The basics of this essay is condensed into a lesson for Volume III of my Thirty Day Spiritual Growth Workbook Series. In the workbook questions and writing space is supplied.
I began teaching this understanding of Acts 4:32-5:11 in 2002 and first published the idea in my book Interpretive Adventures in 2011.
THE ARROGANCE OF POWER AND THE GRACE OF GOD
Read Acts 4:32-5:11
Throughout Christian history is the shameful display of power that took the lives of others for various reasons. Humility is essential for anyone in a position of power. The humility we read of and see lived in the stories of Jesus is to mark our lives. Our minds are to be like the Lord who humbled himself and refused to exercise any kind of power that would harm another human being. The story of Ananias and Sapphira has evaded commentators throughout Christian history. I believe my literary reading is true to the intent of the author and the meaning of the text. My book, ‘Interpretive Adventures: Subversive Readings in a Missional School’ contains a similar study of this story.
God revealed in Jesus does not end the lives of people for lying to Peter about an amount of money. Sapphira responded to Peter’s question, Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price.” And she said, “Yes, that was the price” (Acts 5:8). ‘Tell me…” is Peter’s demand to Sapphira. Sapphira was speaking to Peter not God. Ananias was never questioned, only condemned. Peter apparently was watching closely over the money and the amounts given. How did Peter know the price that Ananias received for the property he sold? How did Peter know the amount Ananias laid at his feet? Why did the couple withhold some money? God forbid any of us are persuaded to give and then sentenced to death for changing our minds!
Problems in Paradise
This particular story reflects the failed character development of the apostles. The first indicator is their allowing Barnabas to lay money at their feet as though they were greater than others.
Acts 4:37 He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
This indicator sits in opposition to the Lord’s act of washing their feet as a servant. Now, they are behaving like kings with wealth deposited at their feet.
This frightening story displays the grace of God given to the apostles (particularly Peter) when they used power that was not gifted to them from God. That is the power to take life. They were gifted with power to work signs and wonders to confirm their teaching. They were not to reign as kings. I think that the stories following the Ananias and Sapphira pericope indicate that Peter’s ultimate goal was to take over the temple as the high priest.
The lack of character in the apostles is further displayed when they refuse to serve widows because they claimed studying the scriptures took precedent over their time. 6:2b “It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables.”
Acts 4:32
Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.
The introduction to this story is a transitional sentence alerting the reader to the beginning of a new pericope. At this point the group of people who are participating in a social experiment governed by the apostles are referenced as ‘those who believed’ (not the church).
Acts 5:11
And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things.
The final sentence of this story includes the first use of the word ‘church’ in the book of Acts. The apostles have become objects of fear, for the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira have no semblance of comparison with the life and ministry of Jesus.
Transitional Comments to the Ongoing Story of Acts 5:12-16
Acts 5:13-14a
None of the rest dared to join them, but the people held them in high esteem. Yet more than ever believers were added to the Lord,
After the conclusion of the Ananias and Sapphira story, Luke reports the effects of the Ananias and Sapphira fiasco with comments that flow into the continuing story of the Acts of the Apostles. Luke’s comment clarifies that the signs and wonders performed by the apostles added believers yet no one else wanted to join the group involved in the social effort that ended in death.
The Deaths of Ananias and Sapphira
Luke’s artistry is brilliant. He informs us that the amounts of money laid at the feet of the apostles were known by Peter. Further, the apostles, or at least Peter, knew how much the land of Ananias and Sapphira had sold for. Peter, standing higher than Ananias, looking down, immediately judges Ananias for holding back money from the sale. Ananias has not spoken. He is accused of lying to God. Now the fault of Ananias, who has not said a word, is become a claim that he lied to God. This is a problem since Ananias has not spoken (like Abel) and lying to God is impossible. Peter’s heart is merciless, unlike God, unlike Jesus. Luke only tells us that Ananias fell dead. The text doesn’t say that God took his life, it only tells us he fell down dead. Then we are introduced to Peter’s young men (his temple soldiers) come in to carry out the body of Ananias. Now the body of Ananias is laid at Peter’s feet where the money was also laid. For Jesus, money was an object to hate because of its power to corrupt.
Money and power have led Peter down a path that only God’s grace can recover him from. This is the same bumbling mouthed disciple who wants to build temples after witnessing the transfiguration. This is the same Peter who is in possession of a sword and used it in the garden of Gethsemane. This is the same Peter who denied knowing Jesus, the Peter who received a personal resurrection appearance with Jesus restoring him to a place of love and acceptance. One must wonder, where was Peter’s grace for Ananias?
Peter’s anger and relentless pursuit for controlling the economics of his growing power is not finished. He has yet to contend with Sapphira, Acts 5: 7-11. Reading this merciless case of entrapment designed to culminate in a death sentence is disturbing. How did Sapphira die? Who are these young soldiers working for Peter? Unlike the people who believe, but do not dare join the apostles, these young men whose feet are at the door, have no fear but wait for Peter’s commands.
After his resurrection, Jesus appeared along the sea where he was preparing some fish. Jesus speaks to the wayward Peter and says:
John 21:18
Very truly, I tell you, when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go.”
If there was ever a slow learner, it was Peter. It would take him a lifetime to learn to walk upright only to die upside down.
Paul rebuked Peter publicly over his hypocrisy for eating with Gentiles only when the Jews were not around. Galatians 2:11-14.
In the book of Acts, the story of Peter killing Ananias and Sapphira and the story of Paul persecuting the church and receiving the garments of those who stoned Stephen are placed as brackets around the Greek man who served tables. Stephen preaches the longest sermon in the book of Acts. He uses words Jesus spoke when on the cross. He sees the risen Lord standing (to honor the first Christian martyr). Stephen like Jesus lost his life in his youth.
Consider the story of the spread of the good news in the book of Acts is now in the hands of people like Stephen the Greek whose sermon Luke gives more space too than Peter’s. Stephen can wait on widows and know scripture better than Peter. Then the good news is further carried by Phillip another deacon who knows scripture and waits on widows. Phillip carried by the Spirit meets an Ethiopian Eunuch and interprets the writings of Isaiah for the educated man sent from Ethiopia to learn. It is apparent the movement of the gospel is leaning towards better men than the disciples whose lapse in judgment has led to ruling by power and death.
It is interesting to note that structurally the story of Stephen sits between two men, Peter and Paul. Both are complicit in the deaths of others under the sway of their religious belief. The only one who looks like Jesus, the only one whose prayers (at his stoning) is the only one whose words match Jesus at his crucifixion.
Consider Isaiah 49 a song of the suffering servant and how it is reflective (prophetic) of the life of Jesus, vs.4 in particular is of interest for my current argument.
But I said, “I have labored in vain,
I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity;
yet surely my cause is with the LORD,
and my reward with my God.”
I understand the prophet’s writing to be reflective of Jesus’ feelings in relation to his time with his disciples.
Consider Jesus’ words in Matthew’s stilling of the storm story. Matthew 8:26 And he said to them, “Why are you afraid, you of little faith?” In Matthew’s version Jesus’ (if you will) rebukes his disciples before he rebukes the storm (as in Luke’s version). This is Matthew pointedly demonstrating the lack of faith and understanding of Jesus’ disciples.
Remember Peter will receive a vision and yet must be rebuked by Paul for his calcitrant behavior refusing to eat with Gentiles in the presence of Jewish adherents. Peter the man with the sword ready to fight. Peter the one who denied knowing Jesus. Yet for all his failings Jesus was patient and loved Peter who receives great grace, experiences great power, and fails often. I suggest that in Paul, Jesus sought a replacement. Paul, driven by the guilt filled awareness of his own murderous actions and overcome like a prophet with a revelation lives out his conviction and accomplishes following Christ and teaching Christ beyond the efforts of Jesus’ disciples.
Why would Luke obscure the meaning of this text for the reader?
Unless we are misguided by some teaching that attempts to relieve the discomfort in this story, we should be suspicious of a surface reading.[i] The obscuring of meaning in texts that discomfort us has a long history in scripture. Luke lives and writes in a world where about 3 percent of the people are literate. Like Paul’s letters, Luke was writing to the elite, the educated, those who understood literary art. He was writing for those who would read and teach. He expected his readers to read beyond the surface, he expected the attentive reader to think and through insightful understanding discover the complexities in the story that embody his theology and intent. - read below for more thoughts on this subject.
A Lesson in Idealism
The idealism of Acts 4:32 – 37 is filled with warnings of impending disaster. The exaltation of the disciples as the sole interpreters of scripture, as too important to attend to widows, is disturbing. The acceptance of money laid at their feet (like Kings) is disturbing. The fear that is ignited in those who form the church and do not join the disciples is indicative of movement away from any hope for forming an idealistic paradise. Religious and communal idealism in a crooked world is unattainable.
We all need mercy and grace; we all need forgiveness. Learning to live in a broken world filled with the violence of power, but also with tears, requires great grace and great power, the kind of power that knows humility and washes the feet of both the widow and those who are the most undeserving.
Although institutionalism is inevitable in our crooked world, we have only one King and he refused the trappings of institutional power, he is forever our example of living in humility with grace that seems incomprehensible.
Ongoing Thoughts and Questions
Is Luke preserving the reputation of Peter through subtle misdirection? If so, what are his purposes for doing so? I suggest that the importance of Peter as a leader led to the silencing of his sin. This being said, Luke’s record of the story of Peter’s complicity for the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira is hidden in the artistic literary devices that only one those with ears to hear would grasp the great grace given to Peter.
Could the fledgling Jesus’ movement withstand an honest report on Peter’s actions or complicity? Perhaps the leaders of the time thought they could not. However, this would sit in contrast to the forgiveness that Peter received in order to continue on in the great grace and great power that accompanied him.
The conflict of great grace and great power is, in particular, evident in Peter’s life. The grace that allowed him to perform great acts of power (miracles) are products of the great grace that also kept him through his errant sanctioning of religious violence that is presented as an act of (power) God. Is the immaturity of the fledgling community and the immaturity of the disciples as leaders laid bare and each groups immaturity and enthusiasm is exposed as their social experiment collapses in violence and fear?
Why does Jesus’ younger brother James become the head of the Jerusalem church rather than Peter? Consider James’ experiences growing up under the eye and tutelage of his older brother and that Jesus also appeared to James after his resurrection.
Does this type of writing technique draw the attention of those educated in literary art to become aware of the depth of artistry to be found in Luke’s second volume?
Does this type of writing technique pass judgment on the reader who accepts the surface claims of the story without discomfort or questioning?
Is the subject of idealism shown to be an impossibility in the present?
If we accept a surface reading of the text where God is the killer of Ananias and Sapphira does the text suggest that neither God nor the Apostles can maintain an idealistic religious community without being involved in religious violence? If so, does this story provide instruction for, if not prohibit, attempts at idealism within the body of Christ (the church)?
[i] A hermeneutic of suspicion is essential for interpreting texts that discomfort us and violate both our conscience and the Spirit of Christ. Storytelling is an art and Luke’s history is a theological work of literary mastery, not merely the reporting of events.
Reading the story of Solomon’s wisdom in 1st Kings 3:16-28 via a hermeneutic of suspicion enables the reader to apply a compassionate reading (rather than a legal reading) and reveals the intent of the author to mock Solomon for his incredulous treatment of women in his purported glorious kingdom. Further the reader may apply a simple character study to the speech of the two women and discover who is the true mother; leaving Solomon’s cruel tactic to be shameful and not an example of wisdom.
Concurring Writings
In the writings of John Chrysostom (4th Century) he made Peter the acting agent in the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira.
And Peter too wrought a twofold slaughter, nevertheless what he did was of the Spirit.
Homily 17 on Matthew
__________________
Marc Pernot
“Jesus never instituted a system requiring people to liquidate all their capital… This is compulsory morality… Luke, the author of the book of Acts thus presents Peter and his first church rather critically.”
Google will translate the French to English - the following link is to Marc Pernot’s piece
M. Pernot, Il est parfois criminel de confondre son église et le Saint-Esprit (2011)
