One of the most striking features of the early Christian Church was
what we have come to know as Christian Communism, or as the historian
describes it in Acts iv, 32: "_And the multitude of them that believed
were of one heart and soul: and not one of them said that aught of the
things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things
common_." It is a bright and a pleasing picture that is thus
presented. Nor is it difficult to understand how such a spirit should
arise amongst men whose hearts were full to overflowing with the new
Christian graces of brotherhood and peace. For we must not imagine
that there was anything compulsory about this communism. It was
entirely voluntary, and was due to the eager desire on the part of the
wealthier members of the Church to do all that they could for their
poorer brethren. In this particular alone, we can at once see how
widely it differed from what is generally known as communism or
socialism in the present day. The spirit of much at any rate of our
present-day socialism--so the distinction has been cleverly drawn--is,
"What is thine, is mine": but the spirit of those early believers was
rather, "What is mine, is thine."
At the same time, we can readily understand that in a large and mixed
community like the early Church, all members would not think exactly
alike, and that while many, we may believe most, would cheerfully obey
this unwritten law of love, and share and share alike, others would
give in to it--if they did give in, for, let me again emphasise, there
was no compulsion upon any--more grudgingly and hesitatingly.
Of these two classes the writer of the Book of Acts presents us with
individual examples--of the former class, in the case of Joseph, or
Barnabas, a wealthy Cypriot, who "_having a field, sold it, and brought
the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet_" (Acts iv. 37)--of the
latter, in the case of Ananias with Sapphira his wife, whose melancholy
story is now before us.
That story is very familiar, and is often regarded simply as an
instance of the sinfulness of lying. And that undoubtedly it is; but
it warns us also against other equally dangerous and insidious errors,
as a little consideration will, I think, show. For what were Ananias's
motives in acting as he did? If we can discover them, we shall have
the key to the whole story.
And here, it seems to me, they must, in the first instance at any rate,
have been of a sufficiently _generous_ character. Ananias had seen
what was going on around him, and he had determined that he must not be
behindhand in this ministry of love. But--and now we get a little
deeper into his character--_ambition_ to stand well with his
fellow-members evidently mingled with the pure spirit of charity:
though we do not need to suppose that there was as yet any conscious
intention to deceive. Acting, then, on these somewhat mixed motives of
charity and ambition, Ananias determined to sell a possession, some
farm or other which he had, and hand over the money to the apostles.
He probably meant at first to hand over the whole price, but with the
money in his hand, the demon of avarice entered into his heart. And
he "_kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and
brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter
said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy
Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it
remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it
not in thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy
heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God_" (Acts v. 2-4).
The sin of Ananias, then, lay in this, that he gave a certain sum _as
if it were the whole_. There was no necessity for his giving either
the whole or the part. Had he hung back, when others were selling
their possessions, he would have been pronounced _ungenerous_ in
comparison with them. Had he brought a part, making no mistake about
it that it was only a part, when they were giving all, then he would
have been not _so generous_. But when he brought a part as if it were
the whole, he added to his former selfishness and avarice _deceit and
hypocrisy_. If he did not in so many words tell a lie, he did what was
equally heinous, he _acted_ a lie.
It is only when we thus clearly realise the enormity of Ananias's sin,
that we can understand the reason of the dreadful doom that followed.
"_And Ananias, hearing these words, fell down, and gave up the ghost_"
(ver. 5). The judgment came not from men, but from God. As it was in
God's sight--the sight of the living and heart-searching God--that the
sin had been committed: so it was by the direct "visitation of God"
that it was now punished.
Nor was the awful lesson yet over. Three hours had scarcely elapsed
since the young men had carried forth her husband, and buried him, when
Sapphira, "_not knowing what was done, came in_." "_And Peter answered
unto her_"--answered her look of amazement as she regarded the
awe-struck faces of those present--"_Tell me, whether ye sold the land
for so much_?" "_Yea, for so much_," she replied, adhering to the
unholy compact into which, with Ananias, she had entered, and adding
deceit in speech to his deceit in act. "_But Peter said unto her, How
is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?
behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door,
and they shall carry thee out_" (verses 8, 9).
It was the first intimation the unhappy woman had received of Ananias's
death: and to the shame of her own consciousness of guilt, must have
been added the feeling that she had a certain responsibility in what
had befallen him. A word of remonstrance on her part might, at the
beginning, have prevented the crime: it was too late now. "_And she
fell down immediately at his feet, and gave up the ghost: and the young
men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her
by her husband_" (ver. 10). And as the sacred historian again
impressively adds, showing how deep was the effect produced: "_And
great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all that heard these
things_" (ver. 11).
Such is the story. Who does not feel its sadness? All before had been
so peaceful and happy. The early believers had presented such a
beautiful spectacle of brotherly unity and love. And now, all too
soon, the enemy had been at work, sowing tares among the wheat. In the
very particular in which the Church most deserved praise--the
enthusiasm of its members' charity--sin had appeared. And thus early
had the young Church of Christ learned that truth, which it has been
the work of nineteen centuries to emphasise, that her true danger comes
not so much from without as from within, and that then only is she
disgraced, when she disgraces herself.
For what may we learn from this tragic incident?