident as "the first attempt to bring propriety of goods into the Christian Church."[8] Very few scholars have ever agreed with Wesley on this. See under Acts 5:4.

[1] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Acts (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1953), p. 77.

[2] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1954), p. 110.

[3] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 824.

[4] Thomas Scott, Henry-Scott Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 447.

[5] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 825.

[6] Sir William M. Ramsay, Pictures of the Apostolic Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1959), p. 35.

[7] Don DeWelt, Acts Made Actual (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1958), p. 73.

[8] John Wesley, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House), in loco.