Opposition from Within
Introduction: On September 10, 1813, Naval Commander Oliver Hazard Perry dispatched a message to General William Henry Harrison, announcing his victory at the battle of Lake Erie. The message was short: “We have met the enemy, and they are ours.” Some 150 years later Pogo paraphrased Perry, saying, “We have met the enemy and they are us.”
Perry’s original version is applicable to chapter 4 of Acts, where we saw last week that the Apostles faced the opposition of the Jewish leaders and emerged as conquerors. Pogo’s version is a better commentary on chapter 5, as today we see Satan getting a foothold in the Church through the hypocrisy of two of its members.
Down through the centuries far more damage has been done to the cause of Christ by sin within the Church than by persecution from outside. As I look back over the churches that I have personally been acquainted with, I see many that have been ravaged by immorality, greed, pride, and false doctrine among its leaders, or because of the refusal of its leaders to deal with such sins in the membership. But I cannot call to mind a single church that has perished due to persecution. Not one!
Our text today indicates that this was true from the earliest days of the Christian era. May God teach us that growth and excitement in the Church, such as we noted in the first four chapters of Acts, are no substitute for holiness. Perhaps I should repeat that and personalize it. Growth and excitement, such as we are currently experiencing and enjoying, are no substitute for holiness.
Our passage today is divided into three parts. First, we have an example of godly generosity. Secondly, we see a case of ungodly hypocrisy. And finally, there is a bold confrontation. The tactic we are going to follow is to share the story in each part and then look for descriptive terms that will help us get a handle on these three themes.
Godly generosity (4:36-37)
Last week we saw that when persecution hit, the Church was driven to prayer and revival. They focused not on their predicament but on God’s sovereignty. They prayed not for deliverance but for boldness. They experienced not conflict and weakness but unity and power.
One of the ways the unity of the church was demonstrated was that the believers rejected materialism and shared their wealth with those who were poor among them. The result was that there were no unmet needs. As verse 34 puts it, “For 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 and lay them at the apostles’ feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need.”
Chapter 4 should have ended with verse 35, and verse 36 should have been the start of chapter 5. The 16th century scholars who divided our Bible into chapters and verses failed to see the significance of the “but” at the beginning of verse 1. One would never start a book or a chapter of a book or even a paragraph with the word “but,” for it is a contrast word. Luke is obviously setting up a contrast here between the person mentioned in the last two verses of chapter 4 and the couple mentioned in the first verse of chapter 5.
The person is Joseph, a Levite by birth and a member of the Jewish tribe from which some of the minor temple staff were drawn, but his family must have emigrated to Cyprus where there was a sizeable Jewish population. He had relatives in Jerusalem and also owned a piece of land.
Joseph was given a nickname by the Apostles, presumably one that reflected his character. It was Barnabas, which means “Son of Encouragement.” The term in Greek is the same word that is used of the Holy Spirit when He is called “the Comforter.” It means literally, “one who is called alongside to help, who exhorts, encourages, and intercedes.”
Barnabas was one who lived up to his name, for every time we meet him in the book of Acts, we find him exercising the gift of encouragement. Right here in verse 37 we see him encouraging others through his godly generosity, as he sells the tract of land he owned and brings the money to the Apostles to distribute as needed.
We need more encouragers in the church today. All of us have shortcomings, and we know them all too well. What we need is one who knows our struggles, our failures, and our efforts to be faithful. An encourager is aware and sensitive to what people around him are facing. He draws alongside and communicates by action and word that he understands and cares. A conversation, a phone call, or a kind letter will often enable a person to make the changes he needs to make far more effectively than will a word of rebuke.
Now there are a number of characteristics of Barnabas’ generosity which I think we could profitably note. These same descriptive traits accompany all godly generosity.
Godly generosity stems from godly character. Barnabas received his nickname before he brought his gift; the gift was the product of his character. In 2 Cor. 8 Paul speaks of the generosity of the Macedonian churches, and one of the ways in which he commends them is that “they firstgave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God.” Their financial gift followed the gift of themselves. I think the lesson here is that God is more interested in who you are than in what you give, although if you are who you ought to be, you will also give as you ought to give.
Godly generosity is voluntary. Barnabas sold his property and gave the proceeds of his own free will. He did not do it under compulsion or because of high pressure from Peter or because he needed some tax deductions in early April. In 2 Cor. 9:7 Paul suggests this same principle as a guideline for our giving: “Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver.”
Godly generosity is spontaneous and yet thoughtful. This is a step beyond voluntary. I am suggesting that when contemplating a gift, the godly person doesn’t ask, “How much will I have left after giving this amount?”, or, “How much can I give without hurting my own financial security?” Godly generosity sees a need and reaches out to meet it.
I would like to suggest something to you that I told my new members’ class a couple of weeks ago, and that is that you cannot give yourself poor if you are giving to the Lord. You can spend yourself poor, invest yourself poor, even save yourself poor, especially in a time of high inflation. But I do not believe you can give yourself poor. God won’t allow it because He has promised to meet our needs. I think He has indicated that He will do far more than that for the person who is truly generous.
Spontaneity, however, does not imply foolhardiness or thoughtlessness. People often give on the spur of the moment to causes that are not godly. Their emotions can be stirred up by moving appeals—on behalf of the hungry, for example. They may give generously to an organization like Hands Across America, which has some highly questionable intentions. How much wiser to give to the hungry through Christian organizations like World Relief Commission and World Impact, which are doing far more for the hungry than Hands Across America will ever accomplish, in that they are giving the bread of life along with physical bread.
I think, too, that there are many Christian people who are motivated by smooth-talking TV and radio preachers to give generous amounts to keep their broadcasts on the air. They fail to consider the fact that their own local church is often doing far more to evangelize and edify and disciple people but lacks the high-powered public relations effort.
Godly generosity is magnanimous. I don’t know how much Barnabas’ land was worth and I don’t know what he had left after he gave it, but the implication of this whole passage seems to be that his gift was magnanimous—it went beyond the ordinary, certainly above and beyond the call of duty. When God motivates a giver, the gift is usually generous. Once again Paul speaks of the Macedonians when he says, “For I testify that according to their ability, and beyond their ability they gave of their own accord, begging us with much entreaty for the favor of participation in the support of the saints.” (2 Cor. 8:3-4)
Godly generosity has no strings attached. When Barnabas sold the land, he brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet. When he gave it, he gave it; he no longer considered it his own. I remember in my previous ministry that a family in the church gave a new 16-millimeter projector to the church. Since it was an expensive and sensitive instrument the Christian Education committee decided that the projector would not be loaned out for private use. Sometime later the family who gave it asked to borrow it to show a film at their home for a family reunion. When told that it wasn’t to be loaned out, they got upset and protested, “We gave it—that ought to mean something.” Yes, it ought to mean that they gave it, not that they retained some special ownership rights to it.
Many churches have been split over gifts that were not really given. I can think of one case I heard about in which an organ had been donated by a pillar of the church, and when thirty years later it needed to be replaced, the family of the donor objected and withdrew from the church when overruled. I know of another case where a large sum of money was offered if the donor’s name would be put on the building. I don’t care how large the sum of money—that is not godly generosity.
So much for Barnabas’ godly example of generosity. Luke probably mentions him principally in order to set up a contrast with the couple he introduces us to in the first verse of chapter 5, Ananias and Sapphira, who are a stark example of ungodly hypocrisy.
Ungodly hypocrisy (5:1-4)
Barnabas sold a piece of property and Ananias and Sapphira also sold a piece of property. Both laid proceeds from the sale at the Apostles’ feet. But that’s where the similarity ends. For, as verse 2 indicates, “Ananias 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.” Let’s make it clear that the sin of this couple lay not in their having kept a portion of the proceeds for themselves. Peter makes that clear when he says to them, “While it remained unsold did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?” It was theirs and God had not commanded them to give it.
No, the sin was that they tried to make their sacrifice appear to be greater than it actually was. Their sin was hypocrisy. They pretended to be something they weren’t.
Now let’s look at some of the characteristics of ungodly hypocrisy, as seen in this incident.
It stems from ungodly character. I do not believe this was a simple isolated misjudgment on the part of Ananias and Sapphira; I cannot believe God would have taken their lives so summarily if it had been. After all, God’s willingness to forgive even great crimes of passion is well known when the perpetrator is a person whose heart longs for God, as in the case of King David. No, I believe that hypocrisy and deceit were a pattern that Ananias and Sapphira had established, a pattern which God makes clear He will not tolerate in the Church.
On the other hand, even if there had been no such pattern of behavior, the divine punishment meted out upon this couple could be justified simply on the basis of the timely warning it gave to the newly founded Church. As an aside, there seems to be a more than coincidental parallel here to the sin of Achan when, in the days of Joshua, the newly organized nation of Israel was also embarking on a dynamic period of expansion. The verb “kept back” is identical with that used to describe the action of Achan, who held on to some of the spoil from Jericho which was meant to be handed over to the house of the Lord or to be destroyed. In both cases the perpetrators’ character was judged to be ungodly and they meet a sudden death.
It, too, is imitative. Ananias and Sapphira undoubtedly saw what Barnabas had done. Perhaps he received some kind of recognition for his gift that they coveted for themselves. So, they decided to imitate him in hopes of gaining the reputation of generosity. They did not give their gift because of love for the Lord or because of the needs of the Body; they gave because someone else gave. They wanted to emulate the attitude of Barnabas without the cost. They wanted the prestige without the price.
One of the big dangers of fund drives in a local church is that the very psychology used by professional fundraisers lends itself to imitation. Sometimes after a pledge drive a team of church financial officers will sit on the platform with calculators and as each new pledge is opened the amount is read out and the new total is flashed on the screen. People ooh and aah and some are stimulated to add to their pledge. I don’t think God is impressed with that kind of generosity. He wants us to purpose in our hearts before Him, to give proportionately as He has blessed us, and He does not want our giving to be controlled by anyone else’s.
In fact, that may be a flaw in the matching gift concept as practiced in some churches. The person who gives a matching gift is saying, “You imitate my giving and you’ll double your money.” Wouldn’t it be better for him to just give what he thinks God wants him to give and leave other peoples’ giving between them and the Lord?
It is premeditated. The godly generosity of Barnabas was spontaneous, but the ungodly hypocrisy of Ananias and Sapphira was premeditated. This is indicated in several ways. Notice it is done with the wife’s full knowledge beforehand in verse 2. Then in verse 4 Peter accuses Ananias of conceiving the deed in his heart. And in verse 8 Sapphira offers the pre-arranged answer to Peter’s question, not knowing that she was already a widow because of that answer.
The hypocrite in his giving is always premeditating on the matter of appearances. “How can I give this money so that I get the most mileage out of it? How can I subtly let people know about my generosity without seeming to brag about it?” There was a wealthy person in a church I served previously who had given some large amounts of money to the church before I became pastor. I hadn’t been there very long before I heard comments like this from him: “Some of the people in the church thought we couldn’t afford this land, but I co-signed the note and paid a good part of the price myself. But I don’t want anyone to know that.” And I felt like asking, “Then why are you telling me?” Actually, I knew why he was telling me—because he wanted me to know he gave it and also to know how humble he was at the same time.
I think much of the labeling of gifts is generated by a premeditated desire to be known for our generosity. “Donated by so-and-so.” “This room furnished through the generosity of so-and-so.” Even, “This hymnbook given by so-and-so.” There are alternatives, you know, that could really bring glory to God. Instead of a large donor asking or even allowing a building to be named after himself, wouldn’t it be better for him to ask that the building be named after some retired missionary who through decades of sacrificial service has advanced the cause of Christ? Or perhaps name it after some widow in the church who carried on an effective ministry of intercession for which she received no honor?
It is a sin against God. Hypocrisy, by definition, is trying to appear to be something one is not. The hypocrite is one who lies about his character and his intentions. But it is more serious than we sometimes realize, because it is not just lying to others; it is lying to God. In fact, Peter says to Ananias, “You have not lied to men, but to God.” Well, he had lied to men, but that sin was so insignificant in comparison to the other that it was virtually beside the point. When we try to appear generous in our giving to the Lord while we are actually tight and parsimonious, we are guilty of lying to God and to the Holy Spirit of God. That’s the bottom line.
So far, we have seen godly generosity and ungodly hypocrisy. We have seen a Son of Encouragement under the sway of the Spirit, and we have seen Sons of Discouragement under the sway of Satan. Thirdly, we need to take note of a …
Bold confrontation. (5:3-11)
I don’t know how Peter knew what Ananias had done. Perhaps he had the gift of discernment and could see through their pious demeanor. Perhaps he knew their character from previous contact. Perhaps God just gave him the X-ray vision of the Holy Spirit. He saw not only what Ananias was doing but what it would do to the Church.
Peter immediately and boldly confronts the sinners with their action. He accuses them of lying to the Holy Spirit, lying to God, and then in verse 9 of putting the Spirit of the Lord to the test, apparently by trying to see what they could get away with. The answer was, “not much.”
As soon as Ananias is confronted with his sin, he falls over dead. Many efforts have been made to explain this event, but the Bible-believing Christian will find the easiest solution to be that God, who holds the world in His hand and has established the number of days allotted to us, simply and sovereignly pulled his plug.
Three hours after Ananias was buried his wife came back from the shopping center where she was spending the money they had kept back from the sale, not knowing what had happened to her husband. Peter gave her the opportunity to come clean, but when she didn’t take it, he gave her some good news and some bad news. The bad news was that she was a widow. The good news was that she wouldn’t be a widow for long. She too fell immediately at his feet and died.
I think there are at least two important lessons the church today should learn from this bold confrontation.
Leaders must be willing to call sin “sin.” We have a thousand and one euphemisms we use for sin in the church today. Alcoholism is no longer a sin; it’s a disease. Greed is no longer a sin; we call it seeking financial security. Pride is no longer a sin; it’s called developing a good self-image. Refusing to submit to your husband is no longer a sin; it’s called “being a person in your own right.”
It took a secular psychiatrist, Karl Menninger, to wake up a lot of Christian clergy to this issue when he wrote a book entitled, “Whatever Happened to Sin?” We might ask that of the church today. We see sin all around us, but so few are willing to name it. Peter called hypocrisy what it is—sin. But even more importantly, …
Leaders must be willing to deal with sin forcefully. I know of Christian leaders who talk about sin a lot, but they don’t do anything about it. If one of the elders of the Church has an affair, they try to sweep it under the rug “for the sake of our testimony.” If gossip is eating the Women’s Fellowship alive, they excuse it by saying, “That’s just the way some women are.” If a couple of teenagers get pregnant, they quietly try to find an out-of-town refuge for them.
Not Peter. He openly and publicly rebukes the sin, and if God hadn’t taken the lives of Ananias and Sapphira, I feel sure Peter would have demanded their excommunication, assuming, of course, they refused to repent. God has laid down some pretty clear guidelines for discipline in the Body of Christ, but how many local churches have had a case of church discipline carried out in recent memory? How many have needed it?
Conclusion. In conclusion I want you to note two statements found in our text. First, at the end of verse 5 it says, “And great fear came upon all who heard of it.” Then in verse 11 it says, “And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things.” I’m not surprised. Imagine if God were to operate this way today for just one Sunday, so that anyone coming to church with premeditated sin in his heart would be struck dead, how many bodies would be stacked up?
I believe God is trying to teach us several things here. One is that the Church is not a society of perfect people and never has been, even in the shadow of Pentecost. One hears a lot today about recovering the New Testament church. I think that’s fine so long as we don’t get some idealized picture of what the church was in the first century. There have always been problems and sin in the church, and there always will be until Jesus comes. Spurgeon once said that if you find a perfect church, don’t join it, because it won’t be perfect any longer.
Another lesson is that Christians can be influenced by Satan. He is so subtle. He uses the good to keep us from our best. At all costs, he wants us to be stunted in our growth in Christ. As a liar and the author of lies and a master of deception, he wants to manipulate and distract the Church from its glorious purpose.
But perhaps the most important lesson God is trying to teach us is that growth and excitement is not as important to God as holiness. When the church is growing and people are responding, there may be a tendency to self-satisfaction. There may be the attitude that even if some heinous sin becomes known, “let’s not rock the boat.” Everything is going so great. Let’s sweep it under the rug. That will never be God’s will for the church. It is rather His nature to judge sin. He has done so historically at the cross; He does it regularly among those who are His children; He will do it finally on the last day when we stand before Him in judgment.
May we, individually and corporately, be prepared. Then we will be able to say, “We have met the enemy and they are ours.”
Tags:
Generosity
Hypocrisy
Sin
Church discipline