5:1 Now a man named Ananias, together with Sapphira his wife, sold a piece of property. 5:2 He kept back for himself part of the proceeds with his wife’s knowledge; he brought only part of it and placed it at the apostles’ feet. 5:3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back for yourself part of the proceeds from the sale of the land? 5:4 Before it was sold, did it not belong to you? And when it was sold, was the money not at your disposal? How have you thought up this deed in your heart? You have not lied to people but to God!”

5:5 When Ananias heard these words he collapsed and died, and great fear gripped all who heard about it. 5:6 So the young men came, wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him. 5:7 After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, but she did not know what had happened. 5:8 Peter said to her, “Tell me, were the two of you paid this amount for the land?” Sapphira said, “Yes, that much.” 5:9 Peter then told her, “Why have you agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out!” 5:10 At once she collapsed at his feet and died. So when the young men came in, they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 5:11 Great fear gripped the whole church and all who heard about these things.

James Dunn calls this ‘one of the most unnerving episodes in the whole of the New Testament.’

Various explanation have been suggested:-

1. that the story is legendary: but Luke is to be regarded as a reliable historian, and it is difficult to imagine the point of inventing such an account;
2. that the event actually occurred, but the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira were more or less coincidental: but it beggars belief to suppose that two such deaths occurred coincidentally;
3. that the event actually occurred, but the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira were due to unreasonable psychological pressure on Peter’s part (with no opportunity given for repentance);
4. that the event actually occurred, and their deaths were due to their overwhelming realisation of their sin, seen in the light of the heightened awareness of God and his holiness which obtained at the time.  Witherington points to the honour/shame culture of the day in support of this view.
5. that their deaths were as a result of an exceptional judgment of God for their dishonesty.  Marshall: ‘The death is no doubt to be regarded as a divine judgment upon his sin, although there is no sentence of death contained in Peter’s words.’  Peterson: ‘Luke represents these events as unique acts of divine judgment, manifesting the awesome presence of God at this critical stage in the life of the early church.’

In conclusion, we agree that some combination of 4 and 5 best fits the case.  Stott wisely comments:

‘Even if the anguish of a violated conscience contributed to their death on the human level, Luke clearly intends us to understand that it was a work of divine judgment.’

Packer’s explanation has considerable merit:

‘The most natural view is that in that revitalised community, where sensitiveness to the presence of God and hence to the foulness of sin was exceedingly strong, the realisation of what he had done so overwhelmed Ananias that his frame could not stand it, and he died of shock; and Sapphira the same. They literally could not live with their sin.’

(Packer, God in our Midst, 30)

It is quite possible, then, that Ananias died out of sheer terror. However, an element of divine judgement is implied, especially in Peter’s words to Sapphira, v9, and in the reaction of general fear that Luke is at pains to record.  Of course, God does not always judge sin in this way, but consider other examples, such as Nadab & Abihu, Lev 10; Korah, Num 16; Achan, Josh 7; and Herod, Acts 12. These are solemn reminders that sin brings death, Rom 6:23; 1 Cor 11:29f.

Peterson (Pillar) comments on the similarity with the judgment on Achan’s sin as recorded in Josh 7:-

‘The most that can be said is that a serious act of deceit marked the early days of the life of God’s people under both covenants and that a remarkable expression of God’s wrath followed. In both cases, the event was a manifestation of God’s distinctive presence with his people and a warning about his intention to preserve their holy identity and character.’

Mild as Ananias’ sin may seem to us, we see his sin, and all sin, in its true light when we see it in the light of the cross of Christ:

‘If God in dealing with human sin must endure the cross in His divine trinity, then clearly sin is no passing peccadillo but a monstrous contradiction of His nature and purpose. Viewing the cross at this point also enables us to understand, with Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, why there is, inevitably, a far more fearful judgment still to come for all who refuse to part from sin, or who willingly, even eagerly in many cases, trample underfoot the promptings of conscience, and sell themselves into sin’s destructive slavery.’ (Milne)

Richard Beck comments:

1. This story highlights that the Christian community described in Acts 4 is only sustainable through transparency and loyalty to that community.  Freeriding kills such communities.
2. Looking at the story from a collectivist perspective (in contrast to today’s individualistic perspective), sin against the community is viewed as much more serious, and deserving of much greater punishement.
3. The text is ambiguous on whether the death of Ananias and his wife was a divine judgement.  It may be that, in the spiritual atmosphere of the time, they simply died from shock.

Beck concludes by reflecting that those of us who live in capitalist societies have become used – accepting, even – of those who are on the edges of such societies living precarious lives, ‘lives of hunger, homelessness, privation, and limited access to health care.’  In Acts 5 it is not the needy who die, but those who hoard their wealth, who refuse to share generously with the needy.

In Acts 4 and 5 we see the church taking responsibility for caring for the needy up itself.  Do we?