BE CAREFUL HOW YOU GIVE!

Acts 4:32-5:13
Bob Bonner
August 15, 2010

A twelve-year-old boy was waiting for his first orthodontist appointment and was a bit nervous. Apparently he wanted to impress the dentist. On the patient questionnaire in the space marked “Hobbies” he had written, “Swimming and flossing.” (Reader’s Digest [8/94], p. 112)

Hypocrisy knows no age barriers. That’s a humorous story which reminds us how we’re all prone to hypocrisy and even lying. But hypocrisy and lying are not humorous; they are dangerous and deadly sins. The hypocrisy and lying of professing Christians has served as an excuse for many to disregard the claims of Jesus Christ, saying, “The church is full of hypocrites.” The fact of the matter is that this statement is true. For there is not a person alive who is not a hypocrite. However, the unchecked hypocrisy of Christian leaders has caused many believers to stumble. While Jesus was tender with many notorious sinners, He used scathing language to denounce those guilty of religious hypocrisy.

In our study of Acts this morning we are going to be warned of the danger of the sin of hypocrisy, especially when it comes to having wrong motives in giving to others in the name of Jesus. To give in the name of the Lord with wrong motives can be a deadly sin, as one couple found out. Someone has said that if God dealt with all hypocrisy in the church as He dealt with this one couple, our churches would become morgues!

Biblical history shows that it is quite common that failure oftentimes closely follows a great triumph or success. As was true of Israel when she entered Canaan under Joshua's leadership, failure followed initial success. So it was with the early church. In the case of Israel conquering Canaan and the early church impacting its culture, the source of failure lay within the company of believers, not without or as a result of their unbelieving enemies. When the failure takes place, shortly thereafter comes God’s discipline, and then the believers take the maintaining of a godly lifestyle more seriously. This morning we are going to see this same pattern in the early church: success, failure, discipline, and then a move toward holiness.

Our passage of study is Acts 4:32-5:11. Let me first give you a preview of what we are going to read, and then let’s read our passage of study. Our selection breaks into four divisions:

I.  The pattern of the healthy early church. 4:32-35

II.  A positive example of an early church family member. 4:36-37

III. Two negative examples of early church family members. 5:1-10

IV. The effects of divine discipline. 5:11, 13

Beginning with 4:32 we read:

And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul;

and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his

own, but all things were common property to them. [That word for

“common” comes from the same root word from which we get the word

“fellowship.” In other words, they saw that all they had was to benefit the

need of their church family and its attempt to reach out to the lost.] ³³And

with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection

of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. ³⁴For there

was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or

houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales ³⁵and lay

them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any

had need. ³⁶Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called

Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of

Encouragement), ³⁷and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought

the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 5:1-11:

^{1But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of}

property ²and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s

full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’

feet. ³But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to

the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? ⁴While it

remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold,

was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this

deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” ⁵And as he

heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great

fear came over all who heard of it. ⁶The young men got up and covered

him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him. ⁷Now there

elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not

knowing what had happened. ⁸And Peter responded to her, “Tell me

whether you sold the land for such and such a price?” And she said,

“Yes, that was the price.” ⁹Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you

have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold,

the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and

they will carry you out as well.” ¹⁰And immediately she fell at his feet

and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead,

and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. ¹¹And

great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these

things. ¹²At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were

taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord in

Solomon’s portico. ¹³But none of the rest dared to associate with them;

however, the people held them in high esteem.

Previously in our study of Acts 4:30 we learned that the early believers prayed to God for boldness in their preaching of the Gospel. It was this same spirit of boldness which permeated not only the preaching of the Gospel but the church’s practice with regard to earthly possessions.

In many churches today this sense of church family unity as demonstrated by the early church is absent. Rather than a oneness of family spirit, there is more of a spirit of independence, a maverick spirit: “I want to call my own shots. I don’t want to be held accountable to anyone, and I don’t want to be responsible to anyone. As long as I can hear my kind of music, my kind of preaching, hangout with my kind of people and go home, I’m okay.” It is quite possible to come to church and sit together in the pews, united in a physical presence with other Christians, to sing the same hymns, listen to the same message, and relate to God individually, but all the while have no sense of church family life, no sense of belonging to one another.

The more I study Acts and these passages, the more I am convinced that these Christians were not demonstrating generosity as much as they were practicing church family unity. Let me illustrate what I mean: If a member of my family has a serious need, I do not think long about meeting that need, if I can. And when I do meet that need, I do not think of myself as being generous for doing so. Being a part of the family is what makes the difference.

The early church looked upon themselves as a family, and they lived like a family. Thus, if one member of the “family” had more than enough possessions and another member had less than enough, it was natural to share within the family. Their property was still their private property. But “private property” is viewed differently within the family than outside of the family.

True family unity, whether church family unity or your own family unity, manifests itself in a sense of responsibility for one another. It is out of love that we give of ourselves and of what we have to one another. There is no law of familial love that demands you give. You can’t legislate love. Love, not law, compels healthy believers to share with one another. (1 John 3:17-18) The generosity of the early church flowed from the union of hearts made possible by the regeneration of life by our common Master and Savior.

Hence, when I read verses 32-35 and the rest of Acts, I see three characteristics of a healthy early church. First, it operated as a united family committed to Christ. If you don’t think this is an accurate portrayal of the church, read Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus and note how many times he uses familial terms in reference to those who are part of the church.

It was out of their commitment to Christ that the second characteristic of a healthy church was demonstrated: This was that a united family cared for each other. When you look at the voluntary sharing of assets described in Acts 2:25 and you compare that with what took place in 4:32, it appears that this occasional selling off of personal real estate was evidently an exceptional sharing of one’s personal wealth. 

Remember the reason for such exceptional sharing. The need was great. Thousands of devout Jewish pilgrims had flocked into Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. Undoubtedly, many in the early church came from the ranks of those pilgrims. They understandably decided to remain in Jerusalem “under the apostles’” teaching rather than return home. Further, some believers who lived in Jerusalem no doubt lost their jobs because of their faith. That the church met all these needs showed the depth of the believers’ love for each other. Such care and sharing was a powerful testimony to their community. They, by their actions, were fulfilling what Jesus had asked them to do in John 13:35: “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

In verse 34, the selling of houses and land was far more sacrificial than sharing part of one’s income. It meant liquidating capital assets that could be irreplaceable, thus reducing one’s personal security. Having said that, allow me to clarify that these Christians did not sell all of their property or at any point pool all their possessions. According to Acts 12:12, individual believers still owned houses.

One commentator I read wrote that, “People were selling their extra possessions and property, not their own dwellings. The property they were selling was their security, their “nest egg,” that which assured them that there would be provisions for the future. Ananias and Sapphira may well have said to themselves, ‘If we sell all that we have, we will have nothing to fall back on.’ Keeping back a little of the money they obtained from the sale of their property would give them a little security, they must have reasoned. And, so long as they were honest in their dealings, it would have been their right to do so. But in order to carry this off, and to look as “spiritual” as the others, they had to lie, saying they were giving their all when they weren’t. They were, in the process of providing for themselves, not trusting in God, and they were not obeying His commandments, for they were lying.”

This liberal sharing of wealth was short-lived in the early church. After Acts 6 we don’t find any more records of it, other than gifts for famine relief or the support of missionaries. Furthermore, it was not something that was meant to continue on. If it were, it would have been commanded, and it was not. It was a solution that met an immediate urgent need for a small group of people over a limited period of time. 

Unfortunately, the impracticality of the generosity of the early Christians soon began to be abused, as witnessed by Ananias and Sapphira in chapter 5, and by the murmuring of certain ones who did not get their proper share in chapter 6. I presume that another reason this giving did not continue was due to greater financial pressures and the pressures from persecution. Those who had traveled so far to come to Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost were forced to return to their homes, and other Christians had to leave Jerusalem because they were being ostracized by fellow Jews who had not become followers of Christ.  Many lost jobs and had to move elsewhere to find work.

Wherever there are generous people, there will always be those who want to take advantage of their generosity. Hence, this passage is not encouraging welfare to the lazy or irresponsible person who wants to mooch off the church family. The Apostle Paul gives the following instructions to the church leadership concerning the dispensing of church funds: they must discern who the truly needy are. (1 Timothy 5:3) If one can work to support himself, he is not truly needy and must provide for his own needs. (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12, 1 Timothy 5:8, 1 Thessalonians 4:11) If family can support a needy person, the church should not support them. (1 Timothy 5:3-4) Furthermore, those who are supported by the church must make some return by way of service to the church. (1 Timothy 5:5, 10) In addition, Paul tells us that it is right for the church to examine moral conduct before giving support. (1 Timothy 5:9-13) And finally, the support of the church should be for the most basic necessities of living. (1 Timothy 6:8)

The kind of voluntary generosity that the Scripture supports is the generosity that sees a brother in need and opens the heart and material blessings toward that brother. (1 John 3:17)

There is one last point this passage illustrates. Verse 35 has to do with an important pattern concerning giving in the local church--that which we call the deacons fund. The donations are to be placed in the control of the spiritual leaders, who are then responsible before God for their dispensing.

Finally in verse 33, we see the third characteristic of the healthy early church in the expression “abundant grace.” This refers not just to the great favor these giving Christians received in the sight of all people, but also, as a result of being salt and light, the great success in their ministry to the lost. Hence, a healthy united church family is one who is about reaching out to the lost.

In verses 36-37, Luke now gives a specific instance of what he had just described. In these verses we see a positive example of an early church family member named Barnabas. This reference to Barnabas is significant because it introduces him to the reader of Acts. Barnabas becomes a major character in Acts later. Furthermore, as we will see, Barnabas provides a vivid contrast to the two negative examples of early church members, Ananias and Sapphira, in chapter 5.

We will not take the time to look closely at Barnabas today. We will save that for the end of Acts 15. We will simply refer to just what the text tells us here-- that he was a Jew from the tribe of Levi whose family home was on Cyprus. His given Jewish name was Joseph, but once he was saved, the apostles gave him a new name, Barnabas, which means "Son of Encouragement." They probably did so because he was a constant positive influence on those around him, as further references to him in Acts will demonstrate. 

Barnabas evidently sold some of his land to provide cash for the needs of the church members. He humbly presented the entire proceeds of the sale to the apostles for their distribution. It is no wonder that this man who gave generously of his own means would later be chosen to carry a generous gift from the Christians in Antioch to the needy Christians in Jerusalem who were suffering under a famine.

Beginning with Acts 5, we see negative examples of early church members. This event illustrates the honesty of Luke as a historian. He did not suppress this sordid episode. It throws light on the interior life of the first Spirit-filled community. In those early days, it was not all romance and righteousness. Some teachers have led us to believe and you might conclude on your own from what we have just read about the early church in chapters 2-4, that the early church was a sinless community. Unfortunately this was not the case. There were sinning carnal saints in it from the beginning. This next episode, in 5:1-11, reveals that God was working dramatically in the church's early days in judgment as well as in blessing. Luke did not idealize his portrait of the early church leaders or its members but painted an accurate picture, warts and all.

The first clue to the upcoming negative examples is the first word in 5:1, “But.” With this one word, Dr. Luke is telling us that something different is coming from that which has just been recorded as history. It introduces another sacrificial act that looked just as generous as Barnabas', however in this case the motive was quite different. Apparently, after Ananias and Sapphira saw the great generosity of Barnabas and how well he was respected, they decided they wanted some of that same respect. The worst part was that they both agreed to lie about the amount which they gave to the apostles. They gave their gift saying that it was the total amount they received from the sale of their property, when it was not.

When Peter confronted Ananias about his deception, his words showed Ananias that he did not have to sell or to give the entire sale to the church. No one was forcing him to do so. But in lying to God’s apostle, he was in fact lying to God. Peter quickly took this matter to the spiritual root problem that had yielded the fruit it had. The ultimate source of this deception was Satan. That must have been news to Ananias, who thought this was entirely his idea. But it was Satan whom Peter said had “filled his heart.” What must have seemed to Ananias and his wife as a trivial offense, a “little white lie,” was revealed to be a much more serious offense. Because it was to God that this gift of money was ultimately given, it therefore was to God that the lie was told.

In verse 9, Peter rebuked Sapphira for “putting God to the test,” meaning seeing how far one can go in disobeying God —in this case lying to Him—before He judges. (Deuteronomy 6:16; Matthew 4:7) This is very risky business. God is never mocked without serious consequences. This was what the Bible calls “a sin unto death.” It was a sin that resulted in a premature physical death. When Peter said this, Ananias and Sapphira must have been crushed. Certainly, they were expecting praise for their spectacular gift, but were rebuked instead.

After Peter’s rebuke, Peter says not a word about Ananias’ impending death. Peter did not call down God’s judgment on this man or later, his wife. The death of Ananias was the act of God. I suspect that Peter was probably more surprised than anyone when Ananias fell down dead!

In studying this event, two questions come to mind that need to be asked and answered. The first is: Does this passage of Scripture support the correctness of the ideology of communism or socialism? In short, “No!”

In the first place, Peter affirmed the right to private property, something which both communism and socialism deny. Ananias had complete freedom to use his property any way he chose. He could have kept it or sold it, without sin. And if he chose to sell it, he was free to give only part of the proceeds to the church. He was not forced to give to the poor. Furthermore, his sin was not in the amount of money he gave or in the fact that he kept some of it back. His sin was that he lied so that it would appear that he gave all of the money when he did not.

Peter was not inventing the right to private property. It is something that was already established in the Old Testament. You have it in the Ten Commandments. The eighth commandment says, “You shall not steal.” In order to steal, you have to take something that belongs to somebody else, something they own, without their permission. Neither communism nor socialism offers this freedom. This passage does not support or encourage either ideology of communism or socialism.

There is a big difference between communism/socialism and Christian fellowship: communism/socialism says, “What is yours is mine; I’ll take it.” Christian fellowship says, “What’s mine is yours; I’ll share it.” Communism/socialism forcibly invades the right of private property; Christian fellowship voluntarily relinquishes the right of private property. The one is enforced by law; the other is enforced only by love.

Here’s the second question: Doesn’t God’s judgment against Ananias and Sapphira come off as being a bit severe? Once again, the answer is “No.” What Ananias and Sapphira did must be seen in the context of its time. This was a critical juncture for the early church, and such impurity, sin, scandal, and satanic infiltration could have corrupted the entire church at its root. This threat of seduction from within is much more subtle and dangerous than any persecution or opposition from without.

This story of Ananias and Sapphira is to the church what the story of Achan, in the book of Joshua, was to the young nation of Israel. In both narratives an act of deceit threatens and interrupts the victorious progress of the people of God. In both cases, God had no room for deceit or the deadly sin of lying or hypocrisy. Those two sins had to be minimized in the early stages of the nation of Israel and the church, or neither would ever have gotten off the ground. Neither would have grown to a point of stability to fulfill God’s purposes.

And notice the effect of God’s discipline as spelled out in verse 11 and later in verse 13. We are told that “great fear came upon all” who beheld what happened, both believers and unbelievers alike. God’s desire for a pure church and His willingness to take drastic steps to achieve that desire were obvious for all to see. Verse 13 even states that when non-believers considered how serious God was about His church, they didn’t dare join. Not because they did not highly regard the Christians, because the text says they did. They just didn’t want to mess with God, probably because they enjoyed a little white lie now and then or a little hypocrisy. Being associated with Christians could get them killed. In a strange twist, here was a “sign and wonder” performed at the hands of an apostle which was of a very different kind, yet still got God’s message across to the unbelieving Jews.

Interestingly, more than thirty years later, Peter wrote these words to a church that was struggling with faithfulness to the Lord, “For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” (1 Peter 4:17) Perhaps Peter remembered this incident when he was inspired to quote from Psalms 34, “Let him who means to love life and see good days refrain his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking guile.” (1 Peter 3:10)

One lesson that we should take home with us is that God’s values are much different than ours. We can discern the severity of an offense by the severity of the punishment. Since God pronounced and performed the death penalty on lying, it must be a most serious offense. But why is lying such a serious offense to God? Why was this deception, which seems to have hurt no one, so drastically disciplined by God? I think the answer is quite evident: the church is founded upon truth, and it grows by means of truth. The unity of the church family is also dependent upon truth. Deception is an attack on the truth. Since Satan, the chief liar and deceiver, is the source of all deception, to tolerate even a small deception is to open the door to an attack on the truth which would be devastating to the church family. It is one reason that one of the key qualifications of an elder is to know the Word of God, to be able to handle clearly the truth, so as to protect His church.

A second lesson I take away from this study is this: All Christian giving is to be done with “simplicity.” This means there are no strings attached and no mixed motives. We are clearly taught in Scripture that giving should be done with singleness of purpose and motive. There is a danger of giving with mixed motives. The motive we have for giving should be a simple one: love for one another. When we add into this a motive of self-gain or self-interest, or we add strings to our giving to others in the name of the Lord, our giving is corrupted. If we give to others with the hopes that they will like us more, that’s a false motive in giving. If we give with the demand that the receiver be grateful, we have a false motive in giving. That is not a true love gift in the name of the Lord.

The last lesson I’ll leave you with is this: Because we are all prone to the deadly sin of hypocrisy, we should diligently pursue Godly character. For example, when you tell the truth or a partial truth, is it a cover-up for slander? Then stop it! And if you have slandered someone, tell those you slandered and those to whom you spread slander your wrong doing and seek their forgiveness. If you have given something to someone with unspoken expectations or strings and you are harboring bitterness toward them, confess it to God and move on.

Recall your most recent religious involvement, whether a home Bible study, a service project, a Sunday morning worship service, or your sharing or giving to the church. Review the event in your mind, from leaving your house to coming home afterward. Did you give of yourself with any strings attached?  Did you have any desire to appear better than you were? If so, describe this motivation and how it manifested itself in your actions. Did you attempt to hide something through these actions? What were you hiding? If your motives were wrong, are you willing to repent? Are you willing to make amends by admitting to those concerned your wrong or deceitful attitudes?

back to top