In Acts 2:1– 4:22 Luke described Peter’s preaching to the Jews of Jerusalem. (John was his silent partner.) He then shifts his focus to give us a glimpse of the apostles’ relationship to the Jerusalem church. We see a praying and giving church, one that is full of faith. The apostles (Peter particularly) come in the power of God, performing miraculous signs and wonders.

This section begins 4:23 with Peter and John being released by the Sanhedrin. The two apostles then returned to the church and told the congregation of their persecution. The response of the church was to pray about the crisis (v. 24). It perceived the danger both to itself, and to its mission of spreading the gospel. The believers realized that they could not face the power of the Sanhedrin on their own.

At the same time, through faith, they put their faith in God as the Sovereign Lord and the Creator of all that exists. This is how they addressed him in communal prayer. The disciples appealed to his power to deliver the church, much in the way that King Hezekiah prayed for the deliverance of Jerusalem (Isaiah 37:16-20).

Luke then provided his readers with a summary of how the church prayed. The Jerusalem congregation offered their prayer based on Psalm 2:1-2. The first thing we notice about the prayer is that God is said to have spoken it "by the Holy Spirit through the mouth" of David (Acts 4:25). David may have written the words, Luke was saying, but they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

The church understood that the attacks of the council were not directed against them personally. That’s clear from their appeal to the first two verses of Psalm 2. These speak of nations and kings plotting against God and his Anointed One. Luke was saying the Jewish persecution of the apostles was aimed at God and his Messiah.

Psalm 2 refers to the Messiah, the Anointed One. There is some indication that by Jesus’ day this psalm was being interpreted by Jews as referring to a coming deliverer from David’s line. The church applied the Psalm to those who had conspired against Jesus, who was God’s Anointed One (4:25-26 with 4:27). For the church, the unholy conspiracy involved in Jesus’ crucifixion consisted of Herod ("kings of the earth"), Pilate ("the rulers"), the Romans ("the nations"), and the people of Israel in Jerusalem ("the peoples").

This was what is called a "pesher" treatment (from Hebrew peser, "interpretation"). We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls the "pesher" method of interpreting Scripture was used in the Qumran community during these times. The person "interpreting" took a text such as Psalm 2:1-2, which in context referred to ancient times, and identified it with a contemporary figure and/or situation. He said, in effect, "This is the event and people this scripture refers to."

This method of interpretation was acceptable within Judaism during Jesus’ day, and was used by the early church. It was based on the belief that Scripture, reflecting God’s purpose and mind, had cosmic significance for all times and circumstances. It assumed that the original writers (usually prophets) did not understand the full significance of what they wrote about because they were far removed from the events to which their writings referred (1 Peter 1:10-12). The real meanings hidden in the text could be unraveled only by a divinely inspired person (or group) living in the time of the actual events.

In this case, the church was saying that Jesus’ death and the persecution of God’s people was foretold in Scripture. Thus, it was happening with the knowledge of God, who had decided beforehand that these things should occur (4:28).

The Jerusalem church’s prayer had a selfless aspect. It did not ask for relief from persecution nor judgment against its oppressors. The church wanted to be given boldness to preach the gospel message. It asked God to continue to heal, as well as to perform miraculous signs and wonders, so that the gospel would have attentive ears (4:29).

Of course, the signs and wonders were to occur "through the name of…Jesus" (4:30). In Acts, all things are done through "the name." The gospel is fearlessly preached (9:27), people are baptized (8:16), sins are forgiven (10:43) and demons are cast out (16:18)—all in Jesus’ name.

The idiom "name of Jesus Christ" is Luke’s expression of the presence of Christ, but not in any magical way. Rather, the preached word unleashes the power of the resurrected Christ so that the gap between the earthly Jesus and the resurrected Lord is bridged by the Spirit. (William H. Willimon, Acts, Interpretation series, page 13)

In this instance, God answered the church’s prayer with resounding certainty. Their meeting place shook as with an earthquake (4:31). Shuddering quakes often marked the sign of God’s presence in Scripture (Acts 16:26; Exodus 19:18; Psalm 114:7; Isaiah 6:4; Ezekiel 38:19; Joel 3:16; Amos 9:5; Haggai 2:6). In this case, God was signifying that his presence would be with the believers as they fulfilled the commission to preach the gospel of salvation.

God answered the Jerusalem church’s prayer for boldness by filling them with the Holy Spirit. The disciples had already received the Holy Spirit as a life-changing force. But now they received the special gift of confidence to proclaim the word of God with added conviction.

Luke next returned to a subject that he had earlier introduced (2:44-45)—the sharing of possessions among the believers. According to Luke, in the community of believers at Jerusalem "no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had" (4:32). This added to what we already learned about the Jerusalem disciples. Earlier we were told that the believers "had everything in common" (2:44). They sold possessions and goods, giving "to anyone as he had need" (2:45). In this cameo of church life, Luke illustrated the nature and extent of the Jerusalem believers’ concern for one another.

For Luke as well as the early Christians, being filled with the Holy Spirit not only concerned proclaiming the Word of God but also sharing possessions with the needy because of believers’ oneness in Christ. (Richard N. Longenecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, "Acts," page 309)

Luke illustrated the relationship of gospel-preaching to giving by inserting verse 33 into the middle of the discussion about the believers’ shared possessions. This verse speaks of the great power by which the apostles testified to the resurrection of Christ. It might appear to be misplaced, since it discusses a different topic, but it isn’t.

Luke intends to place the apostles into the middle of the community’s life, so that "authority" and "possessions" will again reinforce each other. The "great power" of their proclamation is matched by their place in the collection and distribution of the community goods. (Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina Series, page 86)

Most wealthy and well-to-do Jerusalem believers seemed to have a remarkably selfless attitude toward their possessions. They regarded their estates as being at the disposal of the community when necessary. No doubt even those of limited means gave what they could to assist less fortunate brothers and sisters. Because of this "there were no needy persons among" the church members at Jerusalem (4:34).

"From time to time"—when the occasion warranted it—those affluent members "who owned lands or houses" would sell pieces of property, and give the money to the apostles (4:35). The apostles, in turn "distributed to anyone as he had need." This donating of resources to a common church fund was voluntary, as we shall see. The practice, in various forms, was not uncommon among Jews, being especially strong in the Essene sect.

Josephus pointed out that the Essenes required their members to have all property in common—at least as an idealized principle. He wrote that, "It is a law among them [the Essenes], that those who come to them must let what they have be common to the whole order—insomuch, that among them all there is no appearance of poverty or excess of riches, but every one’s possessions are intermingled with every other’s possessions" (Wars 2:122).

This was definitely not the practice of the Jerusalem church. They were not practicing "Christian communism," but they were generous in sharing what they had with other members. However, their sharing was on a purely voluntary and "as-needed" basis.

There was probably a cultural-religious reason why the Jerusalem community set up a common fund to help the needy among them. At this early date, the believers seemed to consider themselves as a righteous remnant within Israel. As we saw, they held firmly to their national religious practices and institutions. No doubt, they felt strongly about certain promises in the Hebrew Scriptures. In Deuteronomy they could read, "There should be no poor among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you" (15:4).

Other Jewish religious groups, such as the Essenes, also thought of themselves in terms of a remnant. They, too, expressed their spiritual oneness by sharing their goods. The Jerusalem church was following cultural norms in sharing their goods on a voluntary basis.

Perhaps more importantly, the church knew of Jesus’ command that mutual love should be its determining mark (John 13:34-35, 15:12). Thus, it must have felt a deep responsibility to care for the physical needs of the brothers and sisters. This continued to be a concern of the church at large (Galatians 2:9-10).

Also, the early church seemed to have an expectation that Jesus would return soon. At first, they must have thought the gospel would be preached around the Roman world in years, perhaps only one or two decades. Then, "the end" would come. The disciples would have been little concerned about their future needs. The kingdom of God was coming soon, and personal resources were to be used now instead of being stored up.

However, the ideal of generosity that the Jerusalem church attempted to reach in the sharing of its goods was soon interrupted. God allowed a persecution to come on this congregation that caused its members to be scattered throughout Judea and Samaria (8:1).

Also, perhaps some members gave too much too quickly, resulting in an impoverished Jerusalem church. We get indications from Acts and Paul’s writings that the believers in Jerusalem were quite poor in later years (Acts 11:27-30; 24:17; Romans 15:26; Galatians 2:10). This is not to belittle what they did, and in fact their selflessness was no doubt a sweet savor to God. Ironically, the later poverty of the Jerusalem church became a blessing to those assisting the disciples who had previously given so selflessly (2 Corinthians 9:11). Perhaps, in this example we should not forget that discipleship can be costly.

Having said that, we should not picture all Jerusalem church members as placing all their property in a common fund. This congregation did not form a communal society that demanded that all possessions be put in a common pot. Donations were, as we said, given on a voluntary basis. The believers were not practicing communal living. The church members lived in their own homes (2:46; 12:12), and thus would have their own household possessions. They were married and had families (1 Corinthians 9:5; Acts 5:1-11).

The well-to-do among the Jerusalem church "from time to time" sold property (4:34). They did not simply sell everything and pool all the money. Rather, they sold it off piece by piece, as needed. Meanwhile, they continued to live in their own houses but were willing to give to the community when needs arose.

Luke next introduces a man named Joseph, a Levite (4:36). We are told he was named Barnabas by the apostles, which according to Luke’s definition was "Son of Encouragement." The problem is that Barnabas does not mean "son of encouragement." It means something more like "Son of Nebo" (Bar-nabas). Luke’s interpretation of the name has been translated as the "Son of exhortation," or "of consolation" or "of encouragement." "Son of Encouragement" certainly fits the character of Barnabas, as Acts makes clear (9:27; 11:23; 12:25; 15:37).

The family of Barnabas originally came from Cyprus, and he may have owned property on the island. He also had close ties to Judea. We learn that John Mark was his cousin (Colossians 4:10). Mark apparently lived with his mother in her home in Jerusalem (12:12).

Barnabas will be an important figure in Luke’s story of the church’s expansion. He appears to be something of a link between the Jewish and Gentile worlds (9:27; 11:22-30; 13:1-14:28; 15:2-4, 12, 22, 36-41; 1 Corinthians 9:6). Barnabas is introduced here for two reasons. We are alerted to his future role in the spread of the gospel. But he is also a fitting example of how the Jerusalem believers shared their possessions.

We are told that Barnabas "sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet" (4:37). We should note that he is held up for special commendation in this regard. This indicates that the selling of property and donating the proceeds was voluntary. It was not done by all Jerusalem church members.

Barnabas will later play a key role in mediating between a zealous Paul whose loyalty is suspected (9:25) by a wary and skeptical Jerusalem church. He will also be sent as an emissary to look into matters in the Antioch church. There he will put the stamp of approval for the preaching the gospel to Gentiles in Antioch (9:22-23). At this time, Luke wanted to assure his readers that Barnabas was submissive to the Twelve, and that he could be trusted.

In chapter 4, Luke painted an idealistic portrait of the Jerusalem church as a congregation of faithful (4:23-31) and loving (4:32-35) believers. He then cited the example of Barnabas, who epitomized both the love and faith of this congregation (4:36-37). But Luke meant to give his readers an accurate, not distorted view, of the situation in the church. In the beginning of chapter 5 Luke provided his readers with an example that showed the church to be quite human.

Luke here recounted what must have been a well-known but tragic story of Ananias and his wife Sapphira, who lied to the Holy Spirit (5:3). The story (5:1-11) actually continues Luke’s account of how the believers shared their possessions, which he ended with the example of a generous Barnabas. But in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, we see the church’s seamier side.

What Luke did was present two cases that stand in opposition to each other. Barnabas is concerned, faithful and a true disciple. Ananias and Sapphira are selfish, faithless and liars. The Ananias and Sapphira incident shows that the church, even in its earliest days, was not a community of perfect people. Perhaps Luke recounted this story to warn his readers not to overestimate the spiritual perfection of the first believers.

The example would also serve as a warning to the church. The best-intentioned good works of human beings—which the communal giving illustrated—can have unintended evil side effects. In short, the church is always an imperfect, sinning body that daily needs the forgiveness of Jesus Christ.

The problem of Ananias and Sapphira was that they tried to receive a reputation for a greater personal sacrifice than they had actually made. The church’s well-intentioned sharing of goods probably led to a considerable amount of pressure on members to contribute to the common coffers. Perhaps Ananias and Sapphira got caught up in a band-wagon effect.

The couple wanted to appear as outstanding church members, but they didn’t want to part with their possessions. In order to have both, they pretended to give the full price of the sale of their property to the apostles for distribution. But they had secretly kept back part of the money for themselves. Thus, they tried to deceive the community.

Before we go on, Luke allows us to once more understand that the Jerusalem church was not practicing mandatory communism. Here Peter told Ananias: "Didn’t it [the land] belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?" (5:4). The point is Ananias was entirely free to keep or sell his property as he thought fit. If he sold his property, he could have kept all the money for himself. The sin of Ananias was in lying to the community, and hence, to the Holy Spirit.

The sin of which Ananias was guilty was hypocrisy, a sin which received from Jesus the most scathing condemnation. Ananias was under no obligation to sell his land at all, or to hand over the proceeds, but having done both he alleged that all the money he had obtained was now being given magnanimously for the relief of the poorer members of the community, whereas in fact he had slyly retrained part of it for his own use. His wife as a party to the fraud. (William Neil, The Acts of the Apostles, The New Century Bible Commentary, page 94.

Luke tells us that Ananias with the full knowledge of his wife "kept back part of the money for himself" (5:2). The verb translated "kept back" (Greek, nosphizein) occurs rarely in the New Testament (Acts 5:2, 3; Titus 2:10). But its meaning is clear. The Greek Septuagint uses the same root verb to describe Achan’s stealing of part of the plunder from Jericho. God had insisted that the spoils were sacred to him, and should be placed into the treasury (Joshua 6:18-19; 7:1, 11). By taking some of the plunder for himself, Achan had acted unfaithfully—and had stolen and lied.

It has been suggested that Luke purposely used the same verb (nosphizein) to describe the action of Ananias as had been used to describe Achan’s deceit. Those readers who knew of the Old Testament examples would make the easy comparison and learn the lesson. F.F. Bruce writes, "The story of Ananias is to the book of Acts what the story of Achan is to the book of Joshua. In both narratives an act of deceit interrupts the victorious progress of the people of God" (The Book of the Acts, revised edition, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, page 102.

Both incidents drew the immediate and extreme judgment of God. The advance of ancient Israel was stopped by Achan’s sin. Now the sin of Ananias threatened to stop the progress of the gospel and destroy the integrity of the community.

The Jerusalem church clearly saw the lesson in the death of Ananias and Sapphira (5:11). Composed as it was of pious Jews, it was richly schooled in the Holy Scriptures and immediately would have seen the connection between Ananias and Achan. In each case, the sin had to be removed so the community could move forward. Of course, there are differences between the two accounts, and we should not press the analogy too far. For example, Achan confessed his bad deed (Joshua 7:19) and was stoned to death (verse 25). Neither was true in the case of Ananias.

Somehow Peter learned that Ananias had kept back part of the money from a sale of property, even though he claimed to have donated all of it. Peter then confronted Ananias with his deceit. On one level, Peter is shown as having power to see into human hearts. He was able to perceive Ananias’ real motivation. In the same way, Peter later perceived that Simon the Samaritan was full of bitterness (8:23).

Luke was portraying the apostles as having the same ability as Jesus to grasp what human are thinking in terms of whether their thoughts are godly or satanic. In his Gospel, Luke pointed out Jesus’ ability in this regard on several occasions (Luke 5:22; 7:39-40; 9:46-47; 24:37-38).

However, we shouldn’t overstate Peter’s omniscience. It’s quite possible that others in the church had learned about the deceit of Ananias and Sapphira. Perhaps someone told Peter about it. After checking out the allegation and being sure of its truthfulness, he confronted first Ananias and then Sapphira with their deceit.

Ananias’ deceit is said to be the result of Satan filling his heart (5:3). Luke had previously similarly described the betrayal of Jesus by Judas as Satan entering his heart (Luke 22:3). The couple’s fraudulent action was also defined as lying to and testing the Holy Spirit (5:3), perhaps in the sense of seeing how much they could get away with. Similarly, the ancient Israelites in the wilderness were said to be guilty of trying to test God (Exodus 17:2; Deuteronomy 6:16).

To lie to the Spirit is the same as lying to God and the risen Christ. We can see this by comparing how Peter understood to whom Ananias lied. Peter said he lied to the Holy Spirit (3:3) and to God (3:4), and this was the same as testing "the Spirit of the Lord" (3:9). Thus, the three were equated as being one and the same.

Throughout Acts, Luke went out of his way to show that the Holy Spirit was guiding the new church at every turn. But Ananias and Sapphira’s lie and greed would have denied this reality. Thus, God had to act to show the Holy Spirit was present with the church, and that its presence had solemn implications for the disciples.

Christians are warned to be careful in how they relate to the Holy Spirit. They can "grieve the Holy Spirit" (Ephesians 4:30) and "put out the Spirit’s fire" (1 Thessalonians 5:19). These are sins that need to be repented of and for which Christians can find forgiveness in Christ. On the other hand, we should not minimize such affronts to the Spirit. To sin against the Holy Spirit in the apostolic church was considered a terrible insult to God and a great sin (Hebrews 10:29-31). Jesus said it was a sin that would not be forgiven either in this world nor in the world to come (Matthew 12:31-32).

Of course, as in the case of Judas, we are not in a position to judge the ultimate fate of Ananias and Sapphira. Perhaps this was God’s supreme judgment on the couple in this life, a tragic discipline but not a final condemnation (1 Corinthians 5:5; 11:30). The life of the couple was taken, but we do not know whether they are saved for salvation. In any case, the lesson for us is that we should not test God.

While the real sin of Ananias and Sapphira was lying to the Holy Spirit, it was over financial issues that the problem came to a head. The story, then was really about money and greed. Commentators have pointed out that Luke often deals with economic issues and how they related to the Christian. It is Luke who gave us parables that deal with the proper use of money. They include the parables of the Debtors (Luke 7:41-43); the Good Samaritan (10:29-37); the Rich Fool (12:16-21); the Unjust Steward (16:1-8); the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31); and the Pounds (19:11-27). Luke wrote of the rich young nobleman who chose his riches over Jesus (Luke 18:18-23) and the widow who donated to God money she needed to live on (Luke 21:1-4).

Later, Luke described how Paul created a riot when his preaching interfered with the city’s business interests (19:21-41). Simon the Samaritan revealed his true heart when he tried to buy the Spirit with money (8:9-24). In Macedonia, Paul and Silas were thrown in jail after depriving some slave owners of their means of livelihood (16:16-34).

The story of Ananias and Sapphira ends on a tragic note. As soon as Peter had finished telling Ananias the enormity of his sin, he fell down and died (5:5). While Luke doesn’t say that God struck him down, the implication is clear from the context. The death of Ananias is meant to be seen as a divine judgment upon his sin of lying to the Spirit.

Luke does not say the sentence of death came from Peter, as some claim. Luke wanted us to see his death, not as the judgment of Peter, but of God. In all likelihood, Peter had simply intended to rebuke Ananias for his terrible sin, and hope for repentance. Peter was probably as shocked as we are that Ananias dropped dead before his eyes. "Great fear seized all who heard what had happened" (5:5)—and that probably included Peter.

Immediately after Ananias died, his body was wrapped and buried. His wife Sapphira had not been present and was ignorant of what had happened to her husband. About three hours later she arrived, only to be confronted by Peter. He questioned her about the amount of the proceeds of the sale, thus giving her an opportunity to repent before God. When he asked her whether she and her husband sold the land for the amount they had handed over, she said yes (5:8).

She repeated her husband’s falsehood, thus sealing her fate. Peter must have reflected upon God’s judgment of Ananias and felt confident the same one awaited Sapphira. He told her the men who had buried her husband would also carry her out (5:9). At that moment Sapphira "fell down at his feet and died" (5:10).

The account of this couple’s death, especially that of Sapphira, has puzzled and even offended many commentators. Richard Longenecker has summarized their objections in his commentary on Acts:

Probably no account in Acts has provoked more wrath from critics than this one has. Commentators have complained about the difficulty of accepting the death of both husband and wife under such circumstances and have questioned Peter’s ethics in not giving them an opportunity for repentance and in not telling Sapphira of her husband’s death. Even more difficult for many is the way the story portrays Peter, who appears to be without the compassion or restraint of his Lord. Jesus’ relations with even Judas, whose sin was a thousand times more odious, certainly were not on this level. Many have felt it impossible for a leader of the early church to have shown such harshness over a relatively "slight" offence and have doubted that the church would have wanted to preserve such an account. Many, therefore, have taken this to be a fictitious story (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, page 314.

The problem is partially solved if we do not read into the story things that are not there. Most probably, the situation was the following. Peter learned from someone in the community that Ananias and Sapphira were trying to pass off part of the proceeds of the sale as the whole amount. Ananisa and Sapphira may have told someone of this, or it may have been obvious to someone who knew about real estate values in the area.

Peter did not necessarily need any special knowledge in the matter. Naturally, after finding out the truth of the accusation, he would have been indignant about this attempted deception. After all, it blighted the community spirit. As a leading spiritual guide, he would have gone to Ananias to strongly reprove him for his lying, in effect, to the Holy Spirit.

However, there is no indication that Peter intended to pronounce a curse of death upon him. As mentioned earlier, most likely Peter was as stunned as anyone else when Ananias suddenly dropped dead after his rebuke. However, the lesson was not lost on Peter. He must have surmised that God had caused this to happen. He must also have understood that the same judgment would befall Sapphira, who was a co-conspirator in the scam.

Her only hope was to admit the truth of the matter. When she failed to do so, it was obvious that she would share the fate of her husband. Peter simply told her what her fate would be. She fell down dead after Peter rebuked her. However, Peter was not personally handing out a curse of death to either husband or wife. Ananias and Sapphira died because God, not Peter, willed it to be so.

From time to time in the Old Testament, God acted to carry out a sudden sentence of death on various individuals. A young man named Uzzah was killed because he violated the law regarding the management of the ark (2 Samuel 6:3-7). Two sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, were struck down for offering strange fire in the tabernacle (Leviticus 10:3). Even their father Aaron was told not to mourn for them.

We are used to God dealing sharply with the sinful and rebellious Israelites of old. But we may be shocked that Ananias and Sapphira were struck down so abruptly and with finality, without having an opportunity to repent and receive forgiveness.

Perhaps we can understand why this happened if we remember the context of the times. The New Testament church began with the unmistakable power of God’s Spirit. The fledgling community was barely getting off the ground when its integrity was threatened by selfish deceit. It had to learn that sin is no trifling matter. How could the church be an example of godliness and good works, if greed and lying were allowed to run rampant in the community?

The way Ananias and Sapphira attempted to reach their goals was so diametrically opposed to the whole thrust of the gospel that to allow it to go unchallenged would have set the entire mission of the church off course. Like the act of Achan, this episode was pivotal in the life and mission of God’s people, for the whole enterprise was threatened at its start. (Richard N. Longenecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, "Acts," page 314)

The death of Ananias and Sapphira served as a powerful example of the presence of God in the community of believers. To repeat Luke’s phrase—"Great fear seized all who heard what had happened" (5:5). No doubt many others in the church had been tempted to lie about their donations to the community fund. Many must have said to themselves that the fate of the dead couple could just as well have been theirs.

Thus, there is no difficulty with the death of Ananias and Sapphira unless one thinks that such an immediate judgment from God is somehow sub-Christian or in contradiction to the way he presents himself in the New Testament. But Hebrews tells us, that while God is infinite love and has tremendous patience, there is also a judgment of God—and it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of God. Paul, for example, told the Corinthians to excommunicate a young man who was having sexual relations with his step-mother—and to deliver the man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. The hope was that he would repent (which he did) and re-enter the community of the saints (1 Corinthians 5:5).

The flesh of Ananias and Sapphira was destroyed because they did not repent. They were given an opportunity to tell Peter the correct amount of the sale. But they persisted in their lie. But the account says nothing of the couple’s future salvation. We have no way to answer the question of their fate except to say it is in God’s hands.

At the moment Sapphira fell dead, Luke again tells his readers that the meaning of God’s sudden judgment on this couple was not lost on the church. He wrote of the effect of the tragic event, saying, "Great fear seized the whole church" at this time (5:11).

It is here, in the context of a great crisis in the Christian community in Jerusalem, that Luke for the first time uses the Greek word ekklesia, ("church") to represent the congregation of God’s people. It was Luke’s usual word to define both the universal body of Christian believers and local congregations (7:38; 8:1; 9:31; 11:22; 13:1; 14:23; 15:22, 41; 16:5; 19:32, 40; 20:28). The same usage occurs throughout Paul’s epistles. (See, for example, 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1.)

The Jews had used ekklesia to refer to the assembly of Israel, the nation that was called God’s people. (See the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament in such places as Deuteronomy 9:10; Joshua 9:2; Psalm 21:22.) The Jews were using the Greek synagoge (14:1) to define their meetings and the place in which they met, so it was not a suitable word for Christians to use in defining their group. Thus, ekklesia was a logical choice to define those who were a new people of God, made so through the calling of Christ.

In a secular sense, ekklesia referred to the citizen-assembly of a Greek city. In the Christian context it would denote the assembly of believers in Jesus. The term has something of the old and the new about it. The use of ekklesia indicated the early Christians’ sense of continuity with old Israel, as a people of God. However, the Christians were a new people of God—those who had accepted Jesus as Israel’s long-awaited Messiah.

Unfortunately, the word "church" has come to have connotations that ekklesia wasn’t meant to convey. We speak of "going to church," when that is an impossibility, because it is the "church" that comes together to a place of worship. Ekklesia could refer only to the people that meet together and not the place in which they meet. In some ways, "congregation" would be a better translation of ekklesia. The latter word makes it clear that what is in view is an assembly of individual believers, not a place or a legal organization.

Verses 12–16 contain another of Luke’s summary statements about the spreading of the gospel and growth of the church. Here we catch a cameo-like glimpse of the power of the apostles and the growing community of believers in Jerusalem. Luke wrote that "the apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people" (5:12). Earlier, the church had prayed that God would show his power among the people in healings, as well as miraculous signs and wonders (4:30). This section tells us God answered that prayer.

The deaths of Ananias and Sapphira were also examples of these supernatural signs. As the miracles of healing were a positive sign that the kingdom of God had arrived, so the miraculous nature of Ananias and Sapphira’s death was a negative sign of the same reality.

The healing miracles were so stunning that sick people who simply passed under Peter’s shadow were cured (5:15). Jesus had said the apostles would do greater works than even he did, and now his prophecy was coming true.

The image of healing by sheer presence here is striking and perhaps even shocking. Nothing in the Gospel tradition is close to it, except perhaps the healing of the woman by touching Jesus’ garment (Luke 8:43), or the healing of the centurion’s slave at long distance (Luke 7:1-10). (Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina Series, page 96.

Later, Luke wrote that God did "extraordinary miracles through Paul" (19:11). Pieces of cloth that had been touched by Paul would be taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured. Luke was telling his readers that like Jesus, the apostles were able to heal sufferers at a distance (Matthew 8:5-13; Mark 7:24-30).

It was an extraordinary time in the church when God’s power was dramatically and openly felt. Paul’s letters confirm this fact, that God’s overwhelming power was at work in the young church (1 Corinthians 2:4-5; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Galatians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; and also Hebrews 2:3-4).

Meanwhile, as the apostles performed miracles and spread the gospel, the church regularly met in Solomon’s Colonnade, which was part of the temple complex. The church was held in such reverence and awe because of the miracles (including the sudden death of Ananias and Sapphira) that, "no one else dared join them" (5:13).

The expression in Greek translated "no one else" or "the rest" seems to have been a technical term for non-believers (Luke 8:10; 1 Thessalonians 4:13; 5:6). That may be its sense here. However, in verse 14, Luke says, "More and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number." On the surface, this seems to be a contradiction. Were no others joining the Christian community or were more being added?

What these two verses probably mean is that unbelieving Jews in general were so frightened by the supernatural power of the apostles that they stayed away from the Christians and didn’t bother them. William Barclay has an interesting translation of verse 13 that catches this sense of things: "Of the others no one dared to meddle with them."

The death of Ananias and Sapphira had caused great fear among "all who heard about these events" (5:11). It and the other miracles served to keep unbelievers and persecutors at arms length. However, for those individuals whose minds were open to the leading of the Holy Spirit, such miraculous occurrences would have been magnets drawing them to the Christian community in Jerusalem.

Luke tells us that the reach of the church and gospel message was spreading to the towns surrounding Jerusalem (5:16). This is a new feature of the mission. The way was being prepared for the gospel to advance into all Judea. The work of God was clearly becoming more powerful and spreading. The effectiveness of the apostles’ witness, both in word and deed, impelled the Jewish religious authorities to once more take action against them.

Commentary on next section

Click here to tell a friend about this article

Unless noted otherwise, materials on this website are copyright © Grace Communion International. All rights reserved. You may download and print one copy for your own use. If you wish to print more, please contact us. If you would like to donate to help support this ministry, click here.

If you want to receive email notifications about new articles on this site, click here and we'll send a message once a week to let you know what has been added. Alphabetical list of articles on this website